[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 231 (Thursday, December 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 86778-86895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25167]
[[Page 86777]]
Vol. 81
Thursday,
No. 231
December 1, 2016
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 82
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: New Listings of Substitutes;
Changes of Listing Status; and Reinterpretation of Unacceptability for
Closed Cell Foam Products Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy
Program; and Revision of Clean Air Act Section 608 Venting Prohibition
for Propane; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 86778]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663; FRL-9952-18-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS80
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: New Listings of Substitutes;
Changes of Listing Status; and Reinterpretation of Unacceptability for
Closed Cell Foam Products Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy
Program; and Revision of Clean Air Act Section 608 Venting Prohibition
for Propane
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 certain
substances as acceptable, subject to use conditions; lists several
substances as unacceptable; and changes the listing status for certain
substances from acceptable to acceptable, subject to narrowed use
limits, or to unacceptable. This action also exempts propane in certain
refrigeration end-uses from the Clean Air Act section 608 prohibition
on venting, release, or disposal. In addition, this action applies
unacceptability determinations for foam-blowing agents to closed cell
foam products and products containing closed cell foam that are
manufactured or imported using these foam blowing agents.
DATES: This rule is effective January 3, 2017. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of January 3, 2017.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663. All documents in the docket are listed on the
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., 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
electronically through http://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: Chenise Farquharson, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (Mail Code 6205T),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-7768; email address:
[email protected]. Notices and rulemakings under EPA's
Significant New Alternatives Policy program are available on EPA's
Stratospheric Ozone Web site at https://www.epa.gov/snap/snap-regulations.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. 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 are EPA's regulations implementing CAA section 612?
C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work?
D. What are the guiding principles of the SNAP program?
E. What are EPA's criteria for evaluating substitutes under the
SNAP program?
F. How are SNAP determinations updated?
G. What does EPA consider in deciding whether to add a substance
to or remove a substance from one of the SNAP lists?
H. Where can I get additional information about the SNAP
program?
III. What actions and information related to greenhouse gases have
bearing on this action?
IV. How does this action relate to the Climate Action Plan and
petitions received requesting a change in listing status for HFCs?
A. Climate Action Plan
B. Summary of Petitions
V. How does EPA regulate substitute refrigerants under CAA section
608?
A. What are the statutory requirements concerning venting,
release, or disposal of refrigerants and refrigerant substitutes
under CAA section 608?
B. What are EPA's regulations concerning venting, release, or
disposal of refrigerant substitutes?
VI. What is EPA finalizing in this action?
A. Refrigeration and Stationary Air Conditioning
1. Acceptable Listing of Propane in New Commercial Ice Machines,
Water Coolers, and Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Equipment
2. Exemption for Propane From the Venting Prohibition Under CAA
Section 608 for the End-Uses in the New SNAP Listing
3. Unacceptable Listing of Certain Flammable Refrigerants for
Retrofits in Unitary Split AC Systems and Heat Pumps
4. Unacceptable Listing of Propylene and R-443A in New
Residential and Light Commercial AC and Heat Pumps, Cold Storage
Warehouses, and Centrifugal and Positive Displacement Chillers
5. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New
Centrifugal Chillers and for New Positive Displacement Chillers
6. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New
Cold Storage Warehouses
7. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New
Retail Food Refrigeration (Refrigerated Food Processing and
Dispensing Equipment)
8. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New
Household Refrigerators and Freezers
B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning
1. Background
2. What is EPA's final decision?
3. How is EPA responding to comments?
C. Foam Blowing Agents
1. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Foam Blowing Agents
for Rigid PU Spray Foam
2. Revision to Change of Status Date for Narrowed Use Limits for
Space- and Aeronautics-Related Foam Applications
3. Change of Listing Status for Methylene Chloride in Foams
4. Closed Cell Foam Products
D. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
1. Acceptable Listing of 2-BTP for Total Flooding and Streaming
2. Change of Listing Status for Certain Perfluorocarbons for
Total Flooding
3. Removal of Use Conditions for Powdered Aerosol D
VII. How is EPA responding to other public comments?
A. General Comments
1. Proposed Status Listing Changes
2. Proposed Status Change Dates
B. Authority
1. General Authority
2. GWP Considerations
3. SNAP Review Criteria and Guiding Principles
4. Petitions
5. Application of Criteria for Review of Alternatives
C. Cost and Economic Impacts
1. Costs of Rule
2. EPA's Cost Analysis and Small Business Impacts Screening
Analysis
D. Environmental Impacts of Status Changes
1. General Comments
2. EPA's Climate Benefits Analysis
3. Energy Efficiency
E. Interactions With Other Rules
F. Other Suggestions or Requests
VIII. 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
[[Page 86779]]
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 Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
IX. References
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
Under section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is required to
evaluate substitutes \1\ to ozone-depleting substances (ODS) for their
risks to human health and the environment. EPA reviews substitutes
within a comparative risk framework. More specifically, section 612
provides that EPA must prohibit the use of a substitute where EPA has
determined that there are other available alternatives that pose less
overall risk to human health and the environment. Thus, EPA's
Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program, which implements
section 612, does not provide a static list of alternatives. Instead,
the list evolves as EPA makes decisions informed by our overall
understanding of the environmental and human health impacts as well as
our current knowledge about other alternatives. In the more than twenty
years since the initial SNAP rule was promulgated, EPA has modified the
SNAP lists many times, most often by expanding the list of acceptable
substitutes. However, in some cases, EPA has modified the SNAP list by
listing a substitute as unacceptable for one or more end-uses or by
restricting the use of a previously listed substitute by changing its
status for a particular end-use to unacceptable, acceptable subject to
use conditions, or acceptable subject to narrowed use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The terms ``alternatives'' and ``substitutes'' are used
interchangeably in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past twenty years, the SNAP program has played an
important role in assisting with a continuous smooth transition to
safer alternatives. Since the first SNAP framework rule published in
1994, which provided confidence and certainty by identifying safer
alternatives in key consumer and industrial uses, the SNAP program has
ensured that businesses and consumers have access to information about
suitable alternatives. The SNAP program works with many stakeholders,
domestically and abroad, to continuously evaluate and provide updates
on safer alternatives and new technologies. Thanks to these efforts and
the work of individuals, businesses, and organizations, the transitions
generally have been successful.
When reviewing a substitute, EPA compares the risk posed by that
substitute to the risks posed by other alternatives and determines
whether that specific substitute under review poses significantly more
risk than other available or potentially available alternatives for the
same use. EPA recently has begun to review the lists in a broader
manner to determine whether substitutes added to the lists early in the
program pose significantly more risk than substitutes that have more
recently been added. As with initial listing decisions, EPA bases
decisions to change the status of an already listed alternative on the
same comparative risk framework.
In this action, EPA is listing a number of substances as
acceptable, subject to use conditions; listing several substances as
unacceptable; and changing the listing status for certain substances
from acceptable to acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits or to
unacceptable. We performed a comparative risk analysis, based on our
criteria for review, with other alternatives for the relevant end-uses.
For the substances addressed in this action, EPA found significant
potential differences in risk as compared to other available or
potentially available substitutes with respect to one or more specific
criteria, such as flammability, toxicity, or local air quality. In some
cases, those risks could be addressed through use conditions and EPA is
listing several substitutes as acceptable, subject to use conditions.
In other cases, the risks could not be adequately mitigated through use
conditions and, in those cases, EPA is listing several new substitutes
and changing the status of several existing substitutes to
unacceptable. In a few instances, EPA established narrowed use limits
for certain substitutes over a limited period of time for specific
military or space-and aeronautics-related applications in the
refrigeration and air conditioning (AC), and foam blowing sectors, on
the basis that other acceptable alternatives would not be available for
those specific applications within broader end-uses, but acceptable
alternatives were expected to become available over time. EPA is also
applying unacceptability determinations for foam blowing agents to
closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foam. See
section VI.C.4 for the details of this action. Additionally, EPA is
exempting propane as a refrigerant in new self-contained commercial ice
machines, in new water coolers, and in new very low temperature
refrigeration equipment from the venting prohibition under CAA section
608(c)(2). See section VI.A.2.c for the details of this action.
Per the guiding principles of the SNAP program, this action does
not specify that any alternative is acceptable or unacceptable across
all sectors and end-uses. Instead, in all cases, EPA considered the
intersection between the specific alternative and the particular end-
use and the availability of substitutes for those particular end-uses.
In the case of refrigeration and AC, we consider new equipment to be a
separate end-use from retrofitting existing equipment with a different
refrigerant from that for which the equipment was originally designed.
EPA is not setting a ``risk threshold'' for any specific SNAP
criterion, such that the only acceptable substitutes pose risk below a
specified level of risk. Because the substitutes available and the
types of risk they may pose vary by sector and end-use, our review
focuses on the specific end-use and the alternatives for that end-use,
including the other risks alternatives might pose. Thus, there is no
bright line that can be established to apply to all sectors and end-
uses. Also, EPA recognizes that there are a range of substitutes with
various uses that include both fluorinated (e.g., hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs) and hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs)) and non-fluorinated (e.g.,
hydrocarbons (HCs) and carbon dioxide (CO2)) substitutes
that may pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment.
Consistent with CAA section 612 as we have historically interpreted it
under the SNAP program, this rule includes both initial listings and
certain modifications to the current lists based on our evaluation of
the substitutes addressed in this action using the SNAP criteria for
evaluation and considering the current suite of other alternatives for
the specific end-use at issue.
The following is a summary of the actions taken in this rule.
1. Acceptable Alternatives, With Use Conditions, by End-Use (Initial
Listings)
(1) For refrigeration, EPA is listing as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, as of January 3, 2017:
Propane in new commercial ice machines, new water coolers,
and new
[[Page 86780]]
very low temperature refrigeration equipment.
(2) For motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) systems, EPA is
listing, as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as of January 3,
2017:
HFO-1234yf in newly manufactured medium-duty passenger
vehicles (MDPVs), heavy-duty (HD) pickup trucks, and complete HD vans.
(3) For fire suppression and explosion protection end-uses, EPA is
listing as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as of January 3,
2017:
2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (2-BTP) as a total
flooding agent for use in engine nacelles and auxiliary power units
(APUs) on aircraft; and
2-BTP as a streaming agent for use in handheld
extinguishers in aircraft.
2. Unacceptable Alternatives by End-Use (Initial Listings)
(1) For retrofit residential and light commercial AC and heat
pumps--unitary split AC systems and heat pumps, EPA is listing as
unacceptable, as of January 3, 2017:
All refrigerants identified as flammability Class 3 in
American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard
34-2013; and
All refrigerants meeting the criteria for flammability
Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013. These include, but are not
limited to, refrigerant products sold under the names R-22a, 22a, Blue
Sky 22a refrigerant, Coolant Express 22a, DURACOOL-22a, EC-22,
Ecofreeez EF-22a, Envirosafe 22a, ES-22a, Frost 22a, HC-22a, Maxi-
Fridge, MX-22a, Oz-Chill 22a, Priority Cool, and RED TEK 22a.
(2) For new residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps,
cold storage warehouses, centrifugal chillers, and positive
displacement chillers, EPA is listing as unacceptable, as of January 3,
2017:
Propylene and R-443A.
3. Unacceptable Alternatives by End-Use (Change of Listing Status)
(1) For new centrifugal chillers, EPA is listing as unacceptable,
except as otherwise allowed under a narrowed use limit, as of January
1, 2024:
FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, HFC-236fa, HFC-245fa,
R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5),
R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D,
R-423A, R-424A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), and
THR-03.
(2) For new positive displacement chillers, EPA is listing as
unacceptable, except as otherwise allowed under a narrowed use limit,
as of January 1, 2024:
FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/134a/600a
(28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C,
R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-434A,
R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), SP34E, and THR-03.
(3) For new centrifugal chillers, EPA is listing as acceptable,
subject to narrowed use limits, as of January 1, 2024:
HFC-134a for military marine vessels and HFC-134a and R-
404A for human-rated spacecraft and related support equipment
(4) For new positive displacement chillers, EPA is listing as
acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, as of January 1, 2024:
HFC-134a for military marine vessels and HFC-134a and R-
404A for human-rated spacecraft and related support equipment
(5) For new cold storage warehouses, EPA is listing as
unacceptable, as of January 1, 2023:
HFC-227ea, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-
404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A,
R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-423A, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A,
and RS-44 (2003 composition).
(6) For new retail food refrigeration (refrigerated food processing
and dispensing equipment), EPA is listing as unacceptable, as of
January 1, 2021:
HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5),
R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A,
R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A,
R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 formulation).
(7) For new household refrigerators and freezers, EPA is listing as
unacceptable, as of January 1, 2021:
FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/
1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A,
R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A,
R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003
formulation), SP34E, and THR-03.
(8) For rigid polyurethane (PU) high-pressure two-component spray
foam, EPA is listing as unacceptable for all uses, except military or
space- and aeronautics-related applications, as of January 1, 2020; as
acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, for military or space-and
aeronautics-related applications, as of January 1, 2020; and as
unacceptable for military or space-and aeronautics-related applications
as of January 1, 2025:
HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-
365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of
HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-
365mfc; and Formacel TI.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Closed cell foam products and products containing closed
cell foams manufactured on or before January 1, 2020, may be used
after that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(9) For rigid PU low-pressure two-component spray foam, EPA is
listing as unacceptable for all uses, except military or space-and
aeronautics-related applications, as of January 1, 2021; as acceptable,
subject to narrowed use limits, for military or space-and aeronautics-
related applications, as of January 1, 2021; and as unacceptable for
military or space-and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1,
2025:
HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-
365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of
HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-
365mfc; and Formacel TI.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Closed cell foam products and products containing closed
cell foams manufactured on or before January 1, 2021, may be used
after that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(10) For rigid PU one-component foam sealants, EPA is listing as
unacceptable, as of January 1, 2020:
HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-
365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of
HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-
365mfc; and Formacel TI.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Closed cell foam products and products containing closed
cell foams manufactured on or before January 1, 2020, may be used
after that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(11) For all foam blowing end-uses except for rigid PU spray foam,
EPA is listing as unacceptable, as of January 1, 2025:
HFCs and HFC blends previously listed as unacceptable as
of January 1, 2022, for space-and aeronautics-related applications.
(12) For flexible PU foam applications, EPA is listing as
unacceptable, as of January 3, 2017:
Methylene chloride.
While EPA proposed and requested comments on listing certain
perfluorocarbons (PFCs) as unacceptable in fire suppression total
flooding uses, EPA is not finalizing that change in this rulemaking.
4. Other Changes
(1) For all foam blowing end-uses, EPA is prohibiting the use of
closed cell
[[Page 86781]]
foam products and products that contain closed cell foam manufactured
with an unacceptable foam blowing agent on or after the later of (A)
December 1, 2017 or (B) the date of the unacceptability listing.
(2) For fire suppression total flooding uses, EPA is clarifying the
listing for Powdered Aerosol D (Stat-X[supreg]), which was previously
listed as both ``acceptable'' and ``acceptable, subject to use
conditions,'' by removing the listing as ``acceptable, subject to use
conditions,'' as of January 3, 2017.
B. Does this action apply to me?
Potential entities that may be affected by this rule include:
Table 1--Potentially Regulated Entities by North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of regulated
Category NAICS code entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction.......... 238210 Alarm System (e.g., Fire,
Burglar), Electric,
Installation Only.
Industry.............. 238220 Plumbing, Heating, And Air
Conditioning Contractors.
Industry.............. 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing.
Industry.............. 325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation
Manufacturing.
Industry.............. 325520 Adhesive Manufacturing.
Industry.............. 325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical
Product and Preparation
Manufacturing.
Industry.............. 326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product
(Except Polystyrene)
Manufacturing.
Manufacturing......... 332919 Nozzles, Firefighting,
Manufacturing.
Industry.............. 333415 Manufacturers of Refrigerators,
Freezers, and Other
Refrigerating or Freezing
Equipment, Electric or Other
(NESOI); Heat Pumps Not
Elsewhere Specified or
Included; and Parts Thereof.
Industry.............. 333415 Air Conditioning and Warm Air
Heating Equipment and
Commercial and Industrial
Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing.
Manufacturing......... 334290 Fire Detection and Alarm Systems
Manufacturing.
Industry.............. 335222 Household Refrigerator and Home
Freezer Manufacturing.
Industry.............. 336120 Heavy-Duty Truck Manufacturing.
Industry.............. 336211 Motor Vehicle Body
Manufacturing.
Industry.............. 3363 Motor Vehicle Parts
Manufacturing.
Industry.............. 3364 Aerospace Product and Parts
Manufacturing.
Manufacturing......... 336411 Aircraft Manufacturing.
Manufacturing......... 336413 Other Aircraft Parts and
Auxiliary Equipment
Manufacturing.
Industry.............. 336992 Military Armored Vehicle, Tank,
and Tank Component
Manufacturing.
Industry.............. 339113 Surgical Appliance and Supplies
Manufacturing.
Manufacturing......... 339999 Fire Extinguishers, Portable,
Manufacturing.
Retail................ 423620 Household Appliances, Electric
Housewares, and Consumer
Electronics Merchant
Wholesalers.
Retail................ 423740 Refrigeration Equipment and
Supplies Merchant Wholesalers.
Retail................ 423930 Recyclable Material Merchant
Wholesalers.
Retail................ 443111 Appliance Stores: Household-
Type.
Retail................ 44511 Supermarkets and Other Grocery
(Except Convenience) Stores.
Retail................ 445110 Supermarkets and Other Grocery
(Except Convenience) Stores.
Retail................ 445120 Convenience Stores.
Retail................ 44521 Meat Markets.
Retail................ 44522 Fish and Seafood Markets.
Retail................ 44523 Fruit and Vegetable Markets.
Retail................ 445291 Baked Goods Stores.
Retail................ 445292 Confectionary and Nut Stores.
Retail................ 445299 All Other Specialty Food Stores.
Retail................ 4453 Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores.
Retail................ 446110 Pharmacies and Drug Stores.
Retail................ 44711 Gasoline Stations With
Convenience Stores.
Retail................ 452910 Warehouse Clubs and
Supercenters.
Retail................ 452990 All Other General Merchandise
Stores.
Services.............. 72111 Hotels (Except Casino Hotels)
and Motels.
Services.............. 72112 Casino Hotels.
Retail................ 72241 Drinking Places (Alcoholic
Beverages).
Retail................ 722513 Limited-Service Restaurants.
Retail................ 722514 Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, and
Buffets.
Retail................ 722515 Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage
Bars.
Services.............. 81119 Other Automotive Repair and
Maintenance.
Services.............. 811412 Appliance Repair and
Maintenance.
Services.............. 922160 Fire Protection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 82. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
C. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble?
Below is a list of acronyms and abbreviations used in the preamble
of this document:
AC--Air Conditioning
AAC--American Automotive Council
ACGIH--American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
AEGL--Acute Emergency Guideline Limits
[[Page 86782]]
AHIA--American Industrial Hygiene Association
AHRI--Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute
AIRAH--Australian Institute of Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and
Heating
ANSI--American National Standards Institute
APU--Auxiliary Power Unit
ASHRAE--American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers
ASRAC--Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee
ASTM--American Society for Testing and Materials
BTU--British Thermal Units
CAA--Clean Air Act
CAP--Climate Action Plan
CAS Reg. No.--Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Identification
Number
CBI--Confidential Business Information
CFC--Chlorofluorocarbon
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CH4--Methane
CMAQ--Community Multiscale Air Quality
CO2--Carbon Dioxide
CO2eq--Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
CRP--Cooperative Research Programs
CSA--Canadian Standards Association
CUAC--Commercial Unitary Air Conditioner
CUHP--Commercial Unitary Heat Pump
DoD--United States Department of Defense
DOE--United States Department of Energy
DX--Direct Expansion
EEAP--Environmental Effects Assessment Panel
EIA--Environmental Investigation Agency
EO--Executive Order
EPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
EU--European Union
FMEA--Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
FAA--Federal Aviation Administration
FCA--Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
FR--Federal Register
FTA--Fault Tree Analysis
g--Gram
GHG--Greenhouse Gas
GtCO2eq--Gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
GWP--Global Warming Potential
GVWR--Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
HBFC--Hydrobromofluorocarbon
HC--Hydrocarbon
HCFC--Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HD--Heavy-Duty
HD GHG--Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas
HF--Hydrogen Fluoride
HFC--Hydrofluorocarbon
HFO--Hydrofluoroolefin
IBC--International Building Code
ICAO--International Civil Aviation Organization
ICC--International Code Council
ICF--ICF International, Inc.
IDLH--Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health
IEC--International Electrochemical Commission
IGSD--Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development
IIAR--Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration
IPCC--Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IPLV--Integrated Part-Load Value
IPR--Industrial Process Refrigeration
kPa--Kilopascal
kW--Kilowatt
LD--Light-Duty
LD GHG--Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas
LFL--Lower Flammability Limit
LOAEL--Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
MAC Directive--Directive on Mobile Air Conditioning
MACT--Maximum Achievable Technology
MDPV--Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle
MIR--Maximum Incremental Reactivity
MMTCO2eq--Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
MVAC--Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning
MY--Model Year
N2O--Nitrous Oxide
NAAQS--National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS--North American Industrial Classification System
NESHAP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NFPA--National Fire Protection Association
NHTSA--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NIK--Not-In-Kind
NIOSH--National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
NOAEL--No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NRDC--Natural Resource Defense Council
OEM--Original Equipment Manufacturer
ODP--Ozone Depletion Potential
ODS--Ozone-Depleting Substance
OMB--United States Office of Management and Budget
OSHA--United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PEL--Permissible Exposure Limit
PFC--Perfluorocarbon
PMS--Pantone Matching System
ppb--Parts Per Billion
PPE--Personal Protective Equipment
ppm--Parts Per Million
PSM--Process Safety Management
PTAC--Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners
PTHP--Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps
PU--Polyurethane
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REL--Recommended Exposure Limit
RfC--Reference Concentration
RMP--Risk Management Plan
RSES--Refrigeration Service Engineers Society
RTOC--Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical
Options Committee
SARPS--Standards and Recommended Practices
SAE ICCC--SAE International's Interior Climate Control Committee
SAP--Scientific Assessment Panel
SF6--Sulfur Hexafluoride
SIP--State Implementation Plan
SISNOSE--significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities
SNAP--Significant New Alternatives Policy
SRES--Special Report on Emissions Scenarios
STEL--Short-term Exposure Limit
SUV--Sport Utility Vehicles
TEAP--Technical and Economic Assessment Panel
TFA--Trifluoroacetic Acid
TLV--Threshold Limit Value
TWA--Time Weighted Average
UNFCCC--United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UL--Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UNEP--United Nations Environmental Programme
VOC--Volatile Organic Compound
WEEL--Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit
II. How does the SNAP program work?
A. What are the statutory requirements and authority for the SNAP
program?
CAA section 612 requires EPA to develop a program for evaluating
alternatives to ODS. This program is known as the SNAP program. The
major provisions of section 612 are:
1. Rulemaking
Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful
to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), halon, carbon
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide,
hydrobromofluorocarbon (HBFC), and chlorobromomethane) or class II
hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)) substance 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
that it finds to be unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a
corresponding list of acceptable substitutes for specific uses. The
list of ``acceptable'' substitutes is found at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/substitutes-sector and the lists of ``unacceptable,'' ``acceptable,
subject to use conditions,'' and ``acceptable, subject to narrowed use
limits'' substitutes are found in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82
subpart G.
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
[[Page 86783]]
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 available for products and
manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.
B. What are EPA's regulations implementing CAA section 612?
On March 18, 1994, EPA published the initial SNAP rule (59 FR
13044) which established the process for administering the SNAP program
and issued EPA's first lists identifying acceptable and unacceptable
substitutes in major industrial use sectors (40 CFR part 82 subpart G).
These sectors include the following: Refrigeration and AC; foam
blowing; solvents cleaning; fire suppression and explosion protection;
sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and inks; and tobacco
expansion. These sectors comprise the principal industrial sectors that
historically consumed the largest volumes of ODS.
C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work?
Under the SNAP regulations, anyone who produces a substitute to
replace a class I or II ODS in one of the eight major industrial use
sectors listed previously must provide the Agency with notice and the
required 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)). While this requirement
typically applies to chemical manufacturers as the person likely to be
planning to introduce the substitute into interstate commerce,\5\ it
may also apply to importers, formulators, equipment manufacturers, or
end users \6\ when they are responsible for introducing a substitute
into interstate commerce. The 90-day SNAP review process begins once
EPA receives the submission and determines that the submission includes
complete and adequate data (40 CFR 82.180(a)). The CAA and the SNAP
regulations, 40 CFR 82.174(a), prohibit use of a substitute earlier
than 90 days after a complete submission has been provided to the
Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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
substitute submissions: Acceptable; acceptable, subject to use
conditions; acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits; and
unacceptable (40 CFR 82.180(b).\7\ Use conditions and narrowed use
limits are both considered ``use restrictions'' and are explained later
in this action. Substitutes that are deemed acceptable without use
conditions can be used for all applications within the relevant sector
end-uses and without limits under SNAP on how they may be used.
Substitutes that are acceptable, subject to use restrictions may be
used only in accordance with those restrictions. Substitutes that are
found to be unacceptable may not be used after the date specified in
the rulemaking adding them to the list of unacceptable substitutes.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The SNAP regulations also include ``pending,'' referring to
submissions for which EPA has not reached a determination, under
this provision.
\8\ As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, ``use'' means any use of a
substitute for a class I or class II ozone-depleting compound,
including but not limited to use in a manufacturing process or
product, in consumption by the end-user, or in intermediate uses,
such as formulation or packaging for other subsequent uses. This
definition of use encompasses manufacturing process of products both
for domestic use and for export. Substitutes manufactured within the
United States exclusively for export are subject to SNAP
requirements since the definition of use in the rule includes use in
the manufacturing process, which occurs within the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may determine that a
substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions in the way that the
substitute is used are met to ensure risks to human health and the
environment are not significantly greater than other substitutes. 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 CAA section 612 and EPA's
SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)).
For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrow 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. The Agency generally requires a user of a substitute
subject to narrowed use limits to demonstrate that no other acceptable
substitutes are available for their specific application.\9\ 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 these substitutes in
violation of CAA section 612 and EPA's SNAP regulations (40 CFR
82.174(c)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In the case of the July 20, 2015, final rule, EPA
established narrowed use limits for certain substitutes over a
limited period of time for specific MVAC and foam applications, on
the basis that other acceptable alternatives would not be available
for those specific applications within broader end-uses, but
acceptable alternatives were expected to become available over time,
e.g., after military qualification testing for foam blowing agents
in military applications or after development of improved servicing
infrastructure in a destination country for MVAC in vehicles
destined for export.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The section 612 mandate for EPA to prohibit the use of a substitute
that may present risk to human health or the environment where a lower
risk alternative is available or potentially available \10\ provides
EPA with the authority to change the listing status of a particular
substitute if such a change is justified by new information or changed
circumstance. The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the
Federal Register. EPA uses notice and comment rulemaking to place any
alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute
as acceptable only subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits, or
to
[[Page 86784]]
remove a substitute from either the list of prohibited or acceptable
substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In addition to acceptable commercially available
alternatives, the SNAP program may consider potentially available
alternatives. The SNAP program's definition of ``potentially
available'' is ``any alternative for which adequate health, safety,
and environmental data, as required for the SNAP notification
process, exist to make a determination of acceptability, and which
the Agency reasonably believes to be technically feasible, even if
not all testing has yet been completed and the alternative is not
yet produced or sold.'' (40 CFR 82.172)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, EPA publishes ``notices of acceptability'' to notify
the public of substitutes that are deemed acceptable with no
restrictions. As described in the preamble to the rule initially
implementing the SNAP program (59 FR 13044; March 18, 1994), rulemaking
procedures are not necessary to list substitutes 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 are binding under other
regulatory programs (e.g., worker protection regulations promulgated by
the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)). The
``further information'' classification 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. What are the guiding principles of the SNAP Program?
The seven guiding principles of the SNAP program, elaborated in the
preamble to the initial SNAP rule and consistent with section 612, are
discussed in this section.
1. Evaluate Substitutes Within a Comparative Risk Framework
The SNAP program evaluates the risk of alternative compounds
compared to available or potentially available substitutes to the
ozone-depleting compounds which they are intended to replace. The risk
factors that are considered include ozone depletion potential (ODP) as
well as flammability, toxicity, occupational health and safety, and
contributions to climate change and other environmental factors.
2. Do Not Require That Substitutes Be Risk Free To Be Found Acceptable
Substitutes found to be acceptable must not pose significantly
greater risk than other substitutes, but they do not have to be risk
free. A key goal of the SNAP program is to promote the use of
substitutes that minimize risks to human health and the environment
relative to other alternatives. In some cases, this approach may
involve designating a substitute acceptable even though the compound
may pose a risk of some type, provided its use does not pose
significantly greater risk than other alternatives.
3. Restrict Those Substitutes That Are Significantly Worse
EPA does not intend to restrict a substitute if it has only
marginally greater risk. Drawing fine distinctions would be extremely
difficult. The Agency also does not want to intercede in the market's
choice of substitutes by listing as unacceptable all but one substitute
for each end-use, and does not intend to restrict substitutes on the
market unless a substitute has been proposed or is being used that is
clearly more harmful to human health or the environment than other
alternatives.
4. Evaluate Risks by Use
Central to SNAP's evaluations is the intersection between the
characteristics of the substitute itself and its specific end-use
application. Section 612 requires that substitutes be evaluated by use.
Environmental and human health exposures can vary significantly
depending on the particular application of a substitute. Thus, the risk
characterizations must be designed to represent differences in the
environmental and human health effects associated with diverse uses.
This approach cannot, however, imply fundamental tradeoffs with respect
to different types of risk to either the environment or to human
health.
5. Provide the Regulated Community With Information as Soon as Possible
The Agency recognizes the need to provide the regulated community
with information on the acceptability of various substitutes as soon as
possible. To do so, EPA issues notices or determinations of
acceptability and rules identifying substitutes as unacceptable;
acceptable, subject to use conditions; or acceptable, subject to
narrowed use limits, in the Federal Register. In addition, we maintain
lists of acceptable and unacceptable alternatives on our Web site,
www.epa.gov/ozone/snap.
6. Do Not Endorse Products Manufactured by Specific Companies
The Agency does not issue company-specific product endorsements. In
many cases, the Agency may base its analysis on data received on
individual products, but the addition of a substitute to the acceptable
list based on that analysis does not represent an endorsement of that
company's products.
7. Defer to Other Environmental Regulations When Warranted
In some cases, EPA and other federal agencies have developed
extensive regulations under other sections of the CAA or other statutes
that address potential environmental or human health effects that may
result from the use of alternatives to class I and class II substances.
For example, use of some substitutes may in some cases entail increased
use of chemicals that contribute to tropospheric air pollution. The
SNAP program takes existing regulations under other programs into
account when reviewing substitutes.
E. What are EPA's criteria for evaluating substitutes under the SNAP
program?
EPA applies the same criteria for determining whether a substitute
is acceptable or unacceptable. These criteria, which can be found at
Sec. 82.180(a)(7), include atmospheric effects and related health and
environmental effects, ecosystem risks, consumer risks, flammability,
and cost and availability of the substitute. To enable EPA to assess
these criteria, we require submitters to include various information
including ODP, global warming potential (GWP), toxicity, flammability,
and the potential for human exposure.
When evaluating potential substitutes, EPA evaluates these criteria
in the following groupings:
1. Atmospheric effects--The SNAP program evaluates the potential
contributions to both ozone depletion and climate change. The SNAP
program considers the ODP and the 100-year integrated GWP of compounds
to assess atmospheric effects.
2. Exposure assessments--The SNAP program uses exposure assessments
to estimate concentration levels of substitutes to which workers,
consumers, the general population, and the environment may be exposed
over a determined period of time. These assessments are based on
personal monitoring data or area sampling data if available. Exposure
assessments may be conducted for many types of releases including:
[[Page 86785]]
Releases in the workplace and in homes;
Releases to ambient air and surface water;
Releases from the management of solid wastes.
3. Toxicity data--The SNAP program uses toxicity data to assess the
possible health and environmental effects of exposure to substitutes.
We use broad health-based criteria such as:
Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) for occupational
exposure;
Inhalation reference concentrations (RfCs) for non-
carcinogenic effects on the general population;
Cancer slope factors for carcinogenic risk to members of
the general population.
When considering risks in the workplace, if OSHA has not issued a
PEL for a compound, EPA then considers Recommended Exposure Limits
(RELs) from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), Workplace Environmental Exposure Limits (WEELs) set by the
American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), or threshold limit
values (TLVs) set by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists (ACGIH). If limits for occupational exposure or exposure to
the general population are not already established, then EPA derives
these values following the Agency's peer review guidelines. Exposure
information is combined with toxicity information to explore any basis
for concern. Toxicity data are used with existing EPA guidelines to
develop health-based limits for interim use in these risk
characterizations.
4. Flammability--The SNAP program examines flammability as a safety
concern for workers and consumers. EPA assesses flammability risk using
data on:
Flash point and flammability limits (e.g., ASHRAE
flammability/combustibility classifications);
Data on testing of blends with flammable components;
Test data on flammability in consumer applications
conducted by independent laboratories; and
Information on flammability risk mitigation techniques.
5. Other environmental impacts--The SNAP program also examines
other potential environmental impacts like ecotoxicity and local air
quality impacts. A compound that is likely to be discharged to water
may be evaluated for impacts on aquatic life. Some substitutes are
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). EPA also notes whenever a potential
substitute is considered a hazardous or toxic air pollutant (under CAA
sections 112(b) and 202(l)) or hazardous waste under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) subtitle C regulations.
EPA's consideration of cost in listing decisions is limited to
evaluating the cost of the substitute under review pursuant to Sec.
82.180(a)(7)(vii). This is distinct from consideration of costs
associated with the use of other alternatives to which the substitute
is being compared. See Honeywell v. EPA, 374 F.3d 1363 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
at 1,378 (J. Rogers, concurring in part and dissenting in part)
(``While the SNAP regulations make the `cost and availability of the
substitute' an element of acceptability . . . that concern is limited
to whether EPA `has . . . reason to prohibit its use,' not to whether
cleaner alternatives for the substance are already `currently or
potentially available'. . . . Consideration of transition costs is thus
precluded by the SNAP regulations as currently written, irrespective of
whether it might be permitted under CAA Sec. 612(c) . . . .'').
Over the past twenty years, the menu of substitutes has become much
broader and a great deal of new information has been developed on many
substitutes. Because the overall goal of the SNAP program is to ensure
that substitutes listed as acceptable do not pose significantly greater
risk to human health and the environment than other substitutes, the
SNAP criteria continue to be informed by our current overall
understanding of environmental and human health impacts and our
experience with and current knowledge about alternatives. Over time,
the range of substitutes reviewed by SNAP has changed, and at the same
time, scientific approaches have evolved to more accurately assess the
potential environmental and human health impacts of these chemicals and
alternative technologies.
F. How are SNAP determinations updated?
Three mechanisms exist for modifying the list of SNAP
determinations. First, under section 612(d), the Agency must review and
either grant or deny petitions to add or delete substances from the
SNAP list of acceptable or unacceptable substitutes. That provision
allows any person to petition the Administrator to add a substance to
the list of acceptable or unacceptable substitutes or to remove a
substance from either list. The second means is through the
notifications which must be submitted to EPA 90 days before
introduction of a substitute into interstate commerce for significant
new use as an alternative to a class I or class II substance. These 90-
day notifications are required by CAA section 612(e) for producers of
substitutes to class I substances for new uses and, in all other cases,
by EPA regulations issued under sections 114 and 301 of the Act to
implement section 612(c).
Finally, since the inception of the SNAP program, we have
interpreted the section 612 mandate to find substitutes acceptable or
unacceptable to include the authority to act on our own to add or
remove a substance from the SNAP lists (59 FR 13044, 13047; March 18,
1994). In determining whether to add or remove a substance from the
SNAP lists, we consider whether there are other alternatives that pose
lower overall risk to human health and the environment. In determining
whether to modify a listing of a substitute we undertake the same
consideration, but do so in the light of new data that may not have
been available at the time of our original listing decision, including
information on substitutes that was not included in our comparative
review at the time of our initial listing decision and new information
on substitutes previously reviewed.
G. What does EPA consider in deciding whether to add a substance to or
remove a substance from one of the SNAP lists?
As described in this document and elsewhere, including in the
initial SNAP rule published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1994
(59 FR 13044), CAA section 612 requires EPA to list as unacceptable any
substitute substance where it finds that there are other alternatives
that reduce overall risk to human health and the environment. The
initial SNAP rule included submission requirements and presented the
environmental and health risk factors that the SNAP program considers
in the comparative risk framework it uses to determine whether there
are other alternatives that pose significantly lower risk than the
substitute under review. EPA makes decisions based on the particular
end-use where a substitute is to be used. EPA has, in many cases, found
certain substitutes acceptable only for limited end-uses or subject to
use restrictions. In the decades since ODS were first invented in the
1920s, American consumers relied on products using ODS for diverse uses
including aerosols, air conditioning, insulation, solvent cleaning, and
fire protection. The agreement by governments to phase out production
of ODS under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer led to inevitable questions about whether suitable alternatives
could be found in
[[Page 86786]]
all cases, and in the larger sense, about how to limit negative impacts
on society from use of alternatives.
It has now been over twenty years since the initial SNAP rule was
promulgated. When the SNAP program began, the number of substitutes
available for consideration was, for many end-uses, somewhat limited.
Thus, while the SNAP program's initial comparative assessments of
overall risk to human health and the environment were rigorous, often
there were few substitutes upon which to apply the comparative
assessment. The immediacy of the class I phaseout often meant that EPA
listed class II ODS (i.e., HCFCs) as acceptable, recognizing that they
too would be phased out and, at best, could offer an interim solution.
Other Title VI provisions such as the section 610 Nonessential Products
Ban and the section 605 Use Restriction made clear that a listing under
the SNAP program could not convey permanence.
Since EPA issued the initial SNAP rule in 1994, the Agency has
issued 20 rules and 31 notices that generally expand the menu of
options for the various SNAP sectors and end-uses. Thus, comparisons
today apply to a broader range of alternatives--both chemical and non-
chemical--than at the inception of the SNAP program. Industry
experience with these substitutes has also grown during the history of
the program.
In addition to an expanding menu of substitutes, developments over
the past 20 years have improved our understanding of global
environmental issues. With regard to that information, our review of
substitutes in this action includes comparative assessments that
consider our evolving understanding of a variety of factors. For
example, GWPs and climate effects are not new elements in our
evaluation framework, but as is the case with all of our review
criteria, the amount of information has expanded and the quality has
improved.
To the extent possible, EPA's ongoing management of the SNAP
program considers new information, including new substitutes, and
improved understanding of the risk to the environment and human health.
EPA previously has taken several actions revising listing
determinations from acceptable or acceptable with use conditions to
unacceptable. On January 26, 1999, EPA listed the refrigerant blend
known by the trade name MT-31 as unacceptable for all refrigeration and
AC end-uses for which EPA had previously listed this blend as an
acceptable substitute (62 FR 30275; June 3, 1997). EPA based this
decision on new information about the toxicity of one of the chemicals
in the blend.
Another example of EPA revising a listing determination occurred in
2007, when EPA listed HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as unacceptable for use in
the foam sector (72 FR 14432; March 28, 2007). These HCFCs, which are
ozone-depleting and subject to a global production phaseout, were
initially listed as acceptable substitutes since they had a lower ODP
than the substances they were replacing and there were no other
alternatives that posed lower overall risk at the time of EPA's listing
decision. HCFCs offered a path forward for some sectors and end-uses at
a time when the number of substitutes was far more limited. In light of
the expanded availability of other alternatives with lower overall risk
to human health and the environment in specific foam end-uses, and
taking into account the 2010 class II ODS phase down step, EPA changed
the listing for these HCFCs in relevant end-uses from acceptable to
unacceptable. In that rule, EPA noted that continued use of these HCFCs
would contribute to unnecessary depletion of the ozone layer and delay
the transition to substitutes that pose lower overall risk to human
health and the environment. EPA established a change of status date
that recognized that existing users needed time to adjust their
manufacturing processes to safely accommodate the use of other
substitutes.
GWP is one of several criteria EPA considers in the overall
evaluation of the alternatives under the SNAP program. The President's
June 2013 Climate Action Plan (CAP) \11\ states, ``To reduce emissions
of HFCs, the United States can and will lead both through international
diplomacy as well as domestic actions.'' Furthermore, the CAP states
that EPA will ``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 while prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful chemical
alternatives.'' On July 20, 2015 (80 FR 42870), EPA issued a final
regulation that was our first effort to take a broader look at the SNAP
lists, where we focused on those listed substitutes that have a high
GWP relative to other alternatives in specific end-uses, while
otherwise posing comparable levels of risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The White House, 2013. President's Climate Action Plan.
This document is accessible at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the July 2015 rule, various HFCs and HFC-containing blends that
were previously listed as acceptable under the SNAP program were listed
as unacceptable in various end-uses in the aerosols, foam blowing, and
refrigeration and AC sectors where there are other alternatives that
pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment for
specific uses. The July 2015 rule also changed the status from
acceptable to unacceptable for certain HCFCs being phased out of
production under the Montreal Protocol and CAA section 605(a). Per the
guiding principles of the SNAP program, the July 2015 rule did not
specify that any HFCs or HCFCs are unacceptable across all sectors and
end-uses. Instead, in all cases, EPA considered the intersection
between the specific substitute and the particular end-use and the
availability of substitutes for those particular end-uses when making
its determinations.
H. Where can I get additional information about the SNAP program?
For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists of substitutes or
additional information on SNAP, refer to EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/snap. For more information on the Agency's process for
administering the SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of
substitutes, refer to the initial SNAP rule published March 18, 1994
(59 FR 13044), codified at 40 CFR part 82 subpart G. A complete
chronology of SNAP decisions and the appropriate citations are found at
https://www.epa.gov/snap/snap-regulations.
III. What actions and information related to greenhouse gases have
bearing on this action?
GWP is one of several criteria EPA considers in the overall
evaluation of alternatives under the SNAP program. During the past two
decades, the general science on climate change and the potential
contributions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as HFCs to climate change
have become better understood.
On December 7, 2009, at 74 FR 66496, the Administrator issued an
endangerment finding determining that, for purposes of CAA section
202(a), elevated atmospheric concentrations of the combination of six
key well-mixed GHGs in the atmosphere--CO2, methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), HFCs, PFCs, and
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger
[[Page 86787]]
the public health and the public welfare of current and future
generations.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ EPA, 2009a. Technical Support Document for Endangerment and
Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section
202(a) of the Clean Air Act. December, 2009. This document is
accessible at: http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the ODS they replace, HFCs are potent GHGs.\13\ Although they
represent a small fraction of the current total volume of GHG
emissions, their warming impact per kilogram is very strong. While GHGs
such as CO2 and CH4 are unintentional byproducts
from energy production, industrial and agricultural activities, and
mobile sources, HFCs are intentionally produced chemicals.\14\ The most
commonly used HFC is HFC-134a. HFC-134a has a GWP of 1,430, which means
it traps 1,430 times as much heat per kilogram as CO2 does
over 100 years. Because of their role in replacing ODS, both in the
United States and globally, and because of the increasing use of
refrigeration and AC, HFC emissions are projected to increase
substantially and at an increasing rate over the next several decades
if their production is left uncontrolled. In the United States,
emissions of HFCs are increasing more quickly than those of any other
GHGs, and globally they are increasing 10-15 percent annually.\15\ At
that rate, emissions are projected to double by 2020 and triple by
2030.\16\ HFCs are also rapidly accumulating in the atmosphere. The
atmospheric concentration of HFC-134a has increased by about ten
percent per year from 2006 to 2012, and the concentrations of HFC-143a
and HFC-125, which are components of commonly used refrigerant blends,
have risen over 13 percent and 16 percent per year from 2007-2011,
respectively.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ IPCC/TEAP, 2005. Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone
Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to
Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons. Cambridge Univ Press, New
York. This document is accessible at: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/sroc_full.pdf.
\14\ HFC-23 is an exception; it is produced as a byproduct
during the production of HCFC-22 and other chemicals.
\15\ UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and
the Ozone Layer, A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This
document is accessible at: www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/pdf/HFC_report.pdf.
\16\ Akerman, 2013. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change:
Summaries of Recent Scientific and Papers. 2013.
\17\ Montzka, 2012. HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations,
Emissions and Impacts. ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012. This document is
accessible at: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/papers/montzka/2012_pubs/Montzka_ASHRAE_2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without action, annual global emissions of HFCs are projected to
rise to about 6.4 to 9.9 gigatons of CO2 equivalent
(GtCO2eq) in 2050,\18\ which is comparable to the drop in
annual GHG emissions from ODS of 8.0 GtCO2eq between 1988
and 2010.\19\ By 2050, the buildup of HFCs in the atmosphere is
projected to increase radiative forcing in the range of 0.22 to 0.25 W
m-2. This increase may be as much as one-fifth to one-
quarter of the expected increase in radiative forcing due to the
buildup of CO2 since 2000, according to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) Special Report on
Emissions Scenarios (SRES).\20\ To appreciate the significance of the
effect of projected HFC emissions within the context of all GHGs, HFCs
would be six to nine percent of the CO2 emissions in 2050
based on the IPCC's highest CO2 emissions scenario and
equivalent to 27 to 69 percent of CO2 emissions based on the
IPCC's lowest CO2 emissions pathway.21 22
Additional information concerning the peer-reviewed scientific
literature and emission scenarios is available in the docket for this
rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Velders, G.J.M., D.W. Fahey, J.S. Daniel, M. McFarland,
S.O. Andersen (2009). ``The large contribution of projected HFC
emissions to future climate forcing.'' Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences USA 106: 10949-10954.
\19\ UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and
the Ozone Layer, A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This
document is accessible at: www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/pdf/HFC_report.pdf.
\20\ Ibid.
\21\ Velders, Guus JM, et al. ``Future atmospheric abundances
and climate forcings from scenarios of global and regional
hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions.'' Atmospheric Environment 123
(2015): 200-209.
\22\ IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables
[Prather, M., G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J.-F. Lamarque,
H. Liao and P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J.
Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
NY, USA. This document is accessible at: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PFCs are potent GHGs and have very long atmospheric lifetimes. PFCs
are produced as a byproduct of various industrial processes associated
with aluminum production and the manufacturing of semiconductors, then
captured for intentional use or manufactured for use in various
industrial applications. PFCs have had limited use in the eight sectors
regulated under SNAP. While status changes for certain PFCs in fire
suppression total flooding uses were proposed, no final action on PFCs
in this end-use is being taken in this action.
IV. How does this action relate to the Climate Action Plan and
petitions received requesting a change in listing status for HFCs?
A. Climate Action Plan
This action is consistent with a provision in the President's CAP
announced June 2013:
Moving forward, the Environmental Protection Agency will 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 while
prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful chemical alternatives.
The CAP further states, ``To reduce emissions of HFCs, the United
States can and will lead both through international diplomacy as well
as domestic actions.'' This action is consistent with that call for
leadership through domestic actions. Regarding international
leadership, for the past seven years, the United States, Canada, and
Mexico have proposed an amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase
down the production and consumption of HFCs. Adopting the North
American proposal would reduce cumulative HFC emissions by more than 90
GtCO2eq through 2050.
Throughout our discussions with the regulated community, we have
sought to convey our understanding of the role that certainty plays in
enabling the robust development and uptake of alternatives. As noted
above, some of the key strengths of the SNAP program, such as its
substance and end-use specific consideration, its multi-criteria basis
for action, and its petition process, counters measures some have
advocated could provide more certainty, such as setting specific
numerical criteria for environmental evaluations (e.g., all compounds
with GWP greater than 150). That said, this action provides additional
certainty in the specific cases addressed. In addition, we remain
committed to continuing to actively seek stakeholder views and to share
our thinking at the earliest moment practicable on any future actions,
as part of our commitment to provide greater certainty to producers and
consumers in SNAP-regulated industrial sectors.
B. Summary of Petitions
EPA received two petitions on October 6, 2015, requesting the
Agency to modify certain acceptability listings of high-GWP substances
in various end-uses. The first was submitted by the Natural Resource
Defense Council (NRDC) and the Institute for Governance and Sustainable
Development (IGSD) and the second by the Environmental
[[Page 86788]]
Investigation Agency (EIA).23 24 The NRDC/IGSD petition
requests that EPA change the listing status of certain high-GWP
chemicals they believe are used most frequently in the United States in
various end-uses in the refrigeration and AC, foam blowing, and fire
suppression and explosion protection sectors. The EIA petition requests
that EPA list additional high-GWP HFCs as unacceptable or acceptable,
subject to use restrictions, in a number of end-uses in the
refrigeration and AC, and fire suppression and explosion protection
sectors. In support of their petitions, the petitioners identified
other alternatives they claim are available for use in the specified
end-uses and present lower risks to human health and environment. These
petitions are more fully described in the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) and are available in the docket for this rulemaking. While EPA
has not found these petitions complete at this time, EPA possesses
sufficient information to finalize action on some of the end-uses
covered by the petitions. This action is responsive to certain aspects
of the petitions that relate to the refrigeration and AC, and foam
blowing sectors; EPA is changing the listing from acceptable to
unacceptable for:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ NRDC/IGSD, 2015. Petition for Change of Status of HFCs
under Clean Air Act Section 612 (Significant New Alternatives
Policy). Submitted October 6, 2015.
\24\ EIA, 2015. Petition requesting EPA to modify the status
under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, of certain
high-GWP chemicals in various end-uses. Submitted October 6, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFC-134a in new centrifugal chillers, new positive
displacement chillers, new household refrigerators and freezers, and
rigid PU spray foam;
R-404A, R-410A, R-410B, and R-507A in new centrifugal
chillers, new positive displacement chillers, new household
refrigerators and freezers, and new cold storage warehouses;
R-407A in new cold storage warehouses;
R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, and R-434A in new
centrifugal chillers and new positive displacement chillers;
HFC-227ea in new cold storage warehouses, new centrifugal
chillers, and new positive displacement chillers;
HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and HFC-227ea in rigid PU spray
foam;
HFC-245fa and HFC-227ea in new centrifugal chillers and
new positive displacement chillers; and
a number of refrigerant blends with higher GWPs in certain
new refrigeration and AC equipment.
Parts of two other SNAP petitions previously submitted by the same
three organizations are also relevant to this rulemaking. In a petition
EIA submitted to EPA on April 26, 2012, EIA stated that ``in light of
the comparative nature of the SNAP program's evaluation of substitutes
and given that other acceptable substitutes are on the market or soon
to be available,'' EPA should ``remove HFC-134a and HFC-134a blends
from the list of acceptable substitutes for any ozone-depleting
substance in any non-essential uses under EPA's SNAP program.''
Additionally, NRDC, EIA, and IGSD filed a petition on April 27, 2012,
requesting that EPA remove HFC-134a from the list of acceptable
substitutes in household refrigerators and freezers, and stand-alone
retail food refrigerators and freezers, among other end-uses. On August
7, 2013, EPA found both petitions to be incomplete. While EPA has not
found these petitions complete at this time, EPA possesses sufficient
information to finalize action on some of the end-uses covered by the
petitions. Similar to the October 2015 petitions, this action is
responsive to certain aspects of the petitions that relate to the
refrigeration and AC and foam blowing sectors.
V. How does EPA regulate substitute refrigerants under CAA section 608?
A. What are the statutory requirements concerning venting, release, or
disposal of refrigerants and refrigerant substitutes under CAA section
608?
To briefly summarize the primary requirements of CAA section 608,
that section requires, among other things, that EPA 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). 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) exempts de minimis releases associated with good
faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of such a
substance from this prohibition. 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
specified regulations issued 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
any substitutes for class I or class II substances used as
refrigerants. This prohibition applies to all refrigerant substitutes
unless the Administrator determines that the venting, releasing, or
disposing of the substitute does not pose a threat to the environment.
Thus, section 608(c) provides EPA authority to promulgate regulations
to interpret and enforce this prohibition on venting, releasing, or
disposing of class I or class II substances and their refrigerant
substitutes, which this action refers to as the ``venting
prohibition.'' EPA's authority under section 608(c) includes authority
to exempt certain refrigerant substitutes for class I or class II
substances from the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) when
the Administrator determines that such venting, release, or disposal
does not pose a threat to the environment. EPA's authority to
promulgate some of the regulatory revisions in this action is thus
based in part on CAA section 608.
B. What are EPA's regulations concerning venting, releasing, or
disposal of refrigerant substitutes?
Regulations issued under CAA section 608, 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. These regulations are codified at 40
CFR part 82, subpart F. In the same 1993 rule, EPA also issued
regulations implementing the section 608(c) prohibition on knowingly
venting, releasing, or disposing of class I or class II substances.
These regulations were designed to substantially reduce the use and
emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants.
EPA issued rules on March 12, 2004 (69 FR 11946) and April 13, 2005
(70 FR 19273) clarifying how the venting prohibition in section 608(c)
applies to substitutes for CFC and HCFC refrigerants (e.g., HFCs and
PFCs) during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of
appliances. In 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 specified substitutes
in the specified end-uses, as provided in 40 CFR 82.154(a).
As explained in an earlier EPA rulemaking concerning refrigerant
substitutes, EPA had not, at the time of that rulemaking, issued
regulations
[[Page 86789]]
requiring certification of refrigerant recycling/recovery equipment
intended for use with substitutes to date (70 FR 19275; April 13,
2005). However, as EPA has 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 Sec.
82.154(a) (80 FR 69466, 69478).
The Administrator signed final regulations to require certification
of refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment for use with
refrigerants that are not exempt from the venting prohibition. For
information on the final 608 rule, see the docket for the rulemaking
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0453).
On May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29682), EPA exempted from the venting
prohibition three HC refrigerant substitutes listed as acceptable,
subject to use conditions, in the following end-uses: Isobutane and R-
441A in household refrigerators, freezers, and combination
refrigerators and freezers; and propane in retail food refrigerators
and freezers (stand-alone units only). Similarly, on April 10, 2015 (80
FR 19453), EPA exempted from the venting prohibition four HC
refrigerant substitutes listed as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, in the following end-uses: Isobutane and R-441A in retail
food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only); propane in
household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and
freezers; ethane in very low temperature refrigeration equipment and
equipment for non-mechanical heat transfer; R-441A, propane, and
isobutane in vending machines; and propane and R-441A in self-contained
room air conditioners for residential and light commercial AC and heat
pumps. Those regulatory exemptions do not apply to blends of HCs with
other refrigerants or containing any amount of any CFC, HCFC, HFC, or
PFC.
In those 2014 and 2015 actions, EPA determined that for the
purposes of CAA section 608(c)(2), the venting, release, or disposal of
such HC 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 HC refrigerant substitutes.
VI. What is EPA finalizing in this action?
EPA is listing certain newly submitted alternatives as acceptable,
subject to use conditions, and other newly submitted alternatives as
unacceptable. EPA is also modifying current listings from acceptable to
acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, or to unacceptable for
certain alternatives in various end-uses in the refrigeration and AC
and foam blowing sectors. In each instance where EPA is listing a newly
submitted substitute as unacceptable or is changing the status of a
substitute from acceptable to unacceptable, EPA has determined that
there are other alternatives that pose lower overall risk to human
health and the environment. In a few instances, EPA established
narrowed use limits for certain substitutes for specific military or
space-and aeronautics-related applications in the refrigeration and AC,
and foam blowing sectors, on the basis that other acceptable
alternatives would not be available for those specific applications
within broader end-uses, but acceptable alternatives were expected to
become available over time. This action also applies unacceptability
determinations for foam blowing agents to closed cell foam products and
products containing closed cell foam. Additionally, EPA is exempting
propane as a refrigerant in new self-contained commercial ice machines,
in new water coolers, and in new very low temperature refrigeration
equipment from the venting prohibition under CAA section 608(c)(2).
This action also clarifies the listing for Powdered Aerosol D (Stat-
X[supreg]), which was previously listed as both acceptable and
acceptable, subject to use conditions, by removing the listing as
acceptable subject to use conditions. The emissions that will be
avoided from the changes of status in this action are estimated to be
up to approximately 6.6 Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide
Equivalent (MMTCO2eq) in 2025 and up to approximately 11.3
MMTCO2eq in 2030.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ EPA, 2016a. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status
Change Rule. March, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change of Listing Status
In determining whether to modify the previous listing decisions for
substitutes based on whether other alternatives are available that pose
lower risk to human health and the environment, we considered, among
other things: Comments to the proposed rule of April 18, 2016,
scientific findings, information provided by the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) that supports the Montreal Protocol,
journal articles, submissions to the SNAP program, the regulations and
supporting dockets for other EPA rulemakings, presentations and reports
presented at domestic and international conferences, and materials from
trade associations and professional organizations. The materials on
which we have relied are in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0663). Key references are highlighted in section VIII of this
action.
Change of Status Dates
The change of status dates are based upon EPA's understanding of
the availability of alternatives, considering factors such as
commercial availability and supply of alternatives, time required to
work through technical challenges with using alternatives, and time
required to meet other federal regulatory requirements with redesigned
equipment or formulations. As discussed in previous actions, as part of
our consideration of the availability of alternatives, we consider
``all available information, including information provided during the
public comment period, and information claimed as confidential and
provided during meetings, regarding technical challenges that may
affect the time at which the alternatives can be used safely and used
consistent with other requirements such as testing and code compliance
obligations'' (80 FR 42873; July 20, 2015).
Consideration of Costs and Benefits
Under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7),
consideration of cost is limited to cost of the substitute under
review, and that consideration does not include the cost of transition
when a substitute is found unacceptable. EPA requires information on
cost and availability of substitutes as part of SNAP submissions to
judge how widely a substitute might be used and, therefore, what its
potential environmental and health effects might be. The SNAP criteria
do not identify other cost considerations and thus we have not
historically used cost information independent of environmental and
health effects to determine the acceptability of substitutes under
review--that is, we have never determined a substitute under review to
be unacceptable or acceptable on the basis of its cost. When
considering a change of status for substitutes already listed as
acceptable, the SNAP program has not considered the costs of transition
away from HFCs, HFC blends, PFCs, and other alternatives affected by
the changes of status as part of determining the status
[[Page 86790]]
of the substitute or the availability of other alternatives for the
same uses.
We are not addressing in this rulemaking whether to revise the
regulatory criteria to include an expanded role for the consideration
of costs in SNAP listing decisions. We have simply applied the existing
regulatory criteria in determining whether to change the listing status
of the substitutes addressed in this action.
Nevertheless, EPA has estimated the costs of the changes of status
in this action to provide information to the public and to meet various
statutory and executive order requirements. We have estimated costs for
applicable NAICS codes in a document titled, ``Cost Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used
in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression.''
\26\ Using a seven percent discount rate, total annualized compliance
costs across the roughly 100 affected businesses are estimated to range
from $59.2 million-$71.3 million. Using a three percent discount rate,
total annualized compliance costs are estimated to range from $58.8
million-$70.6 million.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ ICF, 2016a. Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the
Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and
Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression. September, 2016.
\27\ In terms of the distribution of the estimated total
annualized costs by sectors: Refrigeration and air conditioning is
about 97-98 percent, foams is about two to three percent and fire
suppression is about zero percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we have analyzed costs and impacts on small businesses
in a document titled, ``Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used
in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression.''
\28\ The screening analysis finds that the rulemaking can be presumed
to have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities (SISNOSE). Roughly 89 small businesses could be subject to the
rulemaking. Total annualized compliance costs across affected small
businesses are estimated at approximately $11.8-$14.4 million at a
seven percent discount rate, or $11.5-$14.0 million at a three percent
discount rate.\29\ Based upon these analyses, EPA does not expect this
action to have major economic impacts (greater than $100 million per
year) or to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives
used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire
Suppression. September, 2016.
\29\ Of those 89 small businesses, roughly 76 percent would be
expected to incur compliance costs that are estimated to be less
than one percent of annual sales. Roughly 24 percent could incur
costs in excess of one percent of annual sales with approximately 14
percent possibly incurring costs in excess of three percent of
annual sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Refrigeration and Stationary AC
1. Acceptable Listing of Propane in New Self-Contained Commercial Ice
Machines, Water Coolers, and Very Low Temperature Refrigeration
Equipment
a. Background
This section, and other ``background'' sections that follow in the
rule, provide information on the end-uses relevant to this decision,
available alternatives, and other applicable regulations relevant to
these end-uses.
Commercial ice machines are used in commercial establishments, such
as hotels, restaurants, and convenience stores to produce ice. Many
commercial ice machines are self-contained units, while some have the
condenser separated from the portion of the machine making the ice and
have refrigerant lines running between the two. This action applies
only to self-contained commercial ice machines.
Water coolers are self-contained units providing chilled water for
drinking. They may or may not feature detachable containers of water.
Very low temperature refrigeration equipment is intended to
maintain temperatures considerably lower than for refrigeration of
food--generally, -80 [deg]C (-170[emsp14][deg]F) or lower. In some
cases, very low temperature refrigeration equipment may use a
refrigeration system with two refrigerant loops containing different
refrigerants or with a direct expansion (DX) refrigeration loop coupled
with an alternative refrigeration technology (e.g., Stirling cycle).
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has established energy
conservation standards for automatic commercial ice machines which
apply to the self-contained commercial ice machines in this
listing.\30\ DOE does not have an energy conservation standard that
would apply to water coolers or to very low temperature refrigeration
equipment. For further information on the relationship between this
action and other federal rules, see section VI.A.1.f of the proposed
rule (81 FR 22830; April 18, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards_test_procedures.html. ``Automatic
commercial ice machines'' are defined as ``a factory-made assembly
(not necessarily shipped in 1 package) that--(1) consists of a
condensing unit and ice-making section operating as an integrated
unit, with means for making and harvesting ice; and (2) may include
means for storing ice, dispensing ice, or storing and dispensing
ice.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. What is EPA's final decision?
As proposed, EPA is listing propane (R-290) as acceptable, subject
to use conditions, as a refrigerant in new self-contained commercial
ice machines, in new water coolers, and in new very low temperature
refrigeration equipment. The use conditions include conditions
requiring conformity with industry standards, limits on charge size,
and requirements for warnings and markings on equipment. The use
conditions are detailed in section VI.A.1.b.ii.
i. How does propane compare to other refrigerants for these end-uses
with respect to SNAP criteria?
EPA has listed a number of alternatives as acceptable in the
commercial ice machine, water cooler, and very low temperature
refrigeration end-uses. In the proposed rule (81 FR at 22824; April 18,
2016), EPA provided information on the environmental and health
properties of propane and the various substitutes in these end-uses.
Additionally, EPA's risk assessments for propane and a technical
support document \31\ that provides the Federal Register citations
concerning data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity,
flammability) for acceptable alternatives in the relevant end-uses are
available in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered
in the Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing
Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Environmental Impacts
Propane has an ODP of zero.\32\ The most commonly used substitutes
in the commercial ice machine, water cooler, and very low temperature
refrigeration end-uses also have an ODP of zero (e.g., R-404A and R-
134a). Some less common alternatives for these end-uses, such as R-
401A, R-403B, R-414A and other blends containing HCFC-22 or HCFC-
142b,\33\ have ODPs ranging from 0.01 to 0.047. Thus, propane has an
ODP lower
[[Page 86791]]
than or identical to the ODPs of other alternatives in these end-
uses.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ We assume that substitutes containing no chlorine, bromine,
or iodine have an ODP of zero.
\33\ 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.
\34\ Propane's ODP is also lower than the ODP of the ozone-
depleting substances historically used in these end-uses: CFC-12
(ODP = 1.0); HCFC-22 (ODP = 0.055); R-13B1/halon 1301 (ODP = 10) and
R-502 (ODP = 0.334).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GWP is a means of quantifying the potential integrated climate
forcing of various GHGs relative to a value of one for CO2.
Propane has a low GWP of three.\35\ For comparison, some other commonly
used acceptable refrigerants in these end-uses are R-134a and R-404A,
with GWPs of about 1,430 and 3,920, respectively. As shown in Table 2,
the GWPs for acceptable refrigerants in commercial ice machines ranges
from zero for ammonia vapor compression, ammonia absorption, and the
not-in-kind (NIK) Stirling cycle technology to approximately 3,990 for
R-507A. For water coolers, acceptable substitutes have GWPs ranging
from 31 for THR-02 to approximately 3,990 for R-507A.\36\ For very low
temperature refrigeration, the GWPs for acceptable substitutes range
from one for CO2 to 14,800 for HFC-23. Propane's GWP is
comparable to or significantly lower than those of other alternatives
in these end-uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Unless otherwise stated, GWPs stated in this document are
100-year integrated time horizon values taken from IPCC, 2007.
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
\36\ The GWPs of the ODS historically used in these end-uses
are: CFC-12 (GWP = 10,900); HCFC-22 (GWP = 1,810); R-13B1/halon
1301; (GWP = 7,140) and R-502 (GWP = 4,660).
Table 2--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Propane Compared to Other Refrigerants in New Commercial Ice Machines,
Water Coolers, and Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Equipment \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propane...................... 3 0........................ Yes.................. Acceptable,
subject to use
conditions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Ice Machines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia, HFC-134a, R-404A, R- 0-3,990 0........................ No................... Acceptable.
407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-
407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-
421A, R-421B, R-424A, R-
426A, R-437A, R-448A, R-
449A, R-450A, R-507A, R-513A.
FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON A, IKON 30-3,610 0--Not public \3\........ Yes \4\.............. Acceptable.
B, R-125/R-290 /R-134a/ R-
600a (55.0/1.0/ 42.5/1.5),
417A, R-422A, R-422B, R-
422C, R-422D, 428A, R-434A,
R-438A, RS-24 (2002
formulation), RS-44 (2003
formulation), THR-02, THR-03.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Coolers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407A, R- 0-3,990 0........................ No................... Acceptable.
407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-
417A, R-421A, R-426A, R-
437A, R-450A, R-507A, R-513A.
FOR12A, FOR-12B, IKON B, R- 30-3,090 0--Not public \3\........ Yes \4\.............. Acceptable.
125/R-290 /R-134a /R-600a
(55.0/1.0 /42.5/1.5), R-
422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-
438A, RS-24 (2002
formulation), SP34E, THR-02.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2, HFC-23, HFC-245fa, HFE- 1-14,800 0........................ No................... Acceptable.
7000, HFE-7100, HFE-7200, R-
170 (ethane), R-404A, R-
407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-
507A, R-508A, R-508B.
ISCEON 89, R-125/R-290/R-134a/ 2,530-8,500 0........................ Yes \4\.............. Acceptable.
R-600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5),
R-422B, R-422C, PFC-1102HC,
PFC-662HC, PFC-552HC, and
FLC-15.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-use.
\2\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption.
\3\ The ODP of one or more alternatives is not published here in order to avoid disclosing information that is
claimed as confidential business information.
\4\ One or more constituents of the blend are VOCs.
In assessing the overall climate impacts associated with use of
these refrigerants, we focus on the ``direct'' emissions, which are
emissions from releases of the refrigerants over the full lifecycle of
refrigerant-containing products.\37\ In contrast, ``indirect''
emissions are associated with electricity consumption. We do not have a
practice in the SNAP program of evaluating indirect impacts in the
overall risk analysis because such considerations are linked not only
to the specific alternative used but also to the design of specific
pieces of equipment and equipment design changes from year-to-year.
Thus, indirect impacts do not provide a reasonable metric for the SNAP
evaluation, which occurs at a fixed point in time and considers other
alternatives reviewed previously. Instead, our overall assessment of
climate impacts considers issues such as technical needs for energy
efficiency (e.g., to meet DOE conservation standards) as part of our
consideration of whether alternatives are ``available.'' We recognize
that the energy efficiency of any given piece of equipment is in part
affected by the choice of refrigerant and the particular thermodynamic
and thermophysical properties of that refrigerant, as well as other
factors. For example, appliances that are optimized for a specific
refrigerant will operate more efficiently. While theoretical efficiency
of any given Rankine cycle is not dependent on the refrigerant used,
the refrigerant, the design of the
[[Page 86792]]
equipment, and other factors will affect the actual energy efficiency
achieved in operation. Although we cannot know what energy efficiency
will be achieved in future products using propane, or any other
specific acceptable refrigerant, both actual equipment and testing
results suggest that equipment optimized for propane may improve energy
efficiency, and is unlikely to reduce it.38 39 40 Further,
testing data, peer-reviewed journal articles and other information
provided by the submitters for propane in these end-uses indicate that
equipment using propane is likely to require a smaller refrigerant
charge, have a higher coefficient of performance, and use less energy
than equipment currently being manufactured that uses other
refrigerants that currently are listed as acceptable under SNAP in
these end-uses. Also see section VI.A.1.f of the proposed rule (81 FR
22830) concerning the role of the DOE energy conservation standards in
ensuring that overall energy efficiency of equipment will be maintained
or improved over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ RTOC, 2015. 2014 Report of the Refrigeration, Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee. This
document is accessible at: http://ozone.unep.org/sites/ozone/files/documents/RTOC-Assessment-Report-2014.pdf.
\38\ Eppendorf, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for R-170 and R-
290 in Very Low Temperature Refrigeration. May, 2015.
\39\ Manitowoc, 2015. SNAP Information Notice, September, 2013.
EPA SNAP Submittal--Revision to Extend R-290 Use to Commercial Ice
Machines, Manitowoc Ice, Inc. October, 2015.
\40\ Blupura, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for R-290 in Water
Coolers. October, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to ODP and GWP, EPA evaluated potential impacts of
propane and other HC refrigerants on local air quality. Propane meets
the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) and
is not excluded from that definition for the purpose of developing
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). As described below, EPA
estimates that potential emissions of HCs, including propane, when used
as refrigerant substitutes in all end-uses in the refrigeration and AC
sector, have little impact on local air quality, with the exception of
unsaturated HCs such as propylene.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations.
February, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA analyzed various scenarios to consider the potential impacts on
local air quality if HC refrigerants were used widely.\42\ The analysis
considered both worst-case and more realistic scenarios. The worst-case
scenario assumed that the most reactive HC listed as acceptable
(isobutane) was used in all refrigeration and AC uses even though
isobutane has not been listed acceptable for use in all refrigeration
and AC uses, and that all refrigerant used was emitted to the
atmosphere. In that extreme scenario, the model predicted that the
maximum increase in any single 8-hour average ground-level ozone
concentration would be 0.72 parts per billion (ppb) in Los Angeles,
which is the area with the highest level of ground-level ozone
pollution in the United States. Based on this maximum projected
increase, EPA determined that the incremental VOC emissions from
refrigerant emissions would not cause any area that otherwise would
meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS to exceed it.\43\ Given the potential sources
of uncertainty in the modeling, the conservativeness of the
assumptions, and the finding that the incremental VOC emissions from
refrigerant emissions would not cause any area that otherwise would
meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS to exceed it,\44\ we believe that the use of
isobutane consistent with the use conditions required in EPA's
regulations will not result in significantly greater risk to the
environment than other alternatives. Because propane is less reactive
at forming ground-level ozone than isobutane, we reach the same
conclusion for propane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Ibid.
\43\ The analysis described here was conducted prior to
finalization of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA has not yet made ozone
attainment area designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
\44\ The analysis described here was conducted prior to
finalization of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA has not yet made ozone
attainment area designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a less conservative analysis of potential impacts on ambient
ozone levels, EPA looked at a set of end-uses that would be more likely
to use HC refrigerants between now and 2030, including end-uses where
HC refrigerants previously have been listed as acceptable and the three
end-uses addressed in this rule. For example, we assumed use of propane
in water coolers and commercial ice machines and in other end-uses
where EPA has already listed propane as acceptable, including room air
conditioners and household and retail food refrigeration equipment. We
also assumed the use of other HCs in end-uses where they are already
listed as acceptable such as isobutane in household and retail food
refrigeration equipment and R-441A in room air conditioners and
household and retail food refrigeration equipment. For further
information on the specific assumptions, see the docket for this
rulemaking.\45\ Based on this still conservative but more probable
assessment of refrigerant use, we found that there would be a worst-
case impact of a 0.15 ppb increase in ozone for a single 8-hour average
concentration in the Los Angeles area, which is the area with the
highest level of ground-level ozone in the United States.\46\ In the
other cities examined in the analysis, Houston and Atlanta, impacts
were smaller (no more than 0.03 and 0.01 ppb for a single 8-hour
average concentration, respectively).\47\ For areas in the analysis
that were not violating the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the impacts did not cause
an exceedance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We updated this analysis for the
final rule, extending the analysis to 2040 and considering just those
uses of hydrocarbon refrigerants already listed as acceptable, subject
to use conditions, and the use of propane in the end-uses in this rule.
This updated analysis found worst-case impacts for a single 8-hour
average concentration in the Los Angeles area of 0.05 ppb and worst-
case impacts of less than 0.01 ppb in Houston and Atlanta.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations.
February, 2014.
\46\ This less conservative analysis included some use of R-443A
in room AC units because that substitute was under evaluation for
that end-use. Elsewhere in this rule, we find R-443A and propylene
unacceptable in residential and light-commercial AC and heat pumps,
including room AC units. The propylene in R-443A, representing 12
percent of refrigerant emitted, was responsible for about 75 percent
of the 0.15 ppb increase in ozone in this scenario, while all uses
of propane, representing 83 percent of refrigerant emitted, was
responsible for about 21 percent of the increase of ozone in this
scenario. Thus, only 0.03 ppb of the 0.15 ppb observed in Los
Angeles would be due to propane and other acceptable HCs.
\47\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations.
February, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the relatively minimal air quality impacts of propane if
it is released to the atmosphere from commercial ice machines, water
coolers, and very low temperature refrigeration equipment even in a
worst-case scenario, we conclude that propane does not have a
significantly greater overall impact on human health and the
environment based on its effects on local air quality than other
refrigerants listed as acceptable in commercial ice machines, water
coolers, and very low temperature refrigeration equipment.
Ecosystem effects from propane, primarily effects on aquatic life,
are expected to be small as are the effects of other acceptable
substitutes. Propane is highly volatile and typically evaporates or
partitions to air, rather than contaminating surface waters, and thus
propane's effects on aquatic life are expected to be small. Propane
will pose no greater risk of aquatic or ecosystem effects than those of
other alternatives for these uses.
[[Page 86793]]
(b) Flammability
Propane is classified as an A3 refrigerant by ASHRAE Standard 34-
2013 and subsequent addenda, indicating that it has low toxicity and
high flammability. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013 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 TLV-time weighted average (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.\48\ Figure 1 in ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 15-2013 uses the same safety group but limits its
concentration to 3,400 ppm.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ ASHRAE, 2013a. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013: Designation
and Safety Classification of Refrigerants.
\49\ ASHRAE, 2013b. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15-2013: Safety
Standard for Refrigeration Systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE16.000
Propane's flammability risks are of potential concern because
commercial ice machines, water coolers, and very low temperature
refrigeration equipment have traditionally used refrigerants that are
not flammable. Without appropriate use conditions, the flammability
risk posed by propane would be higher than non-flammable refrigerants
because individuals may not be aware that their actions could
potentially cause a fire.
Because of its flammability, propane could pose a significant
safety concern for workers and consumers in the end-uses addressed in
this proposal if it is not handled correctly. In the presence of an
ignition source (e.g., static electricity spark resulting from closing
a door, use of 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. Propane's
LFL is 21,000 ppm (2.1 percent). Therefore, to use propane safely, it
is important to minimize the presence of potential ignition sources and
to reduce the likelihood that the concentration of propane will exceed
the LFL. Under the final listing decision in this action, propane is
acceptable for use only in new equipment (self-contained commercial ice
machines, water coolers, and very low temperature refrigeration
equipment) specifically designed for this refrigerant.
To determine whether flammability would be a concern for service
personnel or for consumers, EPA analyzed multiple scenarios, beginning
with a plausible worst-case scenario to model a catastrophic release of
propane. Based upon the results of those analyses, we expect there
would not be an unacceptable risk of fire or explosion provided that
the charge size is limited to 150 g for self-contained ice machines or
very low temperature refrigeration equipment or to 60 g for water
coolers. EPA also reviewed the submitters' detailed assessments of the
probability of events that might create a fire and approaches to avoid
sparking from the refrigeration equipment. Further information on these
analyses and EPA's risk assessments are available in the docket for
this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663) and in section VI.A.1.b.ii of
the proposed rule (81 FR 22827).
Service personnel or consumers may not be familiar with
refrigeration or AC
[[Page 86794]]
equipment containing a flammable refrigerant. Therefore, use conditions
are necessary to ensure people handling such equipment are aware that
equipment contains a flammable refrigerant and to ensure safe handling.
When used in accordance with the use conditions required by this rule,
and with equipment specifically designed for its use, propane's
flammability hazard is adequately mitigated and its use is not
significantly greater than that of other acceptable substitutes in
these end-uses.
(c) Toxicity
In evaluating potential toxicity impacts of propane on human health
in these end-uses, EPA considered both occupational and consumer risks.
In general when evaluating non-cancer toxicity risks of a substitute,
we use measured exposure concentrations if available, or modeled
exposure concentrations using conservative assumptions appropriate to
an end-use, and compare these exposure levels to recommended or
required exposure limits for a compound that are intended to protect
against adverse health effects. Where measured or modeled exposure
levels are below relevant exposure limits for a chemical, we consider
toxicity risks to be acceptable. Other acceptable substitutes listed
for these end-uses have been evaluated for toxicity in this manner,
including ethane for very low temperature refrigeration, ammonia for
commercial ice machines, and a number of HFC blends for all three end-
uses.
To evaluate the toxicity of propane, EPA estimated the maximum TWA
exposure both for a short-term exposure scenario, with a 30-minute TWA
exposure, and for an 8-hour TWA that would be more typical of
occupational exposure for a technician servicing the equipment or a
worker disposing of appliances. The modeling results indicate that both
the short-term (30-minute) and long-term (8-hour) worker exposure
concentrations would be below the relevant workplace exposure limits.
A similar analysis of asphyxiation risks considered whether a
worst-case release of refrigerant in the same room sizes would result
in oxygen concentrations of 12 percent or less. This analysis found
that impacts on oxygen concentrations were minimal, with oxygen
concentrations remaining at approximately 21 percent.
For equipment with which consumers might come into contact, such as
water coolers and commercial ice machines, 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, as equipment for this end-use would
typically be used in the workplace, such as in laboratories, and not in
a home or public space. The analysis was undertaken to determine the
short term (30-minute TWA) exposure levels for the substitute, which
were then compared to the toxicity limit to assess the risk to
consumers. The analysis found, even under the highly conservative
assumptions used in the consumer exposure modeling, the estimated 30-
minute consumer exposures to propane are lower than the relevant
toxicity limits.
Based upon our analysis, workplace and consumer exposure to propane
when used in these end-uses according to the use conditions is not
expected to exceed relevant exposure limits. Thus, propane does not
pose significantly greater toxicity risks than other acceptable
refrigerants in these end-uses. For further information, including
EPA's risk screens and risk assessments as well as information from the
submitters of propane as a substitute refrigerant, see docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0663 and section VI.A.1.b.iii of the proposed rule (81 FR
22827-8).
ii. What are the final use conditions?
To ensure that using propane in commercial ice machines, water
coolers, and very low temperature refrigeration equipment will not
cause greater risk to human health or the environment than other
alternatives, we have identified and are establishing use conditions to
address flammability and toxicity concerns.
Propane's flammability risks are of potential concern because
commercial ice machines, water coolers, and very low temperature
refrigeration equipment have traditionally used refrigerants that are
not flammable. Propane could pose a significant safety concern for
workers and consumers in the end-uses addressed in this action if it is
not handled correctly. In the presence of an ignition source (e.g.,
static electricity spark resulting from closing a door, use of 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. Propane's LFL is 21,000
ppm (2.1 percent). Therefore, to use propane safely, it is important to
minimize the presence of potential ignition sources and to reduce the
likelihood that the concentration of propane will exceed the LFL. We
are establishing use conditions that focus on ensuring that these risks
are addressed for both the end user and service personnel. OSHA and
building code requirements generally address flammability risks in the
workplace, and we presume that the original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs), who would be storing large quantities of the refrigerant, are
familiar with and will use proper safety precautions to minimize the
risk of explosion, consistent with those requirements. Therefore, we
are not establishing use conditions to address workplace risk, which
would be redundant of existing requirements. We are including
recommendations in the Further Information section of the SNAP listings
that these facilities be equipped with proper ventilation systems and
be properly designed to reduce possible ignition sources. See section
VI.A.1.b.ii in this action and section VI.A.1.b.ii of the proposed rule
(81 FR 22827) for additional information on the flammability risks
posed by propane. Further information on EPA's risk assessments are
available in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
We are finalizing the proposed use conditions, summarized in
section VI.A.1.b.ii.(a)-(e), with one change--we are lowering the
charge size for water coolers. In response to public comment and for
consistency with the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 399 standard, we
are finalizing a charge size of 60 g for water coolers instead of 150
g. The use conditions are consistent with industry standards, limits on
charge size, and requirements for warnings and markings on equipment.
(a) For Use in New Equipment Only; Not for Use as a Retrofit
Alternative
In the specified end-uses in this action, propane is limited to use
only in new equipment \50\ that has been designed and manufactured
specifically for use with propane. Propane was not submitted under the
SNAP program to be used in retrofitted equipment, and no information
was provided on how to mitigate hazards of flammable refrigerants when
used in equipment that was not designed for flammable refrigerants. Use
of propane in equipment not designed for its use, including existing
equipment designed for another refrigerant, is a violation of CAA
section 612(c) and the
[[Page 86795]]
corresponding SNAP regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ This is intended to mean a completely new refrigeration
circuit containing a new evaporator, condenser and refrigerant
tubing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Standards
EPA is requiring that propane 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, Supplement SA to the 8th edition of UL 563 standard,
dated July 31, 2009, applies to self-contained commercial ice machines
using flammable refrigerants.\51\ Supplement SB to the 7th edition of
UL 399, dated August 22, 2008, applies to water coolers using flammable
refrigerants.\52\ Very low temperature refrigeration equipment is
sufficiently similar to stand-alone commercial refrigerators that an
appropriate standard is Supplement SB to the 10th edition of UL 471,
dated November 24, 2010.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ UL, 2009. Standard 563--Standard for Ice Makers. A summary
of this document is accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=563.
\52\ UL, 2008. Standard 399--Standard for Drinking-Water
Coolers. A summary of this document is accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=399_7.
\53\ UL, 2010. Standard 471--Standard for Commercial
Refrigerators and Freezers. A summary of this document is accessible
at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=471_10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL has tested equipment for flammability risk in household and
retail food refrigeration and in commercial freezers for very low
temperature refrigeration. Further, UL has developed acceptable safety
standards including requirements for construction, markings, and
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 AC and
refrigeration 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), we are
relying on UL standards as those are the standards applicable to and
recognized by the U.S. market. This approach is the same as that
adopted in our previous rules on flammable refrigerants (76 FR 78832,
December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19453, April 10, 2015). EPA acknowledges that
international standards exist and believes that UL will likely
harmonize with these standards in the future. If UL plans to update
ANSI/UL399 to harmonize with IEC-60335-2-89, then referencing an IEC
standard in future actions may allow for a smoother transition.
Specifically, the international standard must adequately provide
guidelines for use conditions for all equipment types under SNAP
review, including refrigerant charge size limits, minimum room sizes
for installation, ventilation requirements, and required permanent
markings on equipment, system parts, and servicing equipment.
(c) Charge Size
EPA is requiring a charge size not to exceed 150 g in each
refrigerant circuit for self-contained commercial ice machines and very
low temperature refrigeration equipment and not to exceed 60 g in each
refrigerant circuit for water coolers.\54\ These are the charge sizes
that reflect the UL 563, UL 399, and UL 471 standards. UL Standards 563
(ice machines) and 471 (commercial stand-alone refrigeration equipment)
limit the amount of refrigerant leaked to 150 g (5.29 oz). UL 399
(water coolers) limits the amount of refrigerant leaked to 60 g (2.12
oz) discussed in paragraph (b) of this section, the UL standards are
applicable to and recognized by the U.S. market and are developed by a
consensus of experts. We note that the charge size limit for propane of
150 g in the UL standards for ice machines and commercial stand-alone
commercial refrigeration equipment is in line with the IEC 60335-2-89
standard addressing commercial ice-machines and other commercial
refrigeration equipment, which also has a charge size limit of 150 g.
These limits will reduce the risk to workers and consumers since under
scenarios we analyzed, a leak of refrigerant of these sizes did not
result in concentrations of the refrigerant that met or exceeded the
LFL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ To place this in context, a 150 g charge is about five
times the charge in a disposable lighter (30 g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Color-Coded Hoses and Piping
EPA is requiring that equipment designed for use with propane must
have distinguishing color-coded hoses and piping to indicate use of a
flammable refrigerant. This will help technicians immediately identify
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
means to identify different refrigerants. 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 propane. EPA is requiring that all such
refrigerator tubing be colored red Pantone matching system (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'' 2014, ``2014 Guideline for Assignment
of Refrigerant Container Colors.'' \55\ This requirement mirrors the
existing use condition for flammable refrigerants in residential and
commercial refrigerator-freezers, vending machines, very low
temperature refrigeration equipment, non-mechanical heat transfer
equipment, and room air conditioners (76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011;
80 FR 19453, April 10, 2015). EPA wants to ensure that there is
adequate notice that a flammable refrigerant is being used within a
particular piece of equipment or appliance. One way to mark hoses and
pipes is to add a colored plastic sleeve or cap to the service tube
rather than painting or dying the hoses or pipes. This sleeve would be
of the same red color (PMS #185) and could also be boldly marked with
the flame graphic required by the UL standards to indicate the
refrigerant was flammable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ AHRI, 2014. Guideline N-2014 for Assignment of Refrigerant
Container Colors. This document is accessible online at http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/Guidelines/AHRI_Guideline_N_2014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is particularly concerned with ensuring adequate and proper
notification for servicing and disposal of appliances containing
flammable refrigerants. The use of color-coded hoses, as well as the
use of warning labels discussed in the next paragraph, would be
consistent with other general industry practices. This approach is
consistent with the approach adopted in our previous rules on flammable
refrigerants (76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19453, April 10,
2015).
(e) Labeling
EPA is requiring labeling of self-contained commercial ice
machines, water coolers, and very low temperature refrigeration
equipment. EPA is requiring that the warning labels on the equipment
contain letters at least \1/4\ inch high and that they be permanently
affixed to the equipment. Warning label language requirements are as
follows:
(1) ``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.
[[Page 86796]]
(2) ``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.
(3) ``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.
(4) ``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.
(5) 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.
The warning label language is similar to or exactly the same as
that required in UL standards: For commercial ice machines in UL 563 in
section SB6.1, for water coolers in UL 399 in section SA6.1, and for
commercial refrigerators and freezers, including very low temperature
freezers, in UL 471 in section SB6.1.
It would be difficult to see warning labels with the minimum
lettering height requirement of \1/8\ inch in these UL standards.
Therefore, as in the requirements in our previous HC refrigerants rules
for residential and commercial refrigerator-freezers, vending machines,
very low temperature refrigeration equipment, non-mechanical heat
transfer equipment, and room air conditioners (76 FR 78832, December
20, 2011; 80 FR 19453, April 10, 2015), EPA is requiring the minimum
height for lettering must be \1/4\ inch as opposed to \1/8\ inch. This
will make it easier for technicians, consumers, retail storeowners, and
first responders to view the warning labels.
iii. What recommendations does EPA have for the safe use of propane?
In addition to establishing regulatory use conditions, which are
binding on users of this substitute, EPA is also making recommendations
for the use of this substitute. EPA is recommending that only
technicians specifically trained in handling flammable refrigerant
dispose of or service refrigeration and AC equipment containing these
substances. Trained technicians should know how to minimize the risk of
fire and the procedures for using flammable refrigerants 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 there is an ignition source nearby. For these reasons,
technicians should be properly trained to handle flammable refrigerant
when maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of water coolers,
commercial ice machines, and very low temperature freezers. In
addition, EPA recommends that if propane is vented, released, or
disposed of (rather than recovered) for these specified end-uses, the
release should be in a well-ventilated area, such as outside of a
building. Ensuring proper ventilation and avoiding ignition sources are
recommended practices, whether venting or recovering a flammable
refrigerant.
The Australian Institute of Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and
Heating (AIRAH) provides useful guidance on safety precautions
technicians can follow when servicing equipment containing flammable
refrigerants or when venting refrigerant. One of those practices is to
connect a hose to the appliance to allow for venting the refrigerant
outside.\56\ This document is included in the docket for this action
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ AIRAH, 2013. Australian Institute of Refrigeration, Air
Conditioning and Heating. Safety Guide: Flammable Refrigerants.
2013. This document is accessible at: http://www.unep.fr/ozonaction/information/mmcfiles/7681-e-FlammableRefrigerantsGuideAIRAH.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are aware that at least two organizations in the United States,
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 CAA
section 608, and will consider including additional questions on
flammable refrigerants. By adding such questions to the test bank, EPA
would supplement but not replace technician training programs currently
provided by non-government entities. EPA intends to seek additional
information and guidance on how best to incorporate this content
through a separate process outside the scope of this final rule.
iv. When will the listing apply?
EPA is establishing a listing date as of January 3, 2017, the same
as the effective date of this regulation, to allow for the safe use of
this substitute at the earliest opportunity.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
EPA received comments from organizations with various interests in
commercial refrigeration regarding the proposed listing of propane as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, in newly manufactured self-
contained commercial ice machines, water coolers, and very low
temperature refrigeration equipment. Most commenters supported the
proposed listing decision and effective date of 30 days after
publication of the rule in the Federal Register. Other commenters
addressed the environmental impacts of the proposed listing of propane,
the proposed use conditions, training for technicians handling
flammable refrigerants, and industry codes and standards.
Commenters included Filtrine Manufacturing Company (Filtrine), a
manufacturer of drinking fountains, water coolers, and drinking water
filtration equipment; the Flexible Packaging Association (FPA);
Chemours, a chemical producer; the National Environmental Development
Association's Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP), an organization
representing manufacturers of a variety of refrigeration and AC
equipment among others; and UL, a safety consulting and certification
company.
We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
i. Substitute and End-Uses Proposed
Comment: Filtrine supported the listing of propane in water
coolers. Filtrine noted that water cooler units using propane perform
as efficiently or more efficiently than other commonly used HFC
refrigerants, such as R-134a.
Response: EPA appreciates the comments supporting the decision to
list propane as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in commercial
ice machines, water coolers, and very low temperature refrigeration
equipment. EPA agrees that HCs are already being safely and
successfully used in such types of equipment around the world. New
designs, along with components and technology will help optimize the
performance of these systems, thus improving their efficiency.
[[Page 86797]]
ii. SNAP Review Criteria
Comment: FPA commented on the safety concerns regarding the use of
a flammable VOC in the three end-uses and expressed the need for
technician certification requirements for the use of propane in these
equipment. FPA is concerned that the flammability of propane in the
workplace will pose both worker safety risks as well as potential
environmental hazards. FPA suggested that EPA further assess the safety
and health risks of using propane in new uses, and also in existing
uses.
Response: EPA evaluated the flammability risks of propane in these
three end-uses in the risk screens included in the docket for this
rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663). 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 propane in commercial ice machines, water coolers, and very
low temperature refrigeration equipment resulted in concentrations far
below the LFL of 21,000 ppm, showing a lack of flammability risk when
charge sizes at or below those established in the use conditions are
used. Regarding technician certification requirements for the handling
of flammable refrigerants, EPA notes that in recent years, training
programs on flammable refrigerants have been developed and are
currently available in the United States. The Agency intends to update
the test bank for technician certification under CAA section 608 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 the scope of this final rule.
Comment: NEDA/CAP commented that propane is a VOC and that under
worst-case scenarios, the use of propane in new refrigeration and
cooling equipment could create an issue for local air pollution control
authorities in severe and extreme ozone nonattainment areas. The
commenter noted that any VOC (with any reactivity) must be reported to
state/local/tribal and federal CAA regulators in biennial emissions
inventories and annual permit reports under CAA Titles I and V,
respectively. NEDA/CAP suggested that EPA's proposal will trigger a
domino effect that will impact state/local and tribal air permitting
authorities which will require immediate planning (and, potentially,
permitting) problems with the potential to snowball with each proposed
new and existing use for which propane is added. FPA also claims that
use of propane could interfere with NAAQS attainment.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that under worst-case
scenarios, the use of propane in new refrigeration and cooling
equipment could create an issue for local air pollution control
authorities in severe and extreme ozone nonattainment areas. The worst-
case scenario modeled by EPA was based on use of isobutane in all
refrigeration equipment, even though its use has not been approved in
all refrigeration equipment. Isobutane is a more reactive VOC than is
propane. While that worst-case scenario did indicate an increase up to
0.72 ppb in Los Angeles area, EPA determined that it did not accurately
depict the risk of the use of propane in a limited subset of
refrigeration equipment. Therefore, EPA evaluated a scenario where
propane and three other HC refrigerants were used in a number of end-
uses where industry submitters had proposed their use, including those
in this rule; in end-uses where EPA had already listed them as
acceptable, subject to use condition; or in industries where a UL
standard might allow for their use in the future. This scenario
considers most end-uses that EPA is likely to address in the next few
years. In this scenario, we found the worst-case change in ground-level
ozone concentration was 0.15 ppb in 2030 (ICF, 2014a) and 0.44 ppb in
2040 (ICF, 2016l). EPA also examined a scenario that considered only
the HC refrigerants being listed as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, in this action or previously listed as acceptable, subject
to use conditions. This analysis found worst-case impacts of 0.05 ppb
in Los Angeles and less than 0.01 ppb in Houston or in Atlanta in 2040.
This modeling contained conservative assumptions, such as the
assumption that all refrigerant would be released to the environment
and the assumption that no refrigerants other than hydrocarbons would
be used in these end-uses. When modeling decades into the future, there
are many sources of uncertainty that are likely greater in magnitude
than the modeled increase in ozone concentrations (e.g., changes in the
market, impacts on cloud cover due to climate change). In this analysis
that corresponds to the end-uses listed in this rule and previous
acceptable listings, the modeled incremental ground-level ozone
concentrations are so low that they are difficult to separate from the
impact of all other emissions. Given the conservativeness of the
assumptions, the potential sources of uncertainty in the modeling, and
the small magnitude of these modeled increases, we consider it highly
likely that state and local agencies will be able to meet air quality
goals without extensive or repeated new planning.
iii. Use Conditions
Comment: UL suggested that EPA appears to be proposing changes that
are outside of, but will have a direct impact on, industry voluntary
consensus standards such as those published by UL. They asserted that
the proposed rule contrasts with the requirements previously developed
and recommended by the Joint Task Group that UL tasked with developing
a common technical basis for addressing the safety of flammable
refrigerants in various UL standards. UL recommended that EPA work
within the framework of the established voluntary consensus standards
process for revising and updating safety standards for the
refrigeration and AC sector.
Response: With one exception, the use conditions established for
propane in the three end-uses are consistent with the UL standards. The
one use condition that differs is the condition requiring a larger
print size for the warning labels. This approach is consistent with the
use conditions EPA has established for use of flammable refrigerants in
a variety of refrigeration end uses. EPA believes it is necessary to
require a larger print size because it would be difficult to see
warning labels with the minimum lettering height requirement of \1/8\
inch in the UL standards. To the extent practicable, EPA attempts to
rely upon the established voluntary consensus standards process.
Comment: UL noted that EPA misunderstood the charge limit size in
the Standard for Safety for Drinking Water Coolers, ANSI/UL 399,
covering drinking water coolers using propane as a refrigerant. In
accordance with ANSI/UL 399, Supplement SB, Paragraph SB3.2(b), the
charge limit is 2.0 oz. (60 g) for refrigerants having an ASHRAE Class
3 flammability classification. UL commented that the proposed rule
specified that the charge limit was 150g (5.29 oz).
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that the charge size in the
proposed rule for drinking water coolers was not consistent with the
charge limit size in the Standard for Safety for Drinking Water
Coolers, ANSI/UL 399. In that standard the charge size limit is
[[Page 86798]]
currently set to 60 g. Based upon EPA's risk screen prepared for the
proposed rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663-0022), a worst-case release of an
entire charge of 150 g of propane could result in exceeding the LFL in
a small room, as in a small residential kitchen, while release of a
charge of 60 g or propane, as per the UL standard, would not result in
exceeding the LFL. In that risk screen, we analyzed larger charge sizes
of up to 150 g only in the context of use in spaces such as commercial
kitchens that are likely to be larger and have better ventilation than
in a home; however, EPA cannot guarantee that equipment with larger
charge sizes would be used in larger spaces, and 60 g is protective for
all spaces in which this type of equipment may be used. EPA's intention
was to reference the charge limit in ANSI/UL 399 and EPA is finalizing
a charge limit of 60 g for water coolers consistent with ANSI/UL 399.
Comment: UL noted that EPA proposed that a ``colored plastic sleeve
or cap'' be secured to the service tube. The sleeve would be boldly
marked with a graphic to indicate that the refrigeration circuit is
flammable. UL suggested that the Agency provide more information
describing the securement means of the sleeve or cap to the service
tube so that it will not likely be removed (or broken off) for other
than a servicing operation. Additionally, they suggested EPA provide a
more thorough description of the flammable refrigerant ``graphic'' that
is required to be located on the sleeve or cap is necessary.
Response: The discussion of a ``colored plastic sleeve or cap'' was
not a use condition, but rather an additional suggestion on how the use
condition for colored markings on tubing could be implemented. An
example of a sleeve would be a loop of plastic that completely wraps
around the tube or hose at any service port 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. The
flammable refrigerant graphic referred to is the flame graphic already
required by UL standards.
Comment: UL noted that Clause 7.5.1.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 15-2013 does
not permit refrigerated products using refrigerants other than those
having a flammability classification of A1 or B1 (i.e., nonflammable
refrigerants) to be installed in public corridors and lobbies. Many ice
machines and drinking water coolers are currently installed in the
hallways and lobbies of hotels and other commercial establishments.
This installation requirement in Clause 7.5.1.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 15 may
make it difficult for ice machines and drinking water cooler
manufacturers to transition to propane as a refrigerant.
Response: Our listing of propane as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, in self-contained ice machines and drinking water coolers
does not negate the need to comply with other requirements. Thus, other
requirements might prevent individual end users from choosing equipment
that uses propane. EPA understands that the ANSI/ASHRAE 15-2013 is
currently being reviewed and thus it is possible that in the future
additional refrigerant classifications may be permitted in the areas UL
noted as currently limited to A1 or B1 (nonflammable) refrigerants.
Industry organizations and the U.S. government are performing
additional research on flammable refrigerants with a goal of providing
the results to inform and revise ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15-2013 and other
standards as soon as possible, subject to ANSI's consensus process.\57\
For more information on ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013 and the difference
between flammability classes of refrigerants, see section VI.A.3.a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ AHRI, ASHRAE, DOE Partner to Fund Flammable Refrigerant
Research. http://www.ahrinet.org/News-Events/News-and-Shipping-Releases.aspx?A=1170. June 2, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Chemours supported the listing of propane as acceptable,
subject to use conditions, for commercial ice machines, water coolers,
and very low temperature refrigeration equipment provided safe handling
practices for flammable refrigerants are incorporated into those use
conditions, including, but not limited to technician training, venting
prohibitions, and a prohibition of topping off systems with
refrigerants different from the original refrigerant. NEDA/CAP also
commented on the importance of technician training requirements and
certifications for technicians that service propane-filled equipment
before finalizing the proposed listing. They stated that although other
flammable refrigerant blends have been approved since 2014, EPA
proposed to require propane in larger volumes. They stated that as EPA
moves toward allowing use of propane in larger new equipment, the
technician requirements for inspecting this equipment, leak repair and
prevention, and recharging or emptying equipment properly must be in
place. Similarly, FPA suggested that EPA address technician training
requirements for propane before finalizing the proposed listing.
Response: Regarding training needs due to the handling of flammable
refrigerants, EPA agrees with the commenter on the importance of such
technician training, but does not agree that the training needs to be
mandated. The refrigeration industry has been proactive in assuring
that technicians are properly trained and, in recent years, a number of
training programs on flammable refrigerants have been developed and are
currently available in the United States that cover the topics
suggested by the commenters. Also, millions of similar appliances
around the world have been using HCs over decades with few reported
incidents, even with charge sizes of 150 g in some cases. The charge
limit of 150 g for self-contained commercial ice machines and very low
temperature refrigeration equipment is the same as the charge limit EPA
previously set for propane, isobutane, and R-441A in retail food
refrigeration-stand-alone units and vending machines and for ethane in
very low temperature refrigeration equipment and the charge limit of 60
g for water coolers is close to the 57 g charge limit EPA requires for
propane, isobutane, and R-441A in household refrigerators and freezers.
Concerning venting prohibitions, see section VI.A.2.c. Concerning
Chemours' suggestion to prohibit topping off systems with refrigerants
different from the original refrigerant, we proposed that propane may
only be used in new equipment designed for use with that refrigerant;
we did not propose its use as a retrofit refrigerant. Thus, the use
condition prohibits its use to ``top off'' a system designed for a
different refrigerant. If the commenter's concern is that technicians
may add a different refrigerant on top of propane already present in
equipment designed for propane, we agree that ``topping off'' with a
different refrigerant is inappropriate for any refrigerant. The SNAP
regulations for this end-use do not currently address this issue; we
will consider whether to propose such a revision in a future
rulemaking, and not just for propane.
2. Exemption for Propane From the Venting Prohibition Under CAA Section
608 for Specific End-Uses in the New SNAP Listing
a. Background
Under section 608(c) of the CAA, it is unlawful for any person, in
the course of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an
appliance to knowingly vent or otherwise knowingly release any ODS or
substitute refrigerant into the environment. The Administrator may
[[Page 86799]]
exempt refrigerant substitutes from this general prohibition if she or
he determines under section 608(c)(2) that venting, releasing, or
disposing of such substance does not pose a threat to the environment.
For purposes of CAA section 608(c)(2), EPA considers two factors in
determining whether or not venting, release, or disposal of a
refrigerant substitute during the maintenance, servicing, repairing, or
disposal of appliances poses a threat to the environment. See 69 FR
11948, March 12, 2004; 79 FR 29682, May 23, 2014; and 80 FR 19453,
April 10, 2015. 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 it determines such releases are adequately controlled by
other authorities, EPA generally defers to those authorities.
b. What is EPA's final decision?
EPA has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of propane in
the three specific end-uses in this action, as well as the authorities,
controls, and practices in place for that substitute. EPA also
considered the public comments on the proposal for this action. Based
on this review, EPA concludes that propane 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 propane 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
propane in these end-uses during the maintenance, servicing, repairing,
or disposing of the relevant appliances does not pose a threat to the
environment.
EPA is therefore exempting from the venting prohibition at 40 CFR
82.154(a)(1) these additional end-uses for which propane is being
listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, under the SNAP
program.
i. Inherent Characteristics of Propane
EPA evaluated the potential environmental impacts of releasing into
the environment propane in water coolers, self-contained commercial ice
machines, and very low temperature refrigeration equipment. In
particular, we assessed the potential impact of the release of propane
on local air quality and its ability to decompose in the atmosphere,
its ODP, its GWP, and its potential impacts on ecosystems. EPA also
considered propane's flammability and toxicity risks from the end-uses
addressed in this rule.
As discussed previously, propane has an ODP of zero and a GWP of
three and its effects on aquatic life are expected to be small. As to
potential effects on local air quality, propane meets the definition of
VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) and is not excluded
from that definition for the purpose of developing SIPs to attain and
maintain the NAAQS. Based on the analysis and modeling results
described in section VI.A.1.b.i, EPA concludes that the release of
propane from the end-uses in this action, in addition to the HCs
previously listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for their
specific end-uses, is expected to have little impact on local air
quality. In this regard, EPA finds particularly noteworthy that even
assuming 100 percent market penetration of propane and the other
acceptable HCs in the acceptable end-uses, which is a conservative
assumption, the highest impact for a single 8-hour average ozone
concentration based on this analysis would be 0.05 ppb in Los Angeles
compared to both the 2008 ozone NAAQS at 75 ppb and the new, more
stringent NAAQS at 70 ppb.
In addition, when examining all HC 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 action, we found that even if all the HC
refrigerant substitutes in appliances in end-uses listed acceptable,
subject to use conditions in this action and listed as acceptable in
previous rules 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.\58\ The use conditions established in the SNAP listings limit the
total amount of propane in each refrigerant circuit to 60 g or less or
150 g or less, depending on the end-use. Because propane is not listed
as acceptable for use in all refrigerant uses, the total amount of
propane that could be emitted in the end-uses evaluated is estimated at
roughly ten percent of total refrigerant emissions, or less than 16,000
metric tons annually.\59\ Further, there are other substitute
refrigerants that are not VOC that may also be used in these end-uses,
so our analysis assuming complete market penetration of HCs is
conservative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations.
February, 2014.
\59\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of its evaluation of potential environmental impacts, EPA
concludes that propane in the end-uses for which it is listed under
SNAP as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in this action is not
expected to pose a threat to the environment on the basis of the
inherent characteristics of this substance and the limited quantities
used in the relevant end-uses. In this regard, EPA finds particularly
noteworthy that even assuming 100 percent market penetration of propane
and the other acceptable HCs in the end-uses where they are listed as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, which is a conservative
assumption, the highest impact for a single 8-hour average ozone
concentration based on this analysis would be 0.05 ppb in Los Angeles
and less than 0.01 ppb in Houston and Atlanta.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ ICF, 2016l. Additional Follow-on Assessment of the
Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone
Concentrations. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Limits and Controls Under Other Authorities, Regulations, or
Practices
EPA expects that existing authorities, controls, and/or practices
will mitigate environmental risk from the release of propane. Analyses
performed for both this rule and prior rules (59 FR 13044, March 17,
1994; 76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 79 FR 29682, May 23, 2014; and 80
FR 19453, April 10, 2015) indicate that existing regulatory
requirements and industry practices limit and control the emission of
propane, or other hydrocarbons, when used as a refrigerant in end-uses
similar to this action. EPA notes that other applicable environmental
regulatory requirements still apply and are not affected by the
determination made in this action. This conclusion is relevant to the
second factor mentioned above in the overall determination of whether
venting, release, or disposal of a refrigerant substitute poses a
threat to the environment.
Propane and other HCs being recovered, vented, released, or
otherwise disposed of from commercial
[[Page 86800]]
and industrial appliances are likely to be hazardous waste under RCRA
(see 40 CFR parts 261 through 270). As discussed in the final rules
addressing the venting of ethane, isobutane, propane, and R-441A as
refrigerant substitutes in certain end-uses, incidental releases may
occur during the maintenance, service, and repair of appliances subject
to CAA section 608. Such incidental releases would not 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 or venting of propane from household appliances
used in the home, such as a water cooler, is also generally not
considered disposal of a hazardous waste under the existing RCRA
regulations and could be vented under the household hazardous waste
exemption, assuming other state or local requirements do not prohibit
venting. See 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1). However, for commercial and industrial
appliances such as self-contained commercial ice machines, very low
temperature refrigeration equipment, or water coolers used in an
industrial or office setting, it is likely that propane and other
flammable HC refrigerant substitutes would be classified as hazardous
waste and disposal of propane from such appliances would need to be
managed as hazardous waste under the RCRA regulations (40 CFR parts 261
through 270), unless it is subject to a limited exception in those
regulations 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)). In most cases, recycling of these
materials would require cleaning (i.e., reclamation) before they are
reused.
As discussed in section VI.A.1.b.ii of this action and sections
VI.A.1.b.ii and VI.A.1.b.iii of the proposed rule (81 FR 22827; April
18, 2016), EPA's SNAP program evaluated the flammability and toxicity
risks from propane in the end-uses in this rule. Propane is classified
as an A3 refrigerant by ASHRAE Standard 34-2013 and subsequent addenda,
indicating that it has low toxicity and high flammability (for a
further discussion on ASHRAE safety categories, see section
VI.A.1.b.i.(b). Propane has an LFL of 2.1 percent. In addition, like
most refrigerants, HCs at high concentrations can displace oxygen and
cause asphyxiation.
To address flammability risks, this action establishes required use
conditions and provides voluntary recommendations for its safe use (see
section VI.A.1.b.iii). This SNAP listing limits the amount of propane
in the refrigerant loop to 150 g in self-contained commercial ice
machines and in very low temperature refrigeration equipment and 60 g
in water coolers. These charge size limits also reflect the UL 563, UL
399, and UL 471 industry standards, as discussed in the previous
section. These use conditions mean that any potential propane emissions
from any individual appliance will therefore be small. HC emissions
from the three specific end-uses in this rule would be significantly
smaller than those emanating from IPR systems, which are controlled by
OSHA for safety reasons. Furthermore, it is the Agency's understanding
that flammability risks and occupational exposures to HCs are
adequately regulated by OSHA and building and fire codes at a local and
national level.
The release and/or disposal of propane is also controlled by
authorities established by OSHA and NIOSH guidelines, various industry
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, these practices and controls for the use of propane are
sufficiently protective. These practices and controls mitigate the risk
to the environment that may be posed by the venting, release, or
disposal of propane during the maintaining, servicing, repairing, or
disposing of self-contained commercial ice machines, very low
temperature refrigeration equipment, and water coolers.
EPA is aware of equipment that can be used to recover HC
refrigerants. To the extent that propane is 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. See section
VI.A.1.b.iii for further discussion.
d. When does the exemption from the venting prohibition apply?
In the provision establishing the exemption from the venting
prohibition, EPA is also establishing that the exemption will apply as
of January 3, 2017, the same as the effective date of the SNAP listing
of propane in commercial ice machines, water coolers, and very low
temperature refrigeration equipment.
e. How is EPA responding to comments?
EPA received comments from organizations and individuals with
various interests in the refrigeration industry on the proposal to
exempt propane in water coolers, commercial ice machines, and very low
temperature freezers from the venting prohibition under section 608.
Commenters included the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy
(the Alliance), an industry organization; Chemours and Honeywell, two
chemical producers; Hudson Technologies Company (Hudson), a refrigerant
reclaimer; NEDA/CAP, an organization representing manufacturers of a
variety of refrigeration and AC equipment; and an anonymous citizen.
We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
Comment: Honeywell commented that it does not object to the
proposal to exempt propane from the venting prohibition. However,
Honeywell urged EPA to consider exempting HFOs in certain end-uses
(HFO-1234yf in MVAC systems; HFO-1234ze(E) in centrifugal,
reciprocating, screw, and scroll chillers; and HFO-1233zd(E) in
centrifugal chillers) based on their zero ODP, low-GWP, and low-VOC
reactivity.
Response: EPA interprets this comment as support for exempting
propane in the three end-uses described in this rule from the venting
prohibition. With regard to exempting certain HFOs in certain end-uses,
the Agency takes this comment under advisement and may consider at some
later date analyzing whether the release of these refrigerants poses a
threat to the environment when vented, released, or disposed of, but
has not done so for this rulemaking and thus is not taking final action
on the commenter's suggested exemption.
Comment: The Alliance, Hudson, Chemours, and Arkema commented that
EPA should not exempt propane from the venting prohibition. A primary
concern of the Alliance and Hudson Technologies is that refrigerants
should be properly managed. The Alliance was concerned that separate
servicing practices for propane could cause confusion and lead to
inadvertent venting of HFCs. The Alliance requested that EPA explain
why propane should
[[Page 86801]]
be treated differently from all other fluids. Hudson commented that the
intentional venting of any product to the atmosphere is poor
environmental policy, poor service practice and poor product
stewardship and was concerned that exempting propane perpetuates the
destructive practice of increasing new production to replace vented
refrigerant. Arkema stated that they believe that EPA's 608 regulations
foster sustainability and good product stewardship, aside from reducing
risk from SNAP substances. They indicated, however, that exemptions
from the venting prohibition for propane or other HCs can foster only
waste and consumption.
Response: EPA agrees that all refrigerants and refrigerant
substitutes should be properly managed. However, EPA disagrees that
proper management necessarily includes recovery in all cases. The
refrigerant management practices in subpart F, including recovery, were
designed with the properties of fluorinated refrigerants in mind.
Requiring the recovery of refrigerants like water or nitrogen would
provide no environmental benefit. For ammonia or chlorine, other
regulations address the risks related to those specific compounds (for
example, OSHA regulations that address risk to technician safety).
Based on the analysis discussed previously, EPA has determined that
venting, releasing, or disposing of propane in the end-uses in this
rule does not pose a threat to the environment. The venting of propane
in certain end-uses may also be the safest option in some situations,
considering that such refrigerants are flammable but most existing
recovery equipment is not designed and constructed for use with
flammable refrigerants (e.g., with spark-proof components). Although it
is true that the venting of propane allowed under the exemption may
result in some additional waste and consumption, this is still
preferable to unsafe recovery practices. Therefore, it is appropriate
to treat propane differently from other refrigerant substitutes. EPA
has also previously exempted propane from the venting prohibition when
used in other specific end-uses, so this action is consistent with
prior actions taken by EPA.
EPA can minimize confusion about whether the refrigerant may or may
not be vented and can also make technicians and the public aware of the
flammability of a refrigerant through the use of red coloration for
hoses and labeling use conditions so that they can take appropriate
precautions. Together these markings clearly distinguish an appliance
containing propane or other HC refrigerants which may be vented, from
HFCs or other refrigerants that may not.
Comment: Hudson commented that EPA has been inconsistent in relying
on the lack of recovery equipment designed for recovering HCs as a
rationale for exempting flammable refrigerants. Despite past concern
about the lack of such equipment, EPA has not exempted HFC-32 or HFO-
1234yf, both flammable refrigerants, from the venting prohibition.
Response: The Agency has discretion to determine whether to
establish an exemption from the venting prohibition under CAA section
608(c)(2). To make that determination, the Agency analyzes individual
refrigerant substitutes, typically in discrete end-uses, to determine
whether the venting, releasing, or disposal of that refrigerant
substitute from those end-uses will pose a threat to the environment.
For this rulemaking, EPA has analyzed the potential environmental
threats from venting, releasing, or disposing propane from three end-
uses. EPA has provided its justification for allowing the venting of
propane from these three end-uses in this action. EPA did not propose
to exempt HFOs, such as HFO-1234yf, or HFC-32 from the venting
prohibition in this action and thus did not analyze whether the
venting, release, or disposal of those substances would pose a threat
to the environment for this rule. Though these refrigerants may share
the characteristic of flammability with propane, they have other
physical characteristics and end-uses than propane. Moreover, the mere
fact that the Agency has analyzed some flammable HC refrigerants in
some specific end-uses and made the necessary determination to exempt
those substances in those end-uses from the venting prohibition does
not necessarily mean that such a determination would be appropriate for
all flammable HC refrigerant substitutes in all end-uses.
Comment: Hudson commented that propane's low GWP, and the small
refrigerant charges involved with the approved uses, does not justify
different treatment for this refrigerant, or for any of the previously
approved and exempted flammable refrigerants.
Response: The Agency disagrees that these characteristics do not
justify different treatment for this refrigerant. GWP, ODP, and total
possible usage are some of the characteristics appropriate to consider
in determining whether the release of propane from these three end-uses
poses a threat to the environment.
Comment: The Alliance commented that the appropriateness of waiving
the venting prohibition for propane requires ongoing consideration and
examination, particularly as applications for flammable refrigerants
are expanded and charge sizes increase.
Response: EPA analyzes individual refrigerant substitutes,
typically in discrete end-uses, to determine whether the venting,
releasing, or disposal of those substances in those end-uses will pose
a threat to the environment. The exemption that EPA is establishing
today applies only to propane and only in three discrete end-uses that
are subject to use conditions, including restrictions on charge size.
Before establishing an exemption for propane in any other end-uses, EPA
would analyze whether the venting, release, or disposal of propane in
that end-use would pose a threat to the environment.
Comment: An anonymous commenter noted that due to inconsistencies
among overlapping regulations, there is confusion in the regulated
community regarding releases of refrigerants which are hazardous wastes
but are exempt from the prohibition on venting. The commenter further
notes that this issue is not addressed within the regulation itself,
which is the information source most of the regulated community will
reference routinely in the future. The commenter provided sample
language to be added to 82.154(a) to clarify that the exemption from
the prohibition on venting provided in 40 CFR part 82, subpart F does
not exempt the release of the listed refrigerants and substitutes from
other applicable laws and regulations which may prohibit or limit
releases into the environment.
Response: One of the criteria EPA considers in determining whether
a refrigerant poses a threat to the environment when released is
whether such releases are controlled by other authorities, regulations,
or practices. For example, HC refrigerant substitutes may be subject to
restrictions under RCRA and ammonia may be subject to restrictions
under OSHA regulations, and when those RCRA or OSHA requirements apply,
they would disallow the release of these respective substances into the
environment. EPA is finalizing regulatory text in 82.154(a) that
clarifies that the exemption to the venting prohibition is specific to
the prohibition under section 608(c).
f. Conclusion
EPA has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of propane in
the three specific end-uses in this action, as well as the authorities,
controls, and practices in place for that substitute. EPA also
considered the public comments on the proposal for
[[Page 86802]]
this action. Based on this review, EPA concludes that propane 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 propane 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
propane in these end-uses during the maintenance, servicing, repairing,
or disposing of the relevant appliances does not pose a threat to the
environment.
EPA is therefore exempting from the venting prohibition at 40 CFR
82.154(a)(1) these additional end-uses for which these HCs are being
listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, under the SNAP
program.
3. Unacceptable Listing of Certain Flammable Refrigerants for Retrofits
in Unitary Split AC Systems and Heat Pumps
a. Background
Existing unitary split AC systems and heat pumps were not designed
to use a flammable refrigerant. People and property have been harmed by
the retrofit or so-called `drop-in' use of certain flammable
refrigerants in existing unitary split AC and heat pump equipment
designed to use a nonflammable refrigerant. For new room AC equipment,
we have listed certain flammable refrigerants as acceptable on the
basis that flammability risks can be addressed in designing the
equipment and mitigated through use conditions. In contrast, existing
equipment has not been designed for flammable refrigerants and we have
not identified appropriate use conditions that can manage the
flammability risk for retrofits such that these flammable refrigerants
would pose similar or lower risk than other available refrigerants in
this end-use.
i. What is the affected end-use?
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. This rule specifically concerns
unitary split AC systems and heat pumps, commonly called central AC.
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. Unitary split heat
pumps are similar but offer the choice to either heat or cool the
indoor space. This action applies to certain flammable refrigerants for
retrofit use in this type of equipment.
ii. What other types of equipment are used for similar applications
pumps but are not covered by this section of the rule?
The unacceptability determination for certain flammable
refrigerants in this action does not apply to other types of
residential and light commercial AC and heat pump equipment, but may do
so in the future. Other types of residential and light commercial AC
and heat pump equipment not included in this unacceptability
determination include:
Multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps;
Mini-split air conditioners and heat pumps;
Packaged outdoor air conditioners and heat pumps;
Window air conditioners and heat pumps;
Packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and packaged
terminal heat pumps (PTHP); and
Portable room air conditioners and heat pumps.
For a description of these types of equipment, see section
VI.A.3.a.i in the proposed rule (81 FR 22833; April 18, 2016).
b. What is EPA's final decision?
As proposed, EPA is listing the following flammable refrigerants as
unacceptable for retrofits in unitary split AC systems and heat pumps:
All refrigerants identified as flammability Class 3 in
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013. These include the HCs R-1150 (ethylene),
R-170 (ethane), R-1270 (propylene), R-290 (propane), R-50 (methane), R-
600 (n-butane), R-600a (isobutane), R-601 (n-pentane), and R-601a
(isopentane); the HC blends R-433A, R-433B, R-433C, R-436A, R-436B, R-
441A, and R-443A; and the refrigerant blends R-429A, R-430A, R-431A, R-
432A, R-435A, and R-511A. All of these refrigerants except R-435A
contain HCs, with some also containing the flammable compounds dimethyl
ether and HFC-152a.
All refrigerants meeting the criteria for flammability
Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013. These include, but are not
limited to, refrigerant products sold under the names R-22a, 22a, Blue
Sky 22a refrigerant, Coolant Express 22a, DURACOOL-22a, EC-22,
Ecofreeez EF-22a, Envirosafe 22a, ES-22a, Frost 22a, HC-22a, Maxi-
Fridge, MX-22a, Oz-Chill 22a, Priority Cool, and RED TEK 22a.
For background on the flammability classes and their criteria in
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013, see section VI.A.1.b.i.(b).
EPA is aware of a number of situations where companies have sold
highly flammable refrigerants for use in residential AC that have not
been submitted to SNAP for review. EPA has conducted enforcement
actions against companies that have sold such substitutes in violation
of EPA's regulations. EPA is also aware of multiple instances where
people and property using one of the numerous refrigerants marketed as
``22a'' in a residential AC system were harmed in explosions and fires,
in part because the person servicing the AC system was not aware that
the system contained a highly flammable refrigerant. Considering this
demonstration of the flammability risks of retrofitting residential AC
systems as well as the lack of risk mitigation available for existing
equipment (e.g., charge limits or design for reduced leakage), EPA is
listing R-22a, 22a, and other similar liquified petroleum gases as
unacceptable, as well as refrigerants with a flammability
classification of 3 in ASHRAE 34-2013 or that meet the criteria for
such classification, including R-22a, 22a, and other similar liquified
petroleum gases, as unacceptable in this end use.
In addition to refrigerants specifically identified in the ASHRAE
34-2013 standard as having a flammability classification of 3, EPA is
listing refrigerants meeting the criteria of that standard as
unacceptable. In other words, refrigerants are unacceptable if they
exhibit flame propagation and 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, when tested in accordance with ASTM E681 using a spark ignition
source at 60 [deg]C and 101.3 kPa. Thus, refrigerants identified with a
flammability classification of 3 in future editions of ASHRAE 34 would
also be unacceptable if they meet those criteria. We are aware of a
number of refrigerant products sold over the internet aimed at the
market for retrofit usage in refrigeration and AC equipment using HCFC-
22 with names
[[Page 86803]]
containing ``22a,'' such as R-22a, Blue Sky 22a refrigerant, Coolant
Express 22a, DURACOOL-22a, EC-22, Ecofreeez EF-22a, Envirosafe 22a, ES-
22a, Frost 22a, HC-22a, Maxi-Fridge, MX-22a, Oz-Chill 22a, and RED TEK
22a. EPA has analyzed one of these refrigerants and determined that it
contained propane mixed with a pine-scented odorant. These refrigerants
are also identified as flammable in their Safety Data Sheets and are
often identified as ``liquified petroleum gases.'' Although none of
these liquified petroleum gas refrigerants have been submitted to SNAP
for review, EPA expects that they all are comparable in their
flammability to propane and other refrigerants that meet an ASHRAE
flammability classification of 3. It is our understanding these
refrigerants are all of the same or similar composition, are produced
by a limited number of facilities using the same process, and then are
marketed under different names by different distributors.
i. How do these unacceptable refrigerants compare to other refrigerants
for these end-uses with respect to SNAP criteria?
EPA has listed a number of alternatives as acceptable for retrofit
usage in unitary split AC systems and heat pumps. All of the listed
alternatives are HFC blends, with some containing small percentages
(approximately five percent or less) of HCs. Specific blends include R-
125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5),
R-404A, R-407C, R-407F, R-417A, R-417C, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D,
R-424A, R-427A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS-44 (2003 composition).
These blends are all non-ozone-depleting. As shown in Table 3, they
have GWPs ranging from approximately 1,770 for R-407C to 3,990 for R-
507A. Knowingly venting or releasing these refrigerants is prohibited
under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).
The HFC components of these refrigerant blends are excluded 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,
while the HC components are VOC.
Table 3--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Refrigerants Listed as Flammability Class 3 or Meeting the Criteria for
Flammability Class 3 Compared to Other Refrigerants Listed as Acceptable for Retrofit in Existing Equipment for
Residential and Light Commercial AC
[Unitary split AC systems and heat pumps] \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All refrigerants identified as 2-120 0.................. Yes \3\........... Unacceptable.
flammability Class 3 in ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 34-2013.
All refrigerants meeting the 2-120 0.................. Yes \3\........... Unacceptable.
criteria for flammability
Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 34-2013, including,
but not limited to the
products named R-22a, 22a,
Blue Sky22a refrigerant,
Coolant Express 22a, DURACOOL-
22a, EC-22, Ecofreeez EF-22a,
Envirosafe 22a, ES-22a, Frost
22a, HC-22a, Maxi-Fridge, MX-
22a, OZ-Chill 22a, Priority
Cool, and RED TEK22a.
R-404A, R-407A, R-407C, R-407F, 1,770-3,990 0.................. No................ Acceptable.
R-421A, R-427A, R-507A.
Hot Shot 2, R-125/R-134a/R-600a 1,810-3,390 0.................. Yes \4\........... Acceptable.
(28.1/70.0/1.9), R-125/R-290/R-
134a/R-600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/
1.5), R-417A, R-422B, R-422C,
R-422D, R-424A, R-427A, R-
434A, R-437A, R-438A, RS-44
(2003 formulation)..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-use.
\2\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption.
\3\ The entire refrigerant or most of the constituents are VOC.
\4\ One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC.
In the proposed rule (81 FR 22835; April 18, 2016), EPA provided
information on the risk to human health and the environment presented
by the alternatives that are being found unacceptable as compared with
other available alternatives listed as acceptable for this end-use. In
addition, a technical support document \61\ that provides the Federal
Register citations concerning data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP,
GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for acceptable alternatives in the
relevant end-uses may be found in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2015-0663). In summary, both the currently acceptable
refrigerants and those we are listing as unacceptable in this action
are non-ozone depleting. The refrigerants being listed as unacceptable
would result in higher VOC emissions than the acceptable refrigerants,
with the saturated HCs (e.g., propane, isobutane) having a low impact
and unsaturated HCs (e.g., propylene) having a significant impact (see
section VI.A.1.b.i on the potential local air quality impacts of
propylene and R-443A). The refrigerants being listed as unacceptable
have significantly lower GWPs than the refrigerants that would remain
acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered
in the Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing
Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section VI.A.3.a.ii in the proposed rule (81 FR
22835-36; April 18, 2016), EPA's SNAP program evaluated the
flammability and toxicity risks from the flammable refrigerants in the
end-use in this rule. EPA is providing some of that information in this
section as well. All refrigerants currently listed as acceptable in
this end-use are nonflammable, resulting in no risk of fire or
explosion from flammability of the refrigerant. In comparison, ASHRAE
Class 3 refrigerants are highly flammable. As discussed in section
VI.A.4.b.i, EPA analyzed the flammability impacts of one ASHRAE Class 3
refrigerant, R-443A, and found that a release of the entire refrigerant
charge inside a building from a larger unitary split AC system or heat
pump could result in surpassing the LFL.\62\ Because of the large
charge sizes required for this type of equipment and the similar LFLs
for other ASHRAE Class 3 refrigerants, it is likely the LFL would also
be surpassed
[[Page 86804]]
for other ASHRAE Class 3 refrigerants in a similar worst-case
situation. Fires and harm to people and property have already occurred
in multiple cases due to retrofit or drop-in use of R-22a and similar
products in existing unitary split AC systems and heat pumps. As
discussed above, EPA expects that R-22a, Blue Sky 22a refrigerant,
Coolant Express 22a, DURACOOL-22a, EC-22, Ecofreeez EF-22a, Envirosafe
22a, ES-22a, Frost 22a, HC-22a, Maxi-Fridge, MX-22a, Oz-Chill 22a, and
RED TEK 22a are comparable in their flammability to propane and other
refrigerants that meet an ASHRAE flammability classification of 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps.
Substitute: R-443A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the acceptable refrigerants and the unacceptable refrigerants
are able to be used in this end-use in accordance with their respective
8-hr or 10-hr workplace exposure limits. However, acute exposure may
also be of concern during use in unitary split AC systems and heat
pumps because of possible exposure to consumers in the event of a
sudden release. For instance, as discussed below in section VI.A.4.b.i,
EPA analyzed the acute toxicity of the propylene component of one
ASHRAE Class 3 refrigerant, R-443A, and found that a release of the
entire refrigerant charge inside a building from a larger unitary split
AC system or heat pump could result in surpassing the acute exposure
limit.\63\ Because of the large charge sizes required for this type of
equipment and somewhat lower acute exposure limits for the HC
components of ASHRAE Class 3 refrigerants compared to HFCs and the
acceptable refrigerants in this end-use, acute exposure could be a
concern for some specific Class 3 refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps.
Substitute: R-443A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these end-uses, although use of the highly flammable
refrigerants would result in a reduced climate impact, the safety risks
of using these refrigerants in existing equipment that was designed for
nonflammable refrigerants creates a more significant and imminent risk.
In addition to flammability risk, in at least some cases, the
likelihood for an exceedance of acute exposure limits of the
unacceptable refrigerants also supports a determination that those
refrigerants pose significantly greater risk than other available
alternatives. The Agency is open to revisiting this listing decision if
we receive information on how risks from the refrigerants listed as
unacceptable can be sufficiently mitigated. Further information on
these analyses and EPA's risk assessments are available in the docket
for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
ii. When will the listings apply?
EPA is establishing a listing date as of January 3, 2017, the same
as the effective date of this regulation. To date, none of these
substitutes have been submitted to EPA for this end-use for retrofit
use. Under 40 CFR 82.174, manufacturers are prohibited from introducing
them into interstate commerce for this end-use for retrofit use. Thus,
manufacturers and service technicians should not be currently using
these substitutes in the manner that would be prohibited by this
listing decision.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
EPA received several comments from individuals and organizations
with various interests in residential AC. Comments were in reference to
the proposed listing status of ASHRAE Class 3 flammable refrigerants,
extending the proposal to other end-uses, and use of unique fittings
with flammable refrigerants. Most commenters supported the proposed
listing decisions and effective date of 30 days after date of
publication of the rule in the Federal Register, while one commenter
suggested a listing as unacceptable was not needed for some specific
refrigerants. Commenters generally agreed that use of flammable
refrigerants in equipment that was not designed for them was
potentially dangerous.
Commenters included AHRI, the Japan Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning Industry Association (JRAIA), and the Alliance, three
industry organizations; Whitmyre Equipment Company and Whitmyre
Research, consultants for A.S. Trust & Holdings; United Technologies
Climate Controls & Security (UTC CCS and hereafter ``UTC''); Hudson, a
refrigerant reclaimer; Chemours, a chemical producer; and environmental
organizations NRDC and IGSD.
We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
i. Substitutes and End-Use Proposed
Comment: The Alliance, Chemours, Hudson, JRAIA, and NRDC, all
supported EPA's proposal to list refrigerants classified as A3 (or
meeting A3 criteria) under ASHRAE Standard 34 as unacceptable for
retrofitting unitary split AC systems and heat pumps. AHRI, JRAIA, and
Chemours supported the proposed listing, stating it would mitigate
demonstrated risks of serious injury and property damage. NRDC and IGSD
found EPA's proposed unacceptability finding for Class 3 flammable
refrigerants in retrofit applications reasonable and necessary to
ensure a safe transition to low-GWP alternatives.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenters and is finalizing these
listing decisions as proposed.
Comment: AHRI, JRAIA, and the Alliance requested that EPA list all
refrigerants classified as A3 under ASHRAE Standard 34 as unacceptable
for retrofitting in all types of residential and light commercial AC
and heat pumps. JRAIA also requested similar treatment for retrofitting
of flammable refrigerants to all types retail food refrigeration
equipment. The commenters expressed concern that by issuing an
unacceptability listing only for unitary split AC and heat pumps, some
may conclude that it is currently acceptable to retrofit other, similar
equipment classes with similar risks with these refrigerants.
Response: EPA did not propose and is not finalizing provisions to
list Class 3 flammable as unacceptable for retrofitting other types of
refrigeration and AC equipment besides unitary split AC systems and
heat pumps. This would require an additional opportunity for public
comment. We have received reports of the use of highly flammable
refrigerants only in unitary split AC systems and heat pumps, so we are
less concerned that such refrigerants are likely to be used in other
types of residential and light commercial AC and heat pump equipment.
Further, in EPA's listings of the Class 3 flammable refrigerants
propane, isobutane, and R-441A in a number of end-uses, including
stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment and room AC and heat
pump equipment, we have included a use condition specifying that the
listing is only for new equipment specifically designed for the
refrigerant. Thus, EPA does not agree that the industry is likely to
perceive an unacceptable listing only for retrofit of one type of
equipment as implying acceptability of retrofit for other types of
equipment. Further, as EPA has received no submissions for retrofitting
flammable refrigerants in any residential AC or retail food
refrigeration use and has not issued a listing for any such use, both
introduction into interstate commerce and use in retrofit refrigeration
and AC equipment are violations of EPA's SNAP regulations.
[[Page 86805]]
Thus, even without an explicit listing of unacceptability, it is not
allowed to retrofit with flammable refrigerants in existing equipment.
Comment: JRAIA commented that charging systems with refrigerants
for which the equipment was not originally designed can lead to
failures and malfunctions, as well as safety risks. The commenter
stated that if defects occur in equipment due to improperly
retrofitting with flammable refrigerant, even if no injury occurs, in
most cases the equipment must be replaced with the equipment owners
themselves responsible for the replacement cost.
Response: EPA agrees that charging systems with refrigerants for
which the equipment was not originally designed can lead to failures
and malfunctions. However, that type of issue is not a consideration in
determining whether to list a substitute as acceptable or unacceptable,
though it could be considered in establishing use conditions for an
acceptable substitute. The basis of EPA's unacceptability decision is
that the overall risk to human health and the environment is greater
for ASHRAE Class 3 refrigerants because of the flammability risk, and
in some cases the toxicity risk, than for other available substitutes
for retrofitting in unitary split AC and heat pumps.
ii. Industry Standards and Codes
Comment: UTC, with Carrier, Taylor, and Kidde Fenwal as member
companies, stated that EPA should list Class 3 refrigerants as
unacceptable for use in unitary split AC and heat pumps but should
clarify that future Class 3 refrigerants added to successive editions
of ASHRAE 34 will also be unacceptable. The commenter noted that the
regulatory text references ANSI/ASHRAE standard 34-2013: Designation
and Safety Classification of Refrigerants, November 2013, and thus,
EPA's determination of ``all refrigerants'' meeting the criteria in the
2013 edition of the standard might not extend to refrigerants which
meet the criteria in future editions of the standard.
Response: To the extent that future Class 3 refrigerants meet the
criteria in ANSI/ASHRAE 34-2013, they will be unacceptable.
Specifically, if a refrigerant exhibits flame propagation and either
has 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, it is unacceptable because it is a
refrigerant ``meeting the criteria for flammability Class 3 in ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 34-2013.'' However, EPA cannot create a listing that
would automatically find refrigerants unacceptable based on the
criteria for Class 3 refrigerants in future versions of ANSI/ASHRAE 34,
as those criteria are not available for EPA or the public to consider.
If ASHRAE changes the standard to revise those criteria, EPA could
consider whether to take rulemaking action considering whether to
modify the listing decision to reflect the criteria in the revised
standard.
iii. Unique Fittings
Comment: AHRI supported the use of separate servicing fittings for
flammable refrigerants beyond labeling and color coded hosing and
piping. The commenter stated that equipment originally designed for
non-flammable refrigerants will not necessarily be equipped with
different fittings increasing the risk of injury during servicing.
Whitmyre Equipment Company and Whitmyre Research asserted that there is
no need for concern about AC or heat pump systems being retrofitted for
use with R-443A or other propylene-containing refrigerants, as this
will not be permitted due to use of unique hardware fittings which have
already been discussed with, and approved by, EPA.
Response: There currently is no requirement for unique fittings on
residential AC and heat pump equipment. EPA has not proposed and is not
finalizing the use of separate servicing fittings for flammable
refrigerants. We agree that such fittings can be useful to prevent the
use of refrigerants that a piece of equipment was not designed to use
and could consider whether to modify the existing acceptable listings
to include such a requirement. While it is true that certain of the
refrigerants EPA is listing as unacceptable in this end-use have
developed unique fittings for other end-uses for which there is a
unique fitting requirement, it is unclear that would prevent use as a
retrofit in the end-uses at issue here since for those end-uses, there
is no unique fitting requirement.
4. Unacceptable Listing of Propylene and R-443A for New Residential and
Light Commercial AC and Heat Pumps, Cold Storage Warehouses, and
Centrifugal and Positive Displacement Chillers
a. Background
The refrigeration and AC end-uses addressed in this action include:
Centrifugal chillers;
positive displacement chillers;
residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps,
including both self-contained units (e.g., window air conditioners,
PTACs and PTHPs, portable AC units) and split systems; and
cold storage warehouses.
EPA has received a submission for R-443A in new residential and light
commercial AC and heat pumps and for new window air conditioners, a
subset of that end-use. We have also received a submission for
propylene for use in new chillers for commercial comfort AC
(centrifugal and positive displacement chillers) and for cold storage
warehouses. Because the two refrigerants, R-443A and propylene, have
similar properties and risk profiles, we reviewed both refrigerants for
all four end-uses.
Propylene, also known as propene or R-1270, is a HC with three
carbons, the chemical formula C3H6, and the CAS
Reg. No. 115-17-1. R-443A is a HC blend \64\ consisting of 55 percent
propylene, 40 percent propane, and five percent isobutane by weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ EPA notes that under the SNAP program, we review and list
refrigerants with specific compositions (59 FR 13,044; 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has indicated its intent to issue a proposed energy
conservation standard for portable air conditioners, a subset of the
residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps end-
use. For further information on the relationship between this action
and other federal rules, see section VI.A.3.b.v of the proposed rule
(81 FR 22841; April 18, 2016).
b. What is EPA's final decision?
As proposed, EPA is listing the refrigerants propylene (R-1270) and
R-443A as unacceptable in new equipment in residential and light
commercial AC and heat pumps, cold storage warehouses, and centrifugal
and positive displacement chillers for commercial comfort AC. EPA's
concerns about propylene and R-443A are primarily due to the effect of
these refrigerants on local air quality, although for some equipment
with higher charge sizes, flammability and toxicity are also a concern.
Other acceptable refrigerants are available in the same end-uses that
pose overall lower risk than R-443A and propylene.
i. How do these unacceptable refrigerants compare to other refrigerants
for these end-uses with respect to SNAP criteria?
EPA has listed a number of alternatives as acceptable in new
equipment in residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps, cold
[[Page 86806]]
storage warehouses, and centrifugal and positive displacement chillers
for commercial comfort AC. In the proposed rule (81 FR 22837-22841;
April 18, 2016), EPA provided information on the risk to human health
and the environment presented by the alternatives that are being found
unacceptable as compared with other available alternatives listed as
acceptable in these end-uses. In addition, a technical support document
that provides the Federal Register citations concerning data on the
SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for
acceptable alternatives in the relevant end-uses may be found in the
docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
Propylene and R-443A have an ODP of zero. Many acceptable
substitutes in the refrigeration and AC end-uses addressed in this rule
also have an ODP of zero (e.g., HFCs, HFOs, CO2, ammonia,
HCs, and not-in-kind technologies).\65\ Of the acceptable refrigerants
having an ODP, they have ODPs ranging from 0.00024 to
0.047.66 67 Thus, propylene and R-443A have ODPs comparable
to or less than the ODPs of other alternatives in the end-uses in this
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ We assume that substitutes containing no chlorine, bromine,
or iodine have an ODP of zero.
\66\ EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered
in the Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing
Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.
\67\ 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. Substitutes containing these
HCFCs have ODPs ranging from 0.01 to 0.065. Class I and II ODS
historically used as refrigerants in these end-uses have ODPs that
range from 0.01 to 1.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propylene and the components of R-443A have relatively low GWPs of
less than ten. As shown in Table 4, GWPs of acceptable refrigerants in
these end-uses range from zero (NIK) to 3,990 (R-507A) in new
residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps; zero (ammonia and
not-in-kind technologies) to 630 (R-513A) in new chillers, and zero
(ammonia) to approximately 1,830 (R-407F) for new cold storage
warehouses.\68\ The GWPs of propylene and R-443A are lower than those
of a number of HFCs and HFC/HFO blends, such as R-450A and R-513A in
all four end-uses; HFC-134a, R-407C and R-407F in cold storage
warehouses and residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps; and
R-410A in residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps. The GWPs
of propylene and R-443A are comparable to or higher than those of
CO2, propane, isobutane, R-441A, ammonia, HFO-1234ze(E),
trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, and not-in-kind technologies
such as Stirling cycle, water/lithium bromide absorption, desiccant
cooling, or evaporative cooling, each of which is acceptable in new
equipment for one or more of the four end-uses. In addition, propylene
and R-443A have lower GWPs than those of ODS historically used in these
end-uses, CFC-12 (GWP = 10,900); HCFC-22 (GWP = 1,810); and R-502 (GWP
= 4,660).\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ At the time of proposal, the highest GWP of any acceptable
alternative in each of these end-uses was 3,990.
\69\ 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.
Table 4--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Propylene and R-443A Compared to Other Refrigerants in New Equipment for Residential and Light Commercial AC and
Heat Pumps, Cold Storage Warehouses, Centrifugal Chillers and Positive Displacement Chillers \1\ \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Listing status
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propylene, R-443A..................... 2-3 0................................. Yes.......................... Unacceptable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Residential and Light Commercial AC and Heat Pumps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFC-32 \3\, HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407A, 675-3,990 0................................. No........................... Acceptable.
R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-
417A, R-421A, R-507A.
R-290 \3\, R-441A \3\, THR-03 \3\, R- 3-3,390 0................................. Yes \4\...................... Acceptable.
125/R-134a/R-600a (28.1/70.0/1.9), R-
125/R-290/R-134a/R-600a (55.0/1.0/
42.5/1.5), R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-
424A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, RS-44
(2003 formulation).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Cold Storage Warehouses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFC-134a, R-407C, R-407F, R-450A, R- 1-1,810 0................................. No........................... Acceptable.
513A, R-717, R-744.
FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, 30-1,810 0--Not public \5\................. Yes \4\...................... Acceptable.
R-437A, RS-24 (2002 composition), RS-
44, SP34E, THR-02, THR-03.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Centrifugal Chillers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFO-1234ze(E), R-1233zd(E), R-450A, R- 0-630 0-0.00034......................... No........................... Acceptable.
513A, R-717, R-744.
HFO-1336mzz(Z), IKON A, IKON B, R- 7-560 0--Not public \5\................. Yes \4\...................... Acceptable.
514A, THR-02.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Positive Displacement Chillers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFO-1234ze(E), R-450A, R-513A, R-717, 0-631 0................................. No........................... Acceptable.
R-744.
HFO-1336mzz(Z), IKON B, R-514A, THR-02 0-560 0--Not public \5\................. Yes \4\...................... Acceptable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-use.
\2\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production
and consumption.
\3\ Listed only for use in room AC units.
\4\ One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC.
\5\ The ODP of one or more alternatives is not published here in order to avoid disclosing information that is claimed as confidential business
information.
[[Page 86807]]
In addition to ODP and GWP, EPA evaluated potential impacts of
propylene and the components of R-443A on local air quality. Propylene
and the three components of R-443A, propylene, propane, and isobutane
meet the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s))
and are not excluded from that definition for the purpose of developing
SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. However, there is a significant
difference in the photochemical reactivity between propylene and the
other two HCs. Propylene, because it has an unsaturated double bond
between two carbons, is significantly more reactive in the atmosphere
than propane, the saturated HC with the same number of carbon atoms,
and isobutane. For example, the Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) of
propylene, in gram ozone per gram of the substance, is 11.57 while the
MIR of propane is 0.56 g O3/g and the MIR of isobutane is
1.34 g O3/g.\70\ Thus, propylene is roughly 21 times more
reactive than propane and roughly nine times more reactive than
isobutane for the same mass. Propylene is also more than 100 times more
reactive than HFC-134a (MIR < 0.1) and a number of other HFCs
acceptable for these end-uses and is significantly more reactive than
unsaturated halogenated substitutes in these end-uses, such as HFO-
1234yf (MIR = 0.28), HFO-1234ze(E) (MIR = 0.098), or trans-1-chloro-
3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (Solstice \TM\ 1233zd(E)) (MIR = 0.040).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations.
February, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA analyzed a number of scenarios to consider the potential
impacts on local air quality if HC refrigerants were used widely. We
used EPA's Vintaging Model to estimate the HC emissions from these
scenarios and EPA's Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model to
assess their potential incremental contributions to ground-level ozone
concentrations.\71\ The first analysis assumed that all refrigerant
used was emitted to the atmosphere, as it could be if refrigerants were
exempted from the venting prohibition of CAA section 608. 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 if the most reactive saturated HC,
isobutane, were the only refrigerant and it was all emitted to the
atmosphere. If the unsaturated HC propylene was assumed to be the only
refrigerant used in equipment and it was all emitted (if it were to be
exempted from the venting prohibition under CAA section 608), the model
predicted that the maximum increase in the 8-hour average ground-level
ozone concentration would be 6.61 ppb in Los Angeles, which is the area
with the highest level of ozone pollution in the United States. For
purposes of comparison, the ground-level ozone limit under the NAAQS
has been 75 ppb since 2008.\72\ We have concerns that widespread
emissions of propylene from use as a refrigerant could interfere with
the ability of some nonattainment areas to reach attainment, both with
the 2008 NAAQS and the new, more stringent standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations.
February, 2014.
\72\ The standard has recently been lowered to 70 ppb (80 FR
65292; October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also performed less conservative analyses that considered the
end-uses where these refrigerants would more likely be used, based upon
submissions received and upon end-uses where there are industry
standards addressing the use of flammable refrigerants. Propylene was
previously listed as an acceptable substitute in industrial process
refrigeration. EPA has received submissions for use of R-443A in
residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps and window air
conditioners. We have received a SNAP submission for use of propylene
in cold storage warehouses and in commercial comfort AC in chillers,
and have received inquiries about using propylene in retail food
refrigeration. In addition, EPA is aware that UL has developed
standards addressing use of flammable refrigerants in stand-alone
retail food refrigeration equipment and coolers; vending machines;
water coolers; commercial ice machines; household refrigerators and
freezers; and room air conditioners; and is currently developing
revisions to UL 1995 for residential AC equipment. Thus, we considered
scenarios where propylene would be used and emitted (1) in all
stationary AC and refrigeration end-uses, but excluding MVAC, (2) in
all refrigeration end-uses and all AC end-uses except for MVAC and
chillers for commercial comfort AC. For further details on the
scenarios and end-uses in the analysis, see the docket for this
rulemaking.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Chillers and Cold Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R-
1270).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this still conservative assessment of refrigerant use, we
found that if all the refrigerant in appliances in the end-uses
analyzed were to be emitted, there would be a worst-case impact of 4.47
ppb ozone in the Los Angeles area. In the other cities examined in the
analysis, Houston and Atlanta, which have also had historically high
levels of ambient ozone, impacts were smaller (as much as 0.67 and 0.39
ppb, respectively).\74\ Approximately 72-73 percent of the emissions
were estimated to come from the residential and light commercial AC and
heat pumps end-use in those less conservative analyses, indicating that
emissions from this end-use could have a particularly large impact.
Both the most conservative as well as the less conservative but more
probable assessments indicated there could be significant air quality
impacts of these refrigerants if they are released to the atmosphere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An analysis we performed to support the proposed rule specifically
examining use of R-443A and propylene in residential and light
commercial AC and heat pumps, cold storage warehouses, and commercial
comfort AC (centrifugal and positive displacement chillers) found
noticeable impacts from these end-uses. If propylene were the only
refrigerant in these end-uses and it was emitted from residential and
light commercial AC and heat pumps and cold storage warehouses,\75\ the
analysis indicated there would be a worst-case impact of 4.45 ppb ozone
in the Los Angeles area, 1.21 ppb in Houston, and 0.65 in Atlanta,
respectively.76 77 Assuming that propylene were used in all
cold storage warehouses and centrifugal and positive displacement
chillers; room air conditioners could use either R-443A or the
currently listed VOC refrigerants propane or R-441A; other residential
and light commercial AC and heat pumps all used R-443A; and these
refrigerants were all emitted from cold storage warehouses and
residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps, there would be a
worst-case impact of 2.57 ppm ozone in the Los Angeles area, 0.77 ppb
in Houston, and 0.44 ppb in Atlanta, respectively.78 79
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ The analysis assumed that local and state safety
regulations required recovery of refrigerant from commercial comfort
air conditioning equipment.
\76\ ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps.
Substitute: R-443A.
\77\ ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Chillers and Cold Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R-
1270).
\78\ ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps.
Substitute: R-443A.
\79\ ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Chillers and Cold Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R-
1270).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 86808]]
Based on these analyses, EPA estimates that potential emissions of
saturated HCs, if used as refrigerant substitutes in all end-uses in
the refrigeration and AC sector would have little impact on local air
quality. However, emissions of propylene, an unsaturated HC, whether
used as propylene or as part of the blend R-443A, could have a
significant negative impact, whether for all refrigeration and AC uses
or for the uses in which we are listing these refrigerants as
unacceptable.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ ICF, 2014a and attachment, Follow-on Assessment of the
Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone
Concentrations. March, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to public comments, EPA reevaluated these substitutes,
assuming a prohibition on venting propylene and R-443A. However, even
that additional analysis showed that there was still a potential for
significant negative impacts on air quality. Assuming that propylene
were used in all cold storage warehouses and centrifugal and positive
displacement chillers; room air conditioners could use either R-443A or
the currently listed VOC refrigerants propane or R-441A; other
residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps all used R-443A; and
these refrigerants were subject to the venting prohibition, there would
be a worst-case impact of 2.09 ppb ozone in the Los Angeles area, 0.54
ppb in Houston, and 0.28 ppb in Atlanta, respectively.\81\ For further
details on the scenarios and end-uses in the analyses, see the docket
for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ ICF, 2016l. Additional Follow-on Assessment of the
Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone
Concentrations. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecosystem effects, primarily effects on aquatic life, of the
substitutes we are listing as unacceptable are expected to be small as
are the effects of other acceptable substitutes. Propylene, propane and
isobutane are all highly volatile and would evaporate or partition to
air, rather than contaminate surface waters. Neither propylene nor R-
443A pose a greater risk of aquatic or ecosystem effects than those of
other substitutes for these uses.
As discussed in section VI.A.3.b.iii in the proposed rule (81 FR
22839-41; April 18, 2016), EPA's SNAP program evaluated the
flammability and toxicity risks from propane in the end-uses in this
rule. Risk screens containing these evaluations are provided in the
docket, but EPA is providing some of that information in this section
as well. Propylene and R-443A are both designated as A3 refrigerants
according to ASHRAE 34-2013 and subsequent addenda. Thus, their
flammability is comparable to that of ethane, propane, isobutane, and
R-441A, other refrigerants that EPA has listed as acceptable, subject
to use conditions, in a number of end-uses (76 FR 78832, December 20,
2011; 80 FR 19454, April 10, 2015). Due to their flammable nature,
propylene and R-443A could pose a significant safety concern for
workers and consumers if they are not properly handled. In the presence
of an ignition source (e.g., 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 2.03 percent for R-443A \82\ and 2 percent
for propylene.\83\ 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. Those analyses found that a release of the entire charge
from equipment with smaller charge sizes, such as room air conditioners
or small chillers, would not exceed the LFL. Release of larger charge
sizes such as from a large residential unitary split AC system or heat
pump or a large chiller could exceed the LFL under some
circumstances.84 85 Further information on these analyses
and EPA's risk assessments are available in section VI.A.3.b.iii of the
proposed rule (81 FR 22837; April 18, 2016) and in the docket for this
rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ A.S. Trust & Holdings, 2014. Response to Incompleteness
Letter from A.S. Trust & Holdings to EPA--Sent March 7, 2014.
\83\ Airgas, 2015. Safety Data Sheet for Propylene.
\84\ ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps.
Substitute: R-443A.
\85\ ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Chillers and Cold Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R-
1270).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In evaluating potential toxicity impacts of propylene and R-443A on
human health, EPA considered occupational risk for all end-uses, and
also considered consumer risk for the residential and light commercial
AC and heat pump end-use. 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 each end-
use.
To evaluate toxicity of both refrigerants, EPA estimated the
maximum TWA exposure both for a short-term exposure scenario, with a
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
propylene and the components of R-443A (including potential
impurities). The modeling results indicate that both the short-term
(30-minute) and long-term (8-hour) worker exposure concentrations would
be below the relevant workplace exposure limits in cold storage
warehouses, centrifugal and positive displacement chillers, and
residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps.\86\ The acceptable
refrigerants in these end-uses and those we are listing as unacceptable
in this action can be used in these end-uses in accordance with their
respective workplace exposure limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For equipment with which consumers might come into contact, such as
residential AC and heat pumps, EPA also performed a consumer exposure
analysis. EPA considered toxicity limits for consumer exposure that
reflect a short-term or acute 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. In EPA's initial risk screen
used to support the proposal, the estimated 30-minute consumer
exposures to the refrigerants exceeded the toxicity limits for the
propylene component of R-443A in all cases but the least conservative,
for a room air conditioner. In response to public comments on the
proposal, EPA reconsidered the toxicity profile and the toxicity limit
for consumer exposure for propylene and determined that its acute
toxicity was not significantly different from that of propane. We
reanalyzed the modeled exposures against the same exposure threshold we
used for analyzing acute toxicity of propane (e.g., 6,900 ppm over 30
minutes by analogy to the 30-minute Acute Emergency Guideline Limits
(AEGL)-1 for propane). Using this less conservative analysis, the
propylene fraction of R-443A could meet the exposure limit in smaller
room
[[Page 86809]]
air conditioners, but not in split AC systems with higher charges.
The currently acceptable refrigerants such as HFCs, HFC blends, or
HFOs, are able to achieve their acute exposure limits, which are
generally higher than that for propylene. Because of the relatively low
acute exposure limit for propylene and the potential for exceedances of
that limit, acute exposure may be a greater concern than for many other
acceptable refrigerants in residential and light commercial AC systems
and heat pumps with larger charge sizes. Further information on these
analyses, EPA's risk assessments, as well as information from the
submitters of the substitutes are in the docket for this rulemaking
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
ii. When will the listings apply?
EPA is establishing a listing date as of January 3, 2017, the same
as the effective date of this regulation. To our knowledge,
manufacturers and service technicians are not currently using these
substitutes in the end-uses in this rule. We note that EPA has only
recently found submissions complete for these substitutes, and under
the SNAP program regulations, a substitute may not be introduced into
interstate commerce prior to 90 days after EPA receives a complete
submission.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
EPA received several comments from individuals and organizations
with various interests in R-443A and propylene. Comments were in
reference to the proposed listing status of R-443A and propylene and
the environmental, flammability, and toxicity impacts of R-443A and
propylene. Some commenters supported the proposed listing decisions and
effective date of 30 days after date of publication of the rule in the
Federal Register, while others opposed them and suggested that R-443A
and/or propylene should be listed as acceptable or acceptable, subject
to use conditions in one or more of the four end-uses being considered.
Some commenters thought that these refrigerants could be used safely
and with minimal environmental impacts with appropriate controls, while
others expressed concern about the flammability and environmental
impacts of these refrigerants.
Commenters included Whitmyre Research and Whitmyre Equipment
Corporation, consultants for A.S. Trust & Holdings; UTC; Chemours, a
chemical producer; Refrigerants, Naturally!, an industry organization
supporting the use of HC refrigerants; NRDC, IGSD, and EIA; and a
number of anonymous commenters.
We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
Comment: NRDC and IGSD stated that EPA's extensive tests on
exposure and toxicity, as well as the effects on local air quality,
show significant concern with propylene. The commenters stated that
propylene and majority-propylene blends are neither ideal nor necessary
for achieving EPA's climate goals, and threaten a safe,
environmentally-sound transition to lower-GWP refrigerants. Chemours
also supported EPA's proposal.
Response: EPA agrees that there are significant concerns with the
use of propylene--in particular, the potential air quality impacts.
Other alternatives are available for the same uses that pose lower
overall risk to human health and the environment.
Comment: EIA commented that both academic studies and end users
cite propylene as a very high performing refrigerant, offering both
energy efficiency and increased volumetric cooling capacity in
comparison to other alternatives, and provided links to some of this
information. EIA stated that propylene's low GWP and high performance
in terms of efficiency and capacity carries significant environmental
benefits, its flammability risks can be mitigated, and its benefits
significantly outweigh potential limited environmental impacts of a
small relative contribution of propylene as a refrigerant to formation
of ground level ozone.
Refrigerants, Naturally! commented that propylene has particular
advantages over propane such as the same or better efficiency, a larger
cooling capacity giving more compact systems, higher LFL and also a
distinctive smell. The commenter claimed that combined, these lead to
more compact and safer systems (in terms of lower charge sizes per kW
of cooling, smaller flammable volumes in event of a leak and pre-
warning to technicians working on systems). Both commenters noted that
propylene is already safely used in Europe and the United States,
particularly in stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment, as
well as in positive displacement chillers and remote condensing units.
Refrigerants, Naturally! recommended that EPA reconsider its proposed
decision and stated that it would be significantly preferable to impose
a ban on venting propylene than to introduce a ban on its use.
Response: EPA appreciates the additional information provided by
the commenters concerning the performance of propylene as a refrigerant
but does not find this information a sufficient reason for changing our
proposal, given the primary basis for EPA's decision is effects on
local air quality. Concerning comments that propylene is already used
in Europe and the United States, we note that propylene is only listed
as acceptable in industrial process refrigeration and not in the other
types of equipment mentioned by the commenters. EPA disagrees with the
commenters on other points concerning the SNAP criteria. Refrigerant
performance, refrigerant capacity, energy efficiency, and use of
odorants are not among the SNAP program's review criteria. Concerning
flammability, the LFL of propylene is not significantly different from
that of propane (2 percent versus 2.1 percent). We note that additional
work is underway on industry standards to address flammability risks
for most of the end-uses in this final rule. EPA disagrees that
propylene can be assumed to have a small relative contribution to the
formation of ground-level ozone, considering both the results of EPA's
analyses, discussed in this section under the heading ``Environmental
Impacts,'' and the lack of a way for EPA to limit sales and use to a
specific amount. Emissions from industrial process refrigeration
equipment are already part of existing VOC emissions, and use in
additional end-uses would result in additional, incremental VOC
emissions that could result in significant impacts, depending on the
amount used. As discussed in the section ``Environmental Impacts,''
prohibiting venting of propylene (and R-443A) is not sufficient to
ensure minimal impacts on local air quality or to mitigate the
environmental risks of these refrigerants. Also see the previous
response concerning how propane and other available low-GWP
refrigerants compare to propylene in EPA's evaluation.
i. Environmental Impacts
Comment: Refrigerants, Naturally! and Whitmyre Research stated that
there is no need for concern about R-443A being released into the air
because R-443A is not exempt from the venting prohibition. The
commenters stated that R-443A refrigerant will be recovered and
recaptured during servicing by trained and certified technicians.
Refrigerants, Naturally! and EIA
[[Page 86810]]
recommended that EPA perform another assessment to re-evaluate the
assumptions made and to consider controls to mitigate the release and
venting of propylene and R-443A.
Response: EPA disagrees that the CAA section 608 prohibition on
venting sufficiently addresses potential risks due to impacts on air
quality. There are refrigerant emissions from causes other than venting
that could result in sufficient emissions of propylene to have
significant impacts on local air quality. As discussed in the preamble
to the proposed rule, ``Other emissions could occur that are not
subject to the venting prohibition and no equipment is free of
refrigerant emissions. Because of the reactivity of these refrigerants,
those emissions could interfere with the ability of some nonattainment
areas to reach attainment, both with the 2008 NAAQS and the new, more
stringent standard'' (81 FR 22839). Examples of refrigerant releases
that are not subject to the venting prohibition are releases during
good-faith efforts to service equipment, releases at installation,
leaks during the lifetime of the equipment, and any refrigerant that is
not withdrawn from the equipment at its end of life.
EPA repeated its local air quality analysis assuming use of
propylene in chillers for commercial air conditioning and in cold
storage warehouses and use of R-443A in residential air conditioning
and heat pumps.\87\ This analysis also assumed use of propane and R-
441A in room air conditioners, where they have already been listed as
acceptable, as well as R-443A. In this follow-on analysis, EPA assumed
that the venting prohibition remains in place for propylene and R-443A.
Although emissions were reduced relative to the scenarios where all HC
refrigerants were exempted from the venting prohibitions, the analysis
still showed that there could still be significant impacts. For
example, in the revised analysis, the incremental increase in the
maximum 8-hour average ozone value estimated for Los Angeles was 2.1
ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ ICF, 2016l. Additional Follow-on Assessment of the
Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone
Concentrations. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Whitmyre Research said all of EPA's analyses, and
particularly Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 (in which propylene is the sole
refrigerant used in all refrigeration and AC; in all refrigeration and
AC uses except MVAC; and in all refrigeration and AC uses except MVAC
and chillers, respectively), cross the line from being overly-
conservative to having no real-world applicability because they
unrealistically assume a rapid takeover of the market with propylene-
based refrigerants, thereby ignoring the realities of the refrigerant
market. This commenter suggested that EPA should focus upon Scenario 4,
the most realistic of the scenarios analyzed, which in the commenter's
view does not justify restrictions on the use of R-443A in split system
air conditioning and heat pumps, window ACs or portable room ACs. In
contrast, NRDC and IGSD noted that Scenario 1 shows widespread use and
venting of propylene in refrigeration and AC contributing almost seven
ppb to ground-level ozone concentrations in Los Angeles, demonstrating
the value of EPA's proposed unacceptability finding.
Response: Concerning the three most conservative scenarios,
Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 were not intended to be realistic projections of
the refrigerant 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. See our
response to the same comment at 80 FR 19474 (April 10, 2015).
The scenario suggested by the first commenter, Scenario 4, would
not consider impacts from use of propylene and R-443A in all of the
end-uses for which they have been submitted--R-443A in residential
split system AC and heat pumps and propylene in cold storage warehouses
and centrifugal and positive displacement chillers for commercial
comfort AC. Under the scenarios where EPA also considered the four end-
uses for which R-443A and propylene were submitted result in most of
the emissions, and thus, the scenario suggested by the commenter would
likely underestimate the impact of emissions of these two substitutes
on air quality. EPA analyzed additional Scenarios 5, 6, 7, and 8 to
evaluate potential impacts of propylene and R-443A in the end-uses
addressed in this action.\88\ The analysis of Scenario 6, a scenario
assuming use of R-443A for residential split system AC and heat pumps,
along with some use of propane and R-441A for room air conditioners,
and for propylene in cold storage warehouses and centrifugal and
positive displacement chillers for commercial comfort AC, found there
would be a worst-case impact of 2.57 ppm ozone in the Los Angeles area,
0.77 ppb in Houston, and 0.44 ppb in Atlanta, respectively (see NPRM at
81 FR 22839). In response to comments that EPA should not assume that
all propylene or R-443A is vented, EPA created Scenario 8, where it was
assumed that intentional venting of propylene and R-443A during
service, maintenance, repair, and disposal, were prohibited in those
same end-uses. Under this scenario, the worst-case impacts would be 2.1
ppb ozone in the Los Angeles area, 0.54 ppb in Houston, and 0.28 ppb in
Atlanta, respectively. We considered these less conservative
assumptions to show that, even if the venting prohibition were
observed, emissions of R-443A from residential split system AC and heat
pumps and emissions of propylene from cold storage warehouses and
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers could result in air
quality impacts that are not significantly different from those in the
analyses we relied upon in our proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ ICF, 2016l. Additional Follow-on Assessment of the
Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone
Concentrations. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Whitmyre Research stated that EPA was inconsistent in leak
profiles used in its ground-level ozone modeling and the modeling for
occupational exposure impacts. The commenter stated that if EPA had
used those more realistic assumptions in its ground-level ozone
analysis, this would have reduced by nearly 89 percent the ``disposal''
emissions in the analysis.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion that the
disposal emissions should be the same as those used in EPA's
occupational exposure analysis. The release estimates used in the
occupational exposure estimates at disposal are for release in the
vicinity of workers involved in disposing of the equipment and do not
include releases to the environment when equipment leaks at the end of
its useful life. In an additional analysis, rather than assuming the
release of 100 percent of remaining charge at disposal, EPA reassessed
emissions at disposal using the assumptions in EPA's Vintaging Model--
the same assumptions we use when analyzing emissions of HFC
refrigerants from the same kinds of equipment. These emission rates
reflect input from industry reviewers and historic information. They
also reflect emissions due to leaks from equipment over the lifetime of
the equipment as well as emissions at disposal. The remaining emissions
were still significant, resulting in worst-case incremental ground-
level ozone of 2.1 ppb.
Comment: Richard Maruya of A.S. Trust & Holdings commented that the
proposed unacceptable listing for propylene is an abuse of EPA's
authority, since propylene is not listed
[[Page 86811]]
by EPA as a hazardous air pollutant under the CAA.
Response: It is not necessary for a substitute to be listed as a
hazardous air pollutant in order for EPA to list it as unacceptable
under the SNAP program established by section 612 of the CAA. Rather,
EPA must determine that there are other alternatives available or
potentially available for the same use that pose lower overall risk to
human health and the environment.
ii. Assumptions in EPA's Analyses
Comment: Whitmyre Research stated that the release of any
refrigerant from air-conditioning or heat pump units must be viewed
probabilistically--that is, only a very small fraction of AC or heat
pump units would experience leaks at any given point in time, and only
a small fraction of these leaks would be sudden releases. The commenter
stated that there is no basis for assuming that every possible leak in
an R443A-based system would be sudden and complete, as opposed to slow
and diluted. Values of 0.1 to one percent are much more realistic than
100 percent full release.
Response: With respect to EPA's assumptions for estimating total
emissions for its air quality analysis, EPA assumed 100 percent release
of refrigerant at disposal in most of the scenarios, to simulate a
situation where venting would not be prohibited. As discussed
previously, EPA considered scenarios where venting would be prohibited
and also considered emissions from leaks. However, based upon the
historical information EPA used in establishing the Vintaging Model and
on reviewer input of those data, we consider the commenter's estimated
probability of leaks to be low, particularly for residential split AC
and heat pump equipment and for older equipment, which would be more
likely to leak through extended lines. The study that was the basis for
the commenter's estimates was based upon monitoring of commercial AC
equipment in supermarkets of a type and age that was not described. If
the equipment in the study was chiller equipment, this leak rate would
be reasonable and close to the annual average leak rate EPA used in its
emissions analysis for chillers, but the leak rate would be low for
residential or light commercial AC and heat pump equipment,
particularly for split systems.
With respect to EPA's leak assumptions in our risk screens for
purposes of assessing flammability and toxicity impacts, we first
conducted a worst-case analysis that assumed a release of 95 percent of
the refrigerant charge within one minute. This was an initial screen to
determine whether the refrigerant would ever potentially exceed the LFL
or relevant exposure limits. Since there were some potential
exceedances with the most conservative assumptions, EPA then considered
additional, less conservative assumptions concerning ventilation rates,
charge sizes, and stratification or complete mixing of release
refrigerant, and did not evaluate smaller leaks. EPA agrees with the
commenter that slow, small leaks are likely to be far more common than
large leaks. However, EPA must consider the possibility of a complete
release because that is a possible, if less frequent, situation.
Comment: Whitmyre Research stated that EPA analyses incorrectly
assumed air-exchange rates far lower than those allowed by ASHRAE
standards incorporated in building codes (at least 0.35 ACH in typical
residential structures). Based on data from Pandian et al. (1998),\89\
the median residential air exchange rate in the United States (across
all regions, all seasons) is 0.5 ACH. Therefore, the presumed exposures
are unlikely and unrealistic for both the toxicity and flammability
scenarios presented in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ Pandian et al., 1998. ``Correcting Errors in the Nationwide
Data Base of Residential Air Exchange Rates.'' Journal of Exposure
Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, Vol. 8, No. 4, 577-585.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: We disagree that the air exchange rates used in the
scenarios are not representative and do not represent likely scenarios.
First, we note that the air-exchange value from ASHRAE is from a 2016
standard and applies only to newly constructed buildings; thus, it does
not apply to existing housing stock, which is the vast majority of what
is available. Second, both the value from ASHRAE and the median value
from Pandian et al. fall within the range of air exchange rates that
EPA analyzed of 0.11 to 0.67 ACH.
Comment: Whitmyre Research and Whitmyre Equipment Corporation
claimed there is no need for concern about leakage because a safety
valve design option already exists (per the request of EPA) that will
greatly limit refrigerant loss during leak events.
Response: A safety valve, such as the check valve suggested by the
commenter for R-443A, may reduce the size of leaks and thereby reduce
risk of using the refrigerant. However, the submitter did not provide
information on applying the check valve to equipment in this end-use.
It is not clear, based on the information provided for the check valve
in another end-use, that it would mitigate risk sufficiently to say R-
443A poses lower overall risk to human health and the environment. For
instance, if the check valve works as described, it could reduce the
amount of refrigerant leaked and potentially avoid exceedances of the
LFL or the acute exposure limit. However, it is not clear that this
check valve would be able to avoid slower leaks that over time
contribute substantially to VOC emissions and to adverse air quality
impacts, even if it works as designed. Further, EPA has not seen
sufficient information to be confident of the performance of the safety
valve.
iii. Flammability
Comment: Whitmyre Research and Refrigerants, Naturally! stated that
EPA's discussion of flammability risk does not account for probability
and therefore greatly overstates any concern for use of R-443A in both
normal operation and maintenance/repair/disposal situations. Whitmyre
Research stated that in order for there to be a flammability risk,
there must be a co-occurrence of a leak event and a spark generation
event. Subsequently, the probabilities of fire for normal operation of
these devices, when charged with the specified amount of R-443A, and
during maintenance, repair, and disposal, are quite low as calculated
by the commenter in a fault tree analysis (FTA) included in the
submission for R-443A. Refrigerants, Naturally! commented that there
should be no differentiation between R-443A and other HCs in regards to
flammability.
Response: EPA agrees that flammability risk for R-443A and
propylene would not be significantly different from the risks for other
HC refrigerants for the same uses. EPA's risk screen is intended to
look first at reasonable worst-case scenarios and then at more typical
scenarios, while remaining protective, and is not intended to discuss
probability. EPA did evaluate the probability of events presented by
the submitter in the FTA. As discussed in this section VI.A.4.c.i under
``Assumptions in EPA's Analyses,'' the study that was the basis for the
commenter's estimates was based upon monitoring of commercial AC
equipment in supermarkets of a type and age that was not described. If
the equipment in the study was chiller equipment, this leak rate would
be reasonable and close to the annual average leak rate EPA used in its
emissions analysis for chillers, but the leak rate would be low for
residential or light commercial AC and heat pump equipment,
particularly for split systems. Thus, the probabilities estimated by
the commenter likely
[[Page 86812]]
underestimate risks for residential and light commercial AC and heat
pumps. In addition to worst-case scenarios, more typical scenarios, and
FTAs, EPA also considered where there are industry standards or
controls in place that can mitigate flammability risks.
Comment: UTC supported EPA's proposal to list both R-443A and
propylene as unacceptable in residential and light commercial AC and
heat pumps, cold storage warehouses, and centrifugal and positive
displacement chillers for commercial comfort AC. However, the commenter
believed that they also should be found unacceptable based on
flammability concerns. In particular, the commenter asserted that since
both propylene and R-443A are Class 3 flammable refrigerants, they
should be considered unacceptable.
Response: EPA disagrees that flammability concerns should also
provide a basis for listing R-443A and propylene as unacceptable in all
the proposed end-uses. EPA previously listed two ASHRAE Class 3
refrigerants as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use only in
new room air conditioners (i.e., propane and R-441A). For those
refrigerants, EPA established use conditions that limited charge size
and that would mitigate flammability risks. We note that the
flammability risks for R-443A and propylene are similar to those for
other Class A3 refrigerants.
For equipment with larger charge sizes, such as some unitary split
AC systems and heat pumps or most centrifugal and positive displacement
chillers, the flammability risk is a greater concern than for equipment
with smaller sizes, such as self-contained room air conditioners.
However, by stating the flammability risk is greater for equipment with
larger charge sizes, EPA is not implying that such risks could never be
mitigated. ASHRAE, AHRI, and DOE are investing $5.2 million in research
with the goal of using the results to update industry standards,
subject to the ANSI consensus process, to address flammability risks.
Such updates to standards would address risks in a broader range of
equipment than the current UL standards.
iv. Toxicity and Exposure
Comment: Whitmyre Research stated that the Agency had
``misconstrued the toxicity of propylene.'' The commenter stated that
propylene is widely recognized as having very low toxicity by
inhalation (e.g., narcosis occurs at 35-46 percent by volume). Whitmyre
Research stated that that the Agency's concern for the toxicity of
propylene is misplaced, because (1) the Agency's modeled exposures are
based on flawed methods and incorrect assumptions; (2) R-443A is only
partially made of propylene; (3) propylene is simply not toxic at the
modeled levels; and (4) the Agency used inappropriate toxicity
benchmarks. Specific assumptions in some of EPA's scenarios that the
commenter disagreed with included the length of time for the entire
refrigerant charge to release, the ventilation rates, and the
assumption of stratification of refrigerant (i.e., pooling near the
floor). The commenter also stated that the Agency must match the time-
frame of exposure to catastrophic releases of R-443A (minutes) in
establishing a toxicity benchmark.
Response: Based on this comment, EPA reconsidered the available
toxicology data for propylene and agrees that it indicates lower
concern for acute exposure than indicated in our risk assessment for
the proposed rule. Concerning the commenter's complaint about the
methods and assumptions for modeled exposures, EPA's analysis looked at
a variety of scenarios. These scenarios considered ventilation rates
both above and below those suggested by the commenter and both
stratification of refrigerant and complete mixing of refrigerant within
the space. We note that with a higher ventilation rate than that
suggested by the commenter and with an assumption of no refrigerant
stratification, concentrations reached 9,680 ppm over 30 minutes from
release of a larger charge for a split system, exceeding both the
excursion limit of 1,500 ppm and an acute exposure limit of 6,900 ppm
over 30 minutes, analogous to the AEGL-1 for propane. EPA separately
evaluated the propylene fraction when comparing modeled concentrations
against the guideline for propylene, and thus, considered that it is
only part of R-443A's composition.
We agree that the modeled exposure levels are below the level at
which toxicity has actually been observed. However, it is standard
practice to use more conservative values in evaluating toxicity risk
than the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) seen in studies to
account for uncertainty, such as variability within the general
population or differences between species. Concerning the toxicity
benchmark used by EPA--an excursion limit of three times the ACGIH
TLV--EPA agrees that there could be other, less conservative benchmarks
that could be used. We reviewed the available toxicity data for
propylene and also considered how the toxicity profile of propylene
differs from that of propane to determine what might be an appropriate,
less conservative benchmark. We concluded that there were not major
differences between the two HCs that warranted using a much lower acute
exposure limit for propylene than for propane.\90\ Therefore, we
reevaluated consumer exposure to propylene using an acute exposure
limit of 6,900 ppm over 30 minutes for propylene, analogous to the
AEGL-1 of 6,900 ppm for propane. In that revised evaluation, releases
of the propylene fraction of R-443A from smaller room air conditioners
could meet this acute exposure limit, but releases from split AC
systems and heat pumps with higher charges could exceed the acute
exposure limit. Thus, we still consider toxicity of propylene in R-443A
to potentially be of concern for residential and light commercial AC
and heat pump equipment with large charge sizes such as split AC
systems, but it is not a concern for room air conditioners with limited
charge sizes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Abt Associates, 2016. Review of propylene acute toxicity
for R-443A risk screen. Prepared for EPA. July 6, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Whitmyre Research stated that there is no asphyxiation
risk at the Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) limit; it
is not an indicator of asphyxiation risk.
Response: EPA agrees that the IDHL is not an indicator of
asphyxiation risk; however, EPA used a minimum oxygen concentration of
12 percent in assessing asphyxiation risk and did not use the IDLH.
Comment: Whitmyre Research stated that the TLV of 500 ppm for
propylene that was established by ACGIH is a chronic exposure limit to
be applied only to repeated exposures at least 40 hours per week over
an occupational lifetime. ACGIH based the TLV of 500 ppm for propylene
on nasal irritation effects occurring in treated animals exposed 6
hours per day, five days per week, for 103 weeks (2 years). No such
nasal effects were observed in rats or mice exposed acutely (i.e.,
single inhalation dose) or when exposed to up to 10,000 ppm propylene
for 6 hours per day, 5 days per week for 14 days (ACGIH 2006).
Response: EPA agrees that the ACGIH's TLV for propylene, like other
TLVs, is intended to be a chronic exposure limit and is based on longer
term exposure. However, the ACGIH also recommends that short term
excursions over a TLV should be no more than three times the TLV, on a
regular basis, and in no case should exceed five times the TLV. The
commenter has not suggested a specific
[[Page 86813]]
value that they propose EPA should use instead to assess risks of
short-term exposure.
5. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New
Centrifugal Chillers and for New Positive Displacement Chillers
a. Background
i. What are the affected end-uses?
In the proposed rule, EPA described two chiller end-uses,
specifically centrifugal chillers and positive displacement chillers.
We draw attention to the fact that, as discussed there, in some cases
the same refrigerant is used in both end-uses. Of note is the fact that
HFC-134a is used for some centrifugal chillers, namely ``high-
pressure'' centrifugal chillers, as well as in some positive
displacement chillers, such as screw chillers. In addition, as
discussed below, at least two alternatives--HFO-1234ze(E) and R-513A--
have been used in both types of chillers. EPA received many comments
concerning chillers that did not specifically say whether the comment
was referencing centrifugal chillers, positive displacement chillers,
or both. Therefore, in today's rule, we are addressing both end-uses in
this section.
Centrifugal chillers are equipment that utilize a centrifugal
compressor in a vapor-compression refrigeration cycle. They are
typically used for commercial comfort AC although other uses do exist.
Centrifugal chillers tend to be used in larger buildings, such as
office buildings, hotels, arenas, convention halls, airport terminals,
and other buildings.
For commercial comfort and some other applications, centrifugal
chillers typically cool water that is then pumped to fan coil units or
other air handlers to cool the air that is supplied to the occupied
spaces transferring the heat to the water. The heat absorbed by the
water can then be used for heating purposes, and/or can be transferred
directly to the air (``air-cooled''), to a cooling tower or body of
water (``water-cooled'') or through evaporative coolers (``evaporative-
cooled''). See section VI.A.4.a.i of the proposed rule for additional
information on the centrifugal chiller end-use (81 FR 22841-42; April
18, 2016).
Positive displacement chillers are vapor compression cycle chillers
that utilize positive displacement compressors, such as reciprocating,
screw, scroll or rotary types. Positive displacement chillers are
applied in similar situations as centrifugal chillers, primarily for
commercial comfort AC, except that positive displacement chillers tend
to be used for smaller capacity needs such as in mid- and low-rise
buildings. See section VI.A.4.b.i of the proposed rule for additional
information on the positive displacement chiller end-use (81 FR 22841-
42; April 18, 2016).
ii. What other types of equipment are used for similar applications but
are not covered by this section of the rule?
Other equipment including packaged rooftop units and split system
air conditioners, both of which fall under the SNAP end-use
``residential and light commercial air conditioning,'' can also be used
for commercial comfort AC, typically for even smaller capacity needs
than positive displacement chillers. These equipment types are not
centrifugal or positive displacement chillers and hence are not covered
under this section of the rule. EPA responds to comments regarding the
scope of chillers--both centrifugal and positive displacement--end-uses
in section VI.A.5.c.i.
iii. What refrigerants are used in centrifugal and positive
displacement chillers?
EPA discussed historical and recent use of refrigerants in
centrifugal chillers in section VI.A.4.a.i.(c) of the proposed rule (81
FR 22842; April 18, 2016). Since then, EPA has become aware of numerous
additional demonstrations, availability, and announcements regarding
alternative refrigerants for use in centrifugal chillers. For example,
Honeywell stated in their comments that ``[s]everal manufacturers
currently offer high-efficiency chillers, air-cooled (outdoor) and
water-cooled (indoor), using HFO-1234ze(E) in sizes ranging from tens
of tons to hundreds of tons'' and listed some examples, including some
centrifugal chillers. Multiple companies have introduced chillers using
HFO-1234ze(E), including Star Refrigeration,\91\ Klima-Therm,\92\
Airedale,\93\ Geoclima,\94\ Mitsubishi Heavy Industries,\95\ Smardt
Chiller Group,\96\ RC Group,\97\ Engie Refrigeration,\98\ and
Climaveneta.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ Star Refrigeration, 2012. ``Star's Three-Way Development
Test for R-1234ze(E).'' July 2012. This document is accessible at
http://www.star-ref.co.uk/star/images/stories/pdf/Case%20Study%20No%2082%20-%20Refrigerant%20R-1234ze.pdf.
\92\ RAC, 2012. ``Klima-Therm discusses world's first HFO
chiller for Waitrose.'' January 10, 2012. This document is
accessible online at http://www.racplus.com/features/klima-therm-discusses-worlds-first-hfo-chiller-for-waitrose/8624689.article.
\93\ The NEWS, 2014. ``Airedale Chiller with Low-GWP HFO
Refrigerant to Cool New John Lewis Store.'' June 9, 2014. This
document is accessible at http://www.achrnews.com/articles/126828-airedale-chiller-with-low-gwp-hfo-refrigerant-to-cool-new-john-lewis-store.
\94\ Geoclima, 2014. Geoclima Brochure. This document is
accessible at http://www.benndorf-hildebrand.eu/sites/default/files/fabrikate/pdf/geoclima_broschure.pdf.
\95\ Mitsubishi, 2012. ``Deployment to New Series of `eco Turbo
chiller ETI series.' '' This document is accessible at http://www.mhi.co.jp/technology/review/pdf/491/491058.pdf.
\96\ SMARDT, 2016. ``Revolutionary Energy Savings for the Built
Environment'', ``Trendsetting Technologies for Centrifugal
Chillers.'' These documents are available at http://climatecontrolme.com/2013/12/trendsetting-technologies-for-centrifugal-chillers/and http://www.smardt.com/docs/SMARDT%20BROCHURE%20ENGLISH%20JAN%202016.pdf.
\97\ RC Group, 2016. ``Unico Turbo Air Cooled Liquid Chiller.''
This document is accessible at http://www.rcgroup.it/EN/Prodotti/?idP=1563.
\98\ Engie Refrigeration, 2016. ``Quantum: Series and features
of the energy-efficient chiller series.'' This document is
accessible at https://www.engie-refrigeration.de/export/sites/cofelyrefrigeration/content/documents/ENG/Produkte/Quantum/ENG_Quantum_Folder.pdf.
\99\ Climaveneta, 2015. ``Against Global Warming with the NEW
TECS2 HFO Chillers.'' January 12, 2015. This document is accessible
at http://www.climaveneta.com/EN/Media/Press-Releases/112.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centrifugal chillers using the alternative R-1233zd(E) have also
been offered, from at least three manufacturers: Trane (a brand of
Ingersoll Rand),\100\ Carrier (a brand of UTC) \101\ and Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries.\102\ Ingersoll Rand confirmed in their comment that
they have R-1233zd(E) centrifugal chillers available now and further
stated that they will have centrifugal chillers under their Trane brand
using R-514A available in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Trane, 2016. ``Trane Announces Significant Centrifugal
Chiller Line Expansion and Services for the United States and
Canada.'' June 15, 2016. This document is accessible at http://www.trane.com/commercial/north-america/us/en/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/centrifugal-chiller-line-expansion.html.
\101\ Carrier, 2016. ``Carrier China Showcases latest
Innovations at China Refrigeration Expo.'' April 7, 2016. This
document is accessible at http://www.carrier.com/carrier/en/us/news/news-article/carrier_china_showcases_latest_innovations_at_china_refrigeration_expo.aspx.
\102\ MHI, 2015. ``MHI Develops `ETI-Z Series' of Next-
generation Centrifugal Chiller--Adopt New Non-ozone-depleting
Refrigeration to Minimize Greenhouse Gas Emissions.'' June 10, 2015.
This document is accessible at www.mhi-global.com/news/story/1506101900.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A fourth alternative that is already available for some centrifugal
chillers is R-513A. For instance, Johnson Controls announced this year
that the centrifugal (and screw) chillers they offer, originally
designed for HFC-134a, are compatible with R-513A.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ Johnson Controls, 2016. ``Johnson Controls Advances
Environmental Sustainability with Chiller Platforms Compatible with
Low GWP Refrigerants.'' January 20, 2016. http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/media-center/news/press-releases/2016/01/20/advanced-environmental-sustainability-with-chiller-platforms-compatible-with-low-gwp-refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA discussed historical and recent use of refrigerants in positive
[[Page 86814]]
displacement chillers in section VI.A.4.b.i.(c) of the proposed rule
(81 FR 22846; April 18, 2016), noting for instance that Trane
introduced a series of positive displacement chillers offered with R-
513A and that UTC had installed a screw chiller using HFO-1234ze(E).
Since then, EPA has become aware of additional demonstrations,
availability and announcements regarding alternative refrigerants for
use in positive displacement chillers. For example, in their comments,
Ingersoll Rand noted their commitment to transition its entire chiller
portfolio, including positive displacement screw and scroll chillers,
before the end of 2018. They separately announced their intention to
use R-452B in ``small chillers'' as well as other products.\104\
Johnson Controls also announced that they were offering multiple
positive displacement chillers, covering their entire line of screw
chillers, with the choice of R-513A refrigerant.\105\ It was reported
that UTC chose HFO-1234ze(E) for their global line of screw
chillers.\106\ Blue Box has designed its Kappa Rev range of screw
chillers specifically for HFO-1234ze(E).\107\ This refrigerant is also
available in positive displacement chillers from Geoclima.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Ingersoll Rand, undated. ``Ingersoll Rand Innovates HVAC
Portfolio Using
Next Generation, Low Global Warming Refrigerant, R-452B.'' This
document is accessible at http://company.ingersollrand.com/content/dam/ir-corp/documents/pdf/2016-DR55-Update-Release-FINAL.pdf.
\105\ Johnson Controls, 2016. ``Johnson Controls Advances
Environmental Sustainability with Chiller Platforms Compatible with
Low GWP Refrigerants.'' January 20, 2016. This document is
accessible at http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/media-center/news/press-releases/2016/01/20/advanced-environmental-sustainability-with-chiller-platforms-compatible-with-low-gwp-refrigerants.
\106\ RAC, 2016. ``Carrier opts for HFO 1234ze refrigerants for
global chiller range.'' February 26, 2016. This document is
accessible at http://www.racplus.com/news/carrier-opts-for-hfo-1234ze-refrigerants-for-global-chiller-range/10003440.article?blocktitle=News&contentID=15773.
\107\ Cooling Post, 2015. ``Blue Box offers R1234ze chiller
option.'' April 29, 2015. This document is accessible at http://www.coolingpost.com/world-news/blue-box-offers-r1234ze-chiller-option/.
\108\ Geoclima, 2014. Geoclima Brochure. This document is
accessible at http://www.benndorf-hildebrand.eu/sites/default/files/fabrikate/pdf/geoclima_broschure.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. What is EPA's final decision?
For new centrifugal chillers, EPA proposed to change the status as
of January 1, 2024, of the following refrigerants from acceptable to
unacceptable: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, HFC-236fa, HFC-
245fa, R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/
42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-
422C, R-422D, R-423A, R-424A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003
composition), and THR-03. We also proposed narrowed use limits for HFC-
134a and R-404A for certain centrifugal chillers. In this action, we
are finalizing the status changes and narrowed use limits that we
proposed with no changes. The change of status determinations for new
centrifugal chillers are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5--Change of Status Decisions for New Centrifugal Chillers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitutes Listing status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centrifugal Chillers (new FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC- Unacceptable as of
only). 134a, HFC-227ea, January 1, 2024,
HFC-236fa, HFC- except where
245fa, R-125/134a/ allowed under a
600a (28.1/70/1.9), narrowed use limit.
R-125/290/134a/600a
(55.0/1.0/42.5/
1.5), R-404A, R-
407C, R-410A, R-
410B, R-417A, R-
421A, R-422B, R-
422C, R-422D, R-
423A, R-424A, R-
434A, R-438A, R-
507A, RS-44 (2003
composition), and
THR-03.
Centrifugal Chillers (new HFC-134a............ Acceptable, subject
only). to narrowed use
limits, for
military marine
vessels, as of
January 1, 2024.
Centrifugal Chillers (new HFC-134a and R-404A. Acceptable, subject
only). to narrowed use
limits, for human-
rated spacecraft
and related support
equipment, as of
January 1, 2024.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For new positive displacement chillers, EPA proposed to change as
of January 1, 2024 the status of the following refrigerants from
acceptable to unacceptable: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6,
R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5),
R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D,
R-424A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 composition),
SP34E, and THR-03. We also proposed narrowed use limits for HFC-134a
and R-404A for certain positive displacement chillers. In this action,
we are finalizing the status changes and narrowed use limits that we
proposed with no changes. The change of status determinations for new
positive displacement chillers are summarized in Table 6.
Table 6--Change of Status Decisions for New Positive Displacement
Chillers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitutes Listing status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Positive Displacement FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC- Unacceptable as of
Chillers (new only). 134a, HFC-227ea, January 1, 2024,
KDD6, R-125/134a/ except where
600a (28.1/70/1.9), allowed under a
R-125/290/134a/600a narrowed use limit.
(55.0/1.0/42.5/
1.5), R-404A, R-
407C, R-410A, R-
410B, R-417A, R-
421A, R-422B, R-
422C, R-422D, R-
424A, R-434A, R-
437A, R-438A, R-
507A, RS-44 (2003
composition),
SP34E, and THR-03.
Positive Displacement HFC-134a............ Acceptable, subject
Chillers (new only). to narrowed use
limits, for
military marine
vessels, as of
January 1, 2024.
Positive Displacement HFC-134a and R-404A. Acceptable, subject
Chillers (new only). to narrowed use
limits, for human-
rated spacecraft
and related support
equipment, as of
January 1, 2024.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 86815]]
i. How do these unacceptable refrigerants compare to other refrigerants
for these end-uses with respect to SNAP criteria?
Other refrigerants for new centrifugal chillers not subject to this
action are HFO-1234ze(E), HFO-1336mzz(Z), IKON A, IKON B, R-450A, R-
513A, R-514A,\109\ R-717 (ammonia), R-744 (carbon dioxide), THR-02, and
trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene.\110\ In the proposed rule and
SNAP Acceptability Determination 31, EPA provided information on the
environmental and health risks presented by the alternatives that are
being found unacceptable compared with alternatives listed as
acceptable (81 FR 22842, April 18, 2016; and 81 FR 32242-45, May 23,
2016). In addition, a technical support document \111\ that provides
the Federal Register citations concerning data on the SNAP criteria
(e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for acceptable
alternatives as well as those we are finding unacceptable for new
centrifugal chillers may be found in the docket for this rulemaking
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ In SNAP Determination 31 (81 FR 32241; May 23, 2016), EPA
found acceptable a blend of 74.7 percent by weight HFO-1336mzz(Z)
and 25.3 percent by weight trans-1,2-dichloroethylene. The Standing
Standard Project Committee updating ASHRAE Standard 34-2013 has
proposed assigning this blend a designation of R-514A, which is how
we refer to it throughout section VI.A.5 of this rule.
\110\ ASHRAE Standard 34-2013 designates this chemical as R-
1233zd(E), which is how we refer to it throughout section VI.A.5 of
this rule.
\111\ EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered
in the Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing
Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For new centrifugal chillers, the refrigerants we are listing as
unacceptable have an insignificant ODP. Acceptable refrigerants HFO-
1234ze(E), HFO-1336mzz(Z), IKON A, IKON B, R-1233zd(E), R-450A, R-513A,
R-514A, R-717 (ammonia), R-744 (carbon dioxide), and THR-02 also have
an insignificant ODP. The alternative refrigerant R-1233zd(E) has an
ODP of 0.00024 to 0.00034.112 113 Estimates of this
compound's potential to deplete the ozone layer indicate that even with
worst-case estimates of emissions, which assume that this compound
would substitute for all compounds it could replace, the impact on
global atmospheric ozone abundance would be statistically
insignificant.\114\ R-514A has an ODP of approximately 0.00006, lower
than that of R-1233zd(E) and comparable to HFC-134a's calculated ODP of
less than 0.000015,\115\ which has generally been described as zero by
EPA and in common practice. Thus, the acceptable alternatives have ODPs
lower than or of the same practical effect to the ODPs of the
alternatives which EPA is listing as unacceptable, and lower than the
ODPs of ODS historically used in this end-use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. ``Preliminary Report:
Analyses of tCFP's Potential Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.''
Department of Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana,
IL. September 26, 2011.
\113\ Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ``Atmospheric Lifetimes and
Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
trichloropropylene and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene in a three-
dimensional model.'' Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867-10874, 2010.
\114\ Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. ``Preliminary Report:
Analyses of tCFP's Potential Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.''
Department of Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana,
IL. September 26, 2011.
\115\ The ODP of HFC-134a was estimated to be less than 1.5 x
10-5 using a theoretical 2-dimensional model.
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. Available online at
http://www.ciesin.org/docs/011-552/011-552.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable through this action
have GWPs ranging from about 920 to 9,810. As shown in Table 7,
alternatives acceptable for this end-use not subject to this action
have GWPs ranging from zero to 630.
Table 7--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Refrigerants in New Centrifugal Chillers 1 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Listing status
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFO-1234ze(E), R-1233zd(E), R-450A, R- 0-630 0-0.00034........................ No....................... Acceptable.
513A, R-717, R-744.
HFO-1336mzz(Z), IKON A, IKON B, R- 7-560 0--Not public \3\................ Yes \4\.................. Acceptable.
514A, THR-02.
HFC-134a, HFC-245fa................... 1,030-1,430 0................................ No....................... Unacceptable.
FOR12A, FOR12B, THR-03................ 920-1,220 Not public \3\................... Yes \4\.................. Unacceptable.
R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-421A, R- 1,770-3,220 0................................ No....................... Unacceptable.
423A, HFC-227ea.
R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/ 1,985-3,250 0................................ Yes \4\.................. Unacceptable.
290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-
417A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A,
R-434A. R-438A, RS-44 (2003
composition).
HFC-236fa, R-404A, R-507A............. 3,920-9,810 0................................ No....................... Unacceptable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-use.
\2\ HCFC-22, HCFC-123, HCFC-124, and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown
in HCFC production and consumption.
\3\ The ODP of one or more alternatives is not published here in order to avoid disclosing information that is claimed as confidential business
information.
\4\ One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC.
One of the refrigerant blends not subject to this action (THR-02),
as well as several of the substitutes for which we are changing the
listing from acceptable to unacceptable, include small amounts of R-290
(propane), R-600 (n-butane), or other substances that are VOCs. These
amounts are small and for this end-use are not expected to contribute
significantly to ground level ozone formation.\116\ HFO-1336mzz(Z) and
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene (constituents of R-514A) are considered
VOCs; the producer has petitioned EPA to exempt HFO-1336mzz(Z) from the
definition of VOC. In the actions where EPA listed these refrigerants
as acceptable, EPA concluded none of these refrigerants in this end-use
pose significantly greater risk to ground-level ozone formation than
other alternative refrigerants that do not meet the definition of VOC
under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) or that are specifically
excluded from that definition for the purpose of developing SIPs to
attain and maintain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations.
February, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The refrigerants listed as acceptable and not subject to this
action are highly volatile and typically evaporate or partition to air,
rather than contaminating surface waters. Their effects on aquatic life
are expected to be small and pose no greater risk of aquatic or
ecosystem effects than those of the refrigerants for which we are
changing the listing from acceptable to unacceptable for this end-use.
[[Page 86816]]
With the exceptions of HFO-1234ze(E) and R-717, all other
refrigerants listed as acceptable and those we are listing as
unacceptable, are not flammable. HFO-1234ze(E) is nonflammable at
standard temperature and pressure using the standard test method ASTM
E681; however, at higher temperatures it is mildly flammable. It is
classified as a Class 2L (mild flammability, low burning velocity)
refrigerant under the standard ASHRAE 34 (2013). Our assessment and
listing decision (77 FR 47768; August 10, 2012) found that the overall
risk, including the risk due to this mild flammability at elevated
temperature, is not significantly greater than for other refrigerants
or for the refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable.
The toxicity of the refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable is
comparable to that of other alternatives that are acceptable in this
end-use, with the exception of R-717 and R-514A. R-717 is of a higher
toxicity than the other acceptable refrigerants and is classified as a
B refrigerant under ASHRAE 34 (2013). See section VI.A.4.a.iii.(b) of
the proposed rule (81 FR 22843; April 18, 2016) for a discussion on the
long history of use of R-717 and our original decision finding it
acceptable in new centrifugal chillers. The use of R-717, also known as
ammonia, and the risks it might present are controlled through industry
standards, code requirements and other regulations. In the original
SNAP rule, EPA noted ``[a]mmonia [R-717] has been used as a medium to
low temperature refrigerant in vapor compression cycles for more than
100 years. Ammonia [R-717] has excellent refrigerant properties, a
characteristic pungent odor, no long-term atmospheric risks, and low
cost. It is, however, mildly flammable and toxic, although it is not a
cumulative poison. OSHA standards specify a 15 minute short-term
exposure limit of 35 ppm for ammonia [R-717].'' (53 FR 13072; March 18,
1994). In that rule, we found R-717 acceptable for use in centrifugal
chillers, concluding that its overall risk to human health and the
environment was not significantly greater than the other alternatives
found acceptable. This conclusion was based on the assumption that the
regulated community adheres to OSHA regulations on such use as well as
standard refrigeration practices, such as the adherence to ASHRAE
Standard 15 and the International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration
(IIAR) Standard 2,\117\ which are utilized by local authorities when
setting their own building and safety requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ ANSI/International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration
(IIAR) Standard 2-2008 (Addendum B)--American National Standard for
Equipment, Design, & Installation of Closed Circuit Ammonia
Mechanical Refrigerating Systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-514A is designed for use in low-pressure centrifugal chillers and
has the same toxicity rating as HCFC-123, which has and continues to be
used safely in such chillers. Because these refrigerants operate in
low-pressure chillers only, any leaks are more likely to cause air to
enter the chiller, rather than refrigerant to escape. Exposure is
further reduced by requirements set forth in ASHRAE Standard 15, which
is often cited in building codes. Specifically, Occupant Exposure
Limits and Refrigerant Concentration Limits for B1 refrigerants--
specified in ASHRAE Standard 34-2013 and mandated by ASHRAE Standard 15
and building codes--are lower than for A1 refrigerants, and these
limits must be observed in chiller operations. EPA's risk screen \118\
found that for a typical-size chiller using R-514A, even under
conservative assumptions, the estimated 15-minute time-weighted average
exposure would be well below (less than 12 percent of) the
corresponding limit. The other acceptable alternatives listed
previously that are included in ASHRAE 34 (2013) are classified as A
(lower toxicity) refrigerants. For further information, including EPA's
risk screens and risk assessments as well as information from the
submitters of the substitutes, see docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ ICF, 2016m. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Chillers
Substitute: HFO-1336mzz(Z)/trans-1,2-dichloroethylene blend (74.7/
25.3) (OpteonTM XP30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, for new centrifugal chillers, because the risks other
than GWP are not significantly different for the other available
alternatives than for those we proposed to list as unacceptable, and
because the GWPs for the refrigerants we proposed to list as
unacceptable are significantly higher and thus pose significantly
greater risk, we are listing the following refrigerants as
unacceptable: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/134a/
600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-
407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A,
R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), SP34E, and
THR-03.
For new positive displacement chillers, other alternatives that are
listed as acceptable and not subject to this action pose lower overall
risk to human health and the environment than the refrigerants we are
listing as unacceptable. Acceptable refrigerants for new positive
displacement chillers include: HFO-1234ze(E), HFO-1336mzz(Z), IKON B,
R-450A, R-513A, R-514A, R-717, R-744, and THR-02. In the proposed rule
and SNAP Acceptability Determination 31, EPA provided information on
the environmental and health risks presented by the alternatives that
are being found unacceptable compared with other available alternatives
listed as acceptable (81 FR 22846; April 18, 2016 and 81 FR 32242-
32245; May 23, 2016). In addition, a technical support document \119\
that provides the Federal Register citations of actions in which we
provide information on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC,
toxicity, flammability) for acceptable alternatives for new positive
displacement chillers, as well as those we are finding unacceptable,
may be found in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered
in the Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing
Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For new positive displacement chillers, the refrigerants that we
are listing as unacceptable have insignificant ODPs and have GWPs
ranging from about 920 to 3,990. As shown in Table 8, other
alternatives that we are not listing as unacceptable in this end-use
have GWPs ranging from zero to 630.
Table 8--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Refrigerants in New Positive Displacement Chillers \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFO-1234ze(E), R-450A, R-513A, 0-630 0......................... No............... Acceptable.
R-717, R-744.
HFO-1336mzz(Z), IKON B, R- 7-560 0--Not public \3\......... Yes \4\.......... Acceptable.
514A, THR-02.
HFC-134a...................... 1,430 0......................... No............... Unacceptable.
FOR12A, FOR12B, SP34E, THR-03. 920-1,410 0--Not public \3\......... Yes\4\........... Unacceptable.
HFC-227ea, R-407C, R-410A, R- 1,770-3,220 0......................... No............... Unacceptable.
410B, R-421A.
[[Page 86817]]
KDD6, R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/ 1,810-3,250 0......................... Yes \4\.......... Unacceptable.
1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55/
1/42.5/1.5), R-417A, R-422B,
R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-
434A, R-437A, R-438A, RS-44
(2003 composition).
R-404A, R-507A................ 3,920-3,990 0......................... No............... Unacceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses.
\2\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption.
\3\ The ODP of one or more alternatives is not published here in order to avoid disclosing information that is
claimed as confidential business information.
\4\ One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC.
One of the refrigerant blends not subject to this action (THR-02),
as well as several of the substitutes for which we are changing the
listing from acceptable to unacceptable, include small amounts of R-290
(propane), R-600 (butane), or other substances that are VOCs. These
amounts are small and for this end-use are not expected to contribute
significantly to ground level ozone formation.\120\ HFO-1336mzz(Z) and
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene (constituents of R-514A) are considered
VOCs; the producer has petitioned EPA to exclude HFO-1336mzz(Z) from
the definition of VOC. In the actions where EPA listed these
refrigerants as acceptable, EPA concluded that none of the refrigerants
in this end-use pose significantly greater risk to ground-level ozone
formation than other alternative refrigerants that are not VOCs or that
are specifically excluded 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations.
February, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The refrigerants not subject to this action are highly volatile and
typically evaporate or partition to air, rather than contaminating
surface waters. Their effects on aquatic life are expected to be small
and pose no greater risk of aquatic or ecosystem effects than those of
the refrigerants that are subject to the status change for this end-
use.
With the exception of HFO-1234ze(E) and R-717, all other
refrigerants that have been listed as acceptable, including those for
which we are now changing the status to unacceptable, are not
flammable. HFO-1234ze(E) is nonflammable at standard temperature and
pressure using the standard test method ASTM E681; however, at higher
temperatures it is mildly flammable. It is classified as a Class 2L
(mild flammability, low burning velocity) refrigerant under the
standard ASHRAE 34 (2013). Our assessment and listing decision (77 FR
47768; August 10, 2012) found that the overall risk, including the risk
due to this mild flammability at elevated temperature, is not
significantly greater than for other refrigerants or for the
refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable.
R-717 (ammonia) is mildly flammable with a low flame speed; it is
classified as a 2L refrigerant under ASHRAE 34 (2013). R-717 has a long
history of use as a refrigerant in positive displacement chillers,
especially in water-cooled screw chillers, and other applications. In
our evaluation finding R-717 acceptable in this end-use, EPA noted
``[a]mmonia [R-717] has been used as a medium to low temperature
refrigerant in vapor compression cycles for more than 100 years.
Ammonia [R-717] has excellent refrigerant properties, a characteristic
pungent odor, no long-term atmospheric risks, and low cost. It is,
however, mildly flammable and toxic, although it is not a cumulative
poison. Ammonia [R-717] may be used safely if existing OSHA and ASHRAE
standards are followed'' (61 FR 47015).
With the exception of R-717, the toxicity of the refrigerants we
are listing as unacceptable is comparable to that of other alternatives
that are acceptable in this end-use. R-717, a refrigerant we are not
listing as unacceptable, is of a higher toxicity than some other
refrigerants and is classified as a B refrigerant under ASHRAE 34
(2013). See section VI.A.4.b.iii.(b) of the proposed rule (81 FR 22847;
April 18, 2016) for a discussion on the long history of use of R-717
and our original decision finding it acceptable in new positive
displacement chillers. However, as we provided in listing it as
acceptable, if used consistent with OSHA regulations, as well as
standard refrigeration practices, such as the adherence to ASHRAE
Standard 15 and the International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration
(IIAR) Standard 2, which are utilized by local authorities when setting
their own building and safety requirements, it does not pose
significantly greater risk than other available refrigerants in this
end-use. For further information, including EPA's risk screens and risk
assessments as well as information from the submitters of the
substitutes, see docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663.
In summary, for positive displacement chillers, because the risks
other than GWP are not significantly different for the other available
alternatives than for those we proposed to list as unacceptable, and
because the GWPs for the refrigerants we proposed to list as
unacceptable are significantly higher and thus pose significantly
greater risk, we are listing the following refrigerants as
unacceptable: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/134a/
600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-
407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A,
R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), SP34E, and
THR-03.
ii. Narrowed Use Limits for Military Marine Vessels and Human-Rated
Spacecraft and Related Support Equipment
EPA is establishing a narrowed use limit that would allow continued
use of HFC-134a in centrifugal and positive displacement chillers for
military marine vessels as of January 1, 2024. EPA is also establishing
a narrowed use limit that would allow continued use of HFC-134a and R-
404A in centrifugal and positive displacement chillers for human-rated
spacecraft and related support equipment applications as of January 1,
2024. See section VI.A.4.a.iv and VI.A.4.b.iv of the proposed rule (81
FR 22844; April 18, 2016) for a discussion of the reasons for these
narrowed use limits. EPA responds to comments regarding the narrowed
use limits in section VI.A.5.c.v.
Under these narrowed use limits, the end users will need to
ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to
performance or safety requirements, and they would also need to
document the results of their
[[Page 86818]]
analysis. See 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). Users are expected to undertake a
thorough technical investigation of alternatives to the otherwise
restricted substitute. Although users are not required to report the
results of their investigations to EPA, users must document these
results and retain them in their files for the purpose of demonstrating
compliance. This information includes descriptions of:
Process or product in which the substitute is needed;
Substitutes examined and rejected;
Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g.,
performance, technical or safety standards; and/or
Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and
projected time for switching.
iii. When will the status change?
EPA proposed and is finalizing a status change date of January 1,
2024, for new centrifugal chillers and new positive displacement
chillers, except as otherwise allowed under a narrowed use limit. The
status change date is based on comments and our understanding of the
needs for industry standards, model codes, and adoption of those items
to allow for a range of alternatives, including flammable alternatives,
in both types of chillers addressed. As pointed out by AHRI and NRDC in
their joint comment on the proposed rule, for chillers with
alternatives not subject to a status change to be used ``effectively
and safely, the appropriate mitigation must be developed, proven, and
finally adopted by safety standards. Only then can states and
municipalities adopt building codes reflecting the updated safety
standards.'' The Agency understands that relevant industry standards
and model building codes are likely to change in the 2017 to 2021
timeframe, and that such changes will be a necessary step for the
acceptable alternatives feasibly to be used in the chiller market.
These standards and codes include ASHRAE 15, UL 1995, UL 60335-2-40,
and the International Building Code (IBC). EPA also recognizes that
even once standards and model building codes are changed, time will be
required for locations to adopt such codes allowing for the use of
chillers using the alternative refrigerants, many of which may not
currently be allowed to be used based on existing codes. While some
non-flammable, code-acceptable refrigerants are available for some of
the chiller market, the use of other acceptable alternatives would
require code changes or exceptions made by code officials. Comments
indicated that there is a progression from the release of a model code
until adoption by State authorities, and that the majority of States
are currently using either the most recent (2015) model code or are
only one cycle behind (2012). While EPA does not believe the status
change date must occur after all such authorities have adopted a new
model code, we are allowing a reasonable time to provide that
opportunity where such code adoption would facilitate the introduction
of chillers with alternative refrigerants. Comments also indicate that,
if the appropriate codes are not adopted, there are alternative means
and measures that may be taken to allow the use of alternatives
otherwise not allowed. A change of status date of January 1, 2024, is
necessary to provide an expeditious yet reasonable time for this
process to occur. The status change date is also necessary to allow
continued development of designs of new centrifugal and positive
displacement chillers using an acceptable alternative, covering the
wide range of capacity and design types (low/medium pressure, indoor/
outdoor, etc.) that exist in the market, and allow those chillers to be
tested and certified. EPA is aware that some equipment has been
introduced with acceptable alternatives, as discussed above in section
VI.A.5.a.ii, and that additional research and development is underway
with these and other possible alternatives. EPA responds to comments
regarding the status change date in section VI.A.5.c.ii.
Some commenters suggested an earlier date for all or parts of the
centrifugal and positive displacement chiller market, suggesting status
change dates as early as 2019. While EPA noted that multiple chillers
with alternative refrigerants are already available on the market now,
and we expect more to become so by that date, we did not find evidence
that a significant portion of the chiller market could transition at an
earlier date than the date we are finalizing. Further, EPA did not
receive enough technical detail to support dividing the centrifugal
chiller end-use or the positive displacement chiller end-use so that
different change of status dates could apply to different portions of
the end-uses.
Commenters who suggested a later status change date had concerns
regarding their ability to maintain current energy efficiency levels
with alternative refrigerants. The data provided by commenters,
however, showed only minor theoretical losses of efficiency for some
alternatives, up to about four percent. These commenters suggested more
time is needed to recover these losses by redesigning and recertifying
centrifugal chillers. These losses are considered small and only
pertain to ``drop-in'' conditions; it is expected that any losses can
be recovered by designing new chillers to utilize those refrigerants,
as commenters indicate they expect to do. Furthermore, several
alternatives were found to exceed current efficiency levels even in
these theoretical conditions. While some commenters provided a general
description of the steps that must be taken in this redesign process,
none provided a detailed timeline of how long each step would take and
how multiple models can be redesigned in parallel during the proposed
timeframe. Therefore, we disagree that efficiency concerns would
support a later change of status date.
Commenters who suggested a later status change date were also
concerned about the need to update industry standards and building
codes, and adoption of those codes, specifically for flammable
alternatives. For centrifugal chillers, they stated such changes must
take place for HFO-1234ze(E), a mildly flammable A2L refrigerant, to be
used. They also identified that refrigerant and several other A2L
refrigerants for positive displacement chillers, and likewise indicated
that standards and codes actions hindered the availability of chillers
with those alternatives. EPA found several examples where acceptable
alternatives have been used in both centrifugal and positive
displacement chillers, and received information that indicates that
industry standards are expected to be updated as early as 2017 and that
model building codes would be updated possibly in the 2018 cycle or
most likely the 2021 cycle. By establishing a 2024 status change, we
allow time for adoption of those model codes by States and other
jurisdictional authorities. In addition, commenters noted that there
are other alternative means and measures by which the use of a
flammable refrigerant, if so chosen by the manufacturer, in a
centrifugal or positive displacement chiller may be permitted, even if
that refrigerant were not otherwise allowed under a particular State or
locality's existing code requirements.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
EPA received several comments from individuals and organizations
with various interests in the refrigerants industry. Comments addressed
EPA's proposed status change date of January 1, 2024, for new
centrifugal chillers and new positive displacement chillers. Some
commenters, including Chemours, EIA, Honeywell, and Ingersoll Rand
[[Page 86819]]
supported EPA's proposed status change date. These commenters
identified a range of potential alternatives but generally agreed that
new centrifugal chillers using these alternatives needed some time to
be brought to the market. Other commenters opposed the proposed status
changes or suggested different change of status dates from the one EPA
proposed, such as 2021 and 2025. Other comments we received related to
energy efficiency, industry standards and codes, and the narrowed use
limits for military and spacecraft uses.
Commenters included Boeing, Eastman Chemical Company, Honeywell,
Chemours, Johnson Controls, Ingersoll Rand, UTC, PSEG Services
Corporation, Arkema, the Alliance, National Association of
Manufacturers (NAM), AHRI, EIA, NRDC, IGSD, NASA, and DoD.
As stated above, EPA received many comments discussing ``chillers''
or ``HFC-134a alternatives'' that did not specify whether the comments
applied specifically to centrifugal chillers, positive displacement
chillers, or both. We have grouped comments together and responded to
the issues raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a
separate Response to Comments document which is included in the docket
for this rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663). Our responses should be
considered as equally applicable to both end-uses unless otherwise
specified.
i. Substitutes and End-Use Proposed
Comment: Eastman requested that EPA clarify whether the status
changes under the chiller end-uses apply to the IPR end-use. Eastman
pointed out that since the inception of the SNAP program, EPA has
separated these into different end-uses.
Response: EPA confirms that this action will change the status of
refrigerants for new positive displacement chillers and new centrifugal
chillers and does not affect refrigerants listed under the separate IPR
end-use.
Comment: Eastman raised concerns about retrofits to existing
equipment, specifically for ``any of these systems with remaining
useful life [that] are scheduled for retrofits due to previous phase-
outs of refrigerants such as R-22,'' and pointed out issues related to
using certain refrigerants listed as acceptable for the chiller end-
uses ``to replace the one the [IPR] system was originally designed to
use.'' PSEG submitted similar comments, requesting that EPA ``clarify
its intent that the prohibition of HFC-134a in chillers applies to new
chillers installed on or after January 1, 2024,'' and did not require
``units that are newly installed with HFC-134a after the final rule
becomes effective, but prior to January 1, 2024, to retrofit those
`existing' units by January 1, 2024.'' PSEG stated that ``there are few
viable zero or low GWP refrigerants available for use in HFC-134a large
tonnage equipment'' and that highly flammable refrigerants and both R-
717 and R-744 are not viable for nuclear applications, noting that
``the equipment must be designed specifically for the gas.''
Response: The status changes to the centrifugal and positive
displacement chiller end-uses in this rule apply to ``new'' equipment
installed on or after the status change date of January 1, 2024. EPA
has historically issued separate decisions under the SNAP program for
new equipment in a given end-use and retrofit (i.e., the replacement of
the refrigerant with an alternate refrigerant) in the same end-use.
This action changes the status of refrigerants for new chillers created
on or after the status change date; it does not change the status of
refrigerants currently acceptable for retrofitting chillers. Thus,
concerns about retrofitting ``HFC-134a'' equipment are not pertinent
for this action.
Comment: EIA supported EPA's proposal to change the status of high-
GWP refrigerants to unacceptable for centrifugal and positive
displacement chillers, mentioning specifically refrigerants HFC-134a,
R-404A, R-407C, R-410A and R-507A. Chemours also supported EPA's
proposed status changes for both chiller end-uses, and identified
several alternatives and what they would replace, including R-513A
(HFC-134a replacement), R-452B (R-410A replacement), R-449A (R-404A
replacement) and HFO-1234yf (HFC-134a replacement).
Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their support of the
proposed rule. Regarding the alternatives identified by Chemours, EPA
agrees that R-513A is an acceptable alternative for centrifugal and
positive displacement chillers. EPA has received submissions for R-449A
and R-452B for both centrifugal and positive displacement chillers and
the Agency is reviewing them for these and other end-uses. We have not
received a submission specifically for HFO-1234yf in chillers.
Comment: UTC provided information regarding various refrigerants
that are listed as acceptable or that may be under research for use in
centrifugal chillers, specifically HFO-1234ze(E), R-290, R-450A, R-
513A, R-452B, R-718, R-744, R-1233zd(E) and R-515A. They likewise
provided information on the first six of these refrigerants in positive
displacement chillers. Additional information regarding the compressor
displacement to utilize these alternatives was also provided. UTC noted
the flammability of R-290 and felt that R-718 and R-744 ``do not
provide a long-term solution or require additional work to make such
refrigerants feasible in chillers.'' UTC provided information regarding
the application and efficiency of the other refrigerants and said some
of these that could be used ``are short-term, but less efficient''
options. They also indicated others are ``longer-term,'' and identified
HFO-1234ze(E) as a specific example but also noted its flammability.
They stated that R-452B was not a viable option to replace HFC-134a but
did indicate it was under consideration as one of several R-410A
alternatives, all of which are flammable.
Response: EPA interprets this comment to apply to both centrifugal
and positive displacement chillers. EPA thanks the commenter for this
information. This information shows that much is known about these
refrigerants and how they could be employed in chillers. UTC indicates
a desire to transition to what it considered ``longer-term'' solutions,
but did not provide adequate information to indicate why their
recommended status change date of January 1, 2025, would provide such
time but the proposed status change date of January 1, 2024, would not.
As discussed in section VI.A.5.b.iii above, EPA has established a
change of status date that considers the need for standards and model
codes to change to incorporate requirements for flammable refrigerants
as well as additional time for States and localities to adopt such
codes as part of their requirements.
Comment: UTC indicated that HFO-1234ze(E) is flammable and
therefore mitigation is required and ``appropriate safety standards and
approved building codes must be in place before it can be used.''
Comments submitted as CBI indicate that a chiller using HFO-1234ze(E)
has been introduced in Europe and that the potential flammability of
the refrigerant was addressed through added mitigation requirements
sufficient for A2 (and hence A2L) refrigerants. As noted in section
VI.A.5.a.iii above, Honeywell stated that ``[s]everal manufacturers
currently offer high-efficiency chillers, air-cooled (outdoor) and
water-cooled (indoor), using HFO-1234ze(E) in sizes ranging from tens
of tons to hundreds of tons'' and listed some examples, including some
centrifugal chillers and some positive displacement chillers.
[[Page 86820]]
Response: EPA interprets these comments as applying to both
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers. This information
indicates that manufacturers and installers have been successful in
introducing chillers with alternative flammable refrigerants in some
instances, and that building codes allow for such installations under
certain circumstances. However, as discussed in section VI.A.5.b.iii
above, EPA agrees that for flammable refrigerants to become more widely
used across the multiple applications and configurations where
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers are deployed, standards
and model codes need to be revised and the States and localities must
adopt such codes. Our status change date of January 1, 2024, provides
the time necessary for this to occur. As discussed above in section
VI.A.5.a.iii, multiple companies have introduced chillers using HFO-
1234ze(E). Comments indicate that this refrigerant is already being
employed in chillers and that steps to address the flammability of the
refrigerant in some applications are known. Thus, this refrigerant is
one of the many options that can be utilized by manufacturers to
develop chillers using acceptable refrigerants by the January 1, 2024,
status change date. In addition to HFO-1234ze(E), other flammable
refrigerants have been used, especially in positive displacement
chillers. For instance, in the proposed rule (81 FR 22847; April 18,
2016), EPA noted that ``R-717 has a long history of use as a
refrigerant in positive displacement chillers, especially in water-
cooled screw chillers, and other applications.''
Comment: Honeywell stated that ``HFO-1233zd(E), has a GWP of one,
is non-flammable and more energy efficient than HFC-134a, and chillers
utilizing HFO-1233zd(E) are available from at least three
manufacturers,'' identifying Trane (a brand of Ingersoll Rand), Carrier
(a brand of UTC), and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for this information regarding
R-1233zd(E). The proposed rule (81 FR 22842; April 18, 2016) noted that
one manufacturer had introduced a chiller using this refrigerant.\121\
That same company now offers all of their large tonnage low-pressure
centrifugal chillers using this refrigerant.\122\ As Honeywell notes,
and as we cite in section VI.A.5.a.iii above, other manufacturers have
also produced centrifugal chillers using R-1233zd(E). These will serve
part of the chiller market but do not satisfy the full market, for
instance where a smaller tonnage, positive displacement chiller is
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ Cooling Post, 2014. ``Trane first with 1233zd chiller.''
June 30, 2014. This document is accessible at http://www.coolingpost.com/world-news/trane-first-with-1233zd-chiller/.
\122\ Trane, 2016. ``Trane Announces Significant Centrifugal
Chiller Line Expansion and Services for the United States and
Canada.'' June 15, 2016. This document is accessible at http://www.trane.com/commercial/north-america/us/en/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/centrifugal-chiller-line-expansion.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Ingersoll Rand stated that they will have small tonnage
low-pressure centrifugal chillers under their Trane brand using R-514A
available in 2017.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for this comment indicating the
development of small tonnage low-pressure centrifugal chillers using R-
514A, which we cite in section VI.A.5.a.iii.
Comment: EIA suggested that EPA ``signal the likelihood'' of
finding alternatives with GWPs above 600 unacceptable, including R-450A
and R-513A.
Response: EPA cannot, at this time, project what actions it may
take in the future. Moreover, any proposal to change the status of R-
450A and R-513A in the chiller end-uses would need to occur through a
separate notice and comment rulemaking in which EPA performs a full
comparative assessment using the SNAP criteria.
ii. Change of Status Date
Comment: Honeywell supported a January 1, 2024, status change date
for chillers but felt that certain types could transition sooner. They
noted that the discussion regarding the need for building codes to
change to accept 2L flammable refrigerants was most applicable to
water-cooled indoor chiller installations and that ``for the most part
this issue does not impact the installation of air-cooled chillers that
are installed outdoors.'' Based on that, Honeywell believed that EPA
could adopt an earlier transition date for air-cooled (outdoor)
chillers. EIA suggested a staged transition with a change of status
date of January 1, 2019, for air-cooled chillers and January 1, 2021,
for water-cooled chillers. The California Air Resources Board (CARB)
recommended that all chillers be subject to a January 1, 2021, status
change date. Arkema suggested a 2021 transition date for R-407A, R-
407B, R-407C, R-407D, R-407E, and R-407F.
Response: EPA interprets these comments as applying to both
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers. The commenters
supporting one or more earlier change of status dates for all or
portions of the chiller end use did not provide enough technical detail
to conclude that such dates are achievable for the chillers that would
be subject to such dates. Further, EPA did not receive enough
information regarding how extensive code changes would (or would not)
be specifically for air-cooled outdoor chillers and thus we do not
believe that an earlier status change date for that portion of the
chiller market as suggested by Honeywell and EIA is supported. EPA
notes that nonflammable (A1) and flammable (A2L and B2L) alternatives
are acceptable for both centrifugal and positive displacement chillers.
We also recognize that it is important under the SNAP program to
not limit end users to a single choice. EPA has identified several
alternatives that are acceptable for centrifugal chillers and likewise
positive displacement chillers. By establishing the same change of
status date for all chillers, manufacturers will be able to choose from
the full list of acceptable alternatives the refrigerant(s) and chiller
type(s) that best meet their specific needs, and customers will be able
to apply the particular type(s) of chillers using the particular
acceptable alternative that best meet their needs. Individual
manufacturers may determine for themselves which alternative(s) to use
in their particular equipment and given the variety of alternatives
available there may not be a single ``widely-accepted'' replacement,
even for a specific type of chiller; there may be several refrigerants
and chiller types competing in the market. For additional comments
regarding building codes and standards, please see section VI.A.c.iv.
Comment: UTC argued for a status change date no earlier than
January 1, 2025. One factor that they cited was that HFO-1234ze(E) ``is
a new HFO.'' Regarding this chemical, UTC stated that it has
``approximately equal performance'' to HFC-134a and indicated that
changes to equipment designs are required to use it. UTC also stated
that ``typical development projects require 2-3 years to complete,''
but indicated that HFO-1234ze(E) ``require[s] major redesign work.''
Commenting on positive displacement chillers, EIA stated that ``[t]he
first HFO-1234ze chillers were installed back in 2011 and production
uptake of HFO-1234ze chillers has been increasing rapidly'' noting two
major manufacturers--Carrier (a brand of UTC) and Trane (a brand of
Ingersoll Rand)--using that refrigerant in chillers.
[[Page 86821]]
Response: EPA interprets UTC's comment as applying to both
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers while EIA's comment was
specific to positive displacement chillers. HFO-1234ze(E) is not a
``new'' refrigerant--it was added to ASHRAE Standard 34-2010 via
addendum i, which was approved by the ASHRAE Standards Committee on
June 25, 2011, by the ASHRAE Board of Directors on June 29, 2011, and
by the ANSI on June 30, 2011. EPA listed it acceptable for centrifugal
and positive displacement chillers on August 10, 2012. As discussed
previously in section VI.A.5.b.iii and as EIA noted, multiple companies
have utilized HFO-1234ze(E) in chillers to date. Finally, we note that
Carrier Corporation, a brand of UTC, has at least six HFO-1234ze(E)
chiller installations in Switzerland.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ RAC, 2016. ``Carrier opts for HFO 1234ze refrigerants for
global chiller range.'' February 26, 2016. This document is
accessible at http://www.racplus.com/news/carrier-opts-for-hfo-1234ze-refrigerants-for-global-chiller-range/10003440.article?blocktitle=News&contentID=15773.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: UTC, Johnson Controls and AHRI stated that any status
change date earlier than January 1, 2025, would not provide the time
necessary to transition to alternatives that remain acceptable. UTC
stated that ``EPA must take into account certain properties, including
flammability, for refrigerants for which EPA does not propose to change
status'' (emphasis in the original), such as HFO-1234ze(E), R-
1233zd(E), R-450A and R-513A. UTC commented that the substitutes that
remain acceptable for centrifugal chillers and for positive
displacement chillers currently utilizing HFC-134a are not ``drop-in''
refrigerants and will require substantial equipment redesign to account
for displacement changes and changes in cycle efficiency and heat
transfer. For positive displacement chillers currently utilizing R-
410A, UTC and Johnson Controls said system changes must be made for A2L
refrigerants, and concluded that all the alternatives being
investigated for such use are or would be classified as A2L. UTC
provided further information on the steps required during redesign.
These included steps for ``each chiller type'' as well as additional
steps for 2L flammable refrigerants. To redesign equipment, UTC said
one necessary step was the development of oils and new materials to be
used in the new equipment. They also indicated that new components and
overall systems would need to be requalified by test laboratories. More
generally, UTC indicated that ``different equipment redesign,
requalification and equipment sensor and alarms will be required along
with state and local adoption of building and fire code changes'' to
transition positive displacement chillers.
UTC said that typical development projects would require two to
three years to complete but also indicated that this time frame could
be delayed due to the availability of manufacturer and test labs for
certification, Johnson Controls indicated a project duration of two to
nine years for low-pressure and medium-pressure chillers. AHRI also
estimated it would take two to nine years to commercialize including
time to reengineer and re-optimize chillers to use alternative
refrigerants. Ingersoll Rand noted their commitment to transition its
entire chiller portfolio, including positive displacement screw and
scroll chillers, before the end of 2018.
Response: EPA interprets these comments as applying (regarding the
development process) to both centrifugal and positive displacement
chillers. Although EPA prefers not to use the term ``drop-in,'' it is
sometimes used by various parties to refer to the circumstance where
one refrigerant can be used in place of another without any
modification to the relevant piece of refrigeration equipment. EPA
recognizes that in many cases designs will need to be modified to use
different refrigerants. This is expected and was evidenced when
centrifugal chillers transitioned from CFC-11 and CFC-12 to HCFC-123
and HFC-134a and when positive displacement chillers transitioned from
CFC-12 and HCFC-22 to HFC-134a, R-407C and R-410A. Past experiences
show that such redesigns offer the opportunity for manufacturers to
integrate other changes to improve performance of their products and
could offer them competitive advantages in the market. EPA realizes
that the degree of design changes may vary by the refrigerant chosen
and more so from decisions by the manufacturers in adopting designs for
those refrigerants and including other design changes during the
process.
The information from these commenters did not provide sufficient
detail to determine the time it would take to transition all chillers
to acceptable alternatives to serve its current market. For instance,
UTC did not indicate whether the two to three year product development
timeframe applied to just one or multiple products, and if the latter,
whether those development projects could overlap and occur
simultaneously. Johnson Controls and AHRI did not address these
situations either. However, the January 1, 2024, change of status date
for both centrifugal and positive displacement chillers that EPA is
establishing in the final rule should provide sufficient time for the
activities described by the commenters to occur in order to meet that
date.
Comment: In addition to the argument for a change of status date no
earlier than January 1, 2025, UTC suggested that HFC-134a in chillers
should remain acceptable until states and localities adopted the
``relevant building, fire and mechanical codes that may be necessary.''
The commenter suggested a narrowed use limit could apply. UTC also
provided a table indicating the number of states adopting various
editions of the IBC, the International Fire Code, and the International
Mechanical Code. UTC indicated a desire for ``regulatory certainty''
and an avoidance of ``balkanization of the market.''
Response: UTC did not indicate specifically which codes, and
specifically which provisions in any codes, would need to be modified.
Although EPA recognizes that in general standards and model codes need
to be developed to allow for the use of A2L refrigerants, and that
States and localities need to adopt those model codes or similar
requirements, it is not reasonable to condition the entire market by
such actions. As stated above in section VI.A.5.b.iii, a status change
date of January 1, 2024, provides a reasonable amount of time for these
actions to take place for most if not all States and localities. Where
such actions have not fully occurred, manufacturers have the option to
offer nonflammable refrigerants for some chiller types, and alternative
means and methods exist to allow for the use of A2L refrigerants if
needed.
Further, as the table of approvals provided showed, various states
are adopting different cycles of codes, some dating back to 2003 and
others adopting the latest 2015 codes. In section VI.A.5.c.iv below,
EPA points to the concerted effort by DOE, AHRI, and ASHRAE to fund
vital research that will establish a more robust fact base about the
properties and uses of flammable refrigerants. The results from this
work will help provide the technical knowledge needed to facilitate and
accelerate the safe use of flammable refrigerants. EPA finds that
conditioning a status change on code adoption would not only be
unnecessary, but would create the ``balkanization'' or patchwork of
regulations that UTC said it wanted to avoid.
Comment: AHRI and NRDC jointly stated that ``[t]he forthcoming
redesign
[[Page 86822]]
will require modification not only to the equipment itself, but also to
the manufacturing environment, servicing practices and shipping
logistics, and most importantly, to the equipment rooms and buildings
in which these equipment may be installed.'' AHRI and NRDC recommended
a January 1, 2025, change of status date to allow time for these
modifications to occur.
Response: EPA interprets these comments as applying to both
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers. As discussed in the
previous response, EPA recognizes that equipment modification and
redesigns will be required to use alternatives. The commenters did not
indicate specifically why the other modifications were required, did
not provide any detail regarding the time needed for the identified
modifications, whether the various steps could be addressed in parallel
or only one after the other in series and why these steps cannot take
place in time to meet a January 1, 2024, change of status date. Thus,
these comments do not support a claim that the change of status date
should be January 1, 2025, instead of January 1, 2024, for either
centrifugal or positive displacement chillers.
Comment: Arguing for a January 1, 2025, status change date, Johnson
Controls stated that the alternatives not subject to status change are
not ``drop-ins'' for HCFC-123 in low-pressure centrifugal chillers and
likewise that to transition HFC-134a chillers to low-pressure
alternatives would require redesign of heat exchangers and compressors
and take two to nine years or longer.
Response: As noted above, although EPA prefers not to use the term
``drop-in,'' it is sometimes used by various parties to refer to the
circumstance where one refrigerant can be used in place of another
without any modification to the relevant piece of refrigeration
equipment. We recognize that manufacturers typically redesign products
to varying extents when transitioning refrigerants in most cases to
address the unique properties of the new refrigerant that will be used.
As an initial matter, EPA's change of status rule does not limit
manufacturers currently using HFC-134a to convert to low-pressure
alternatives. Higher-pressure alternatives that are not subject to
status change may also be considered, including HFO-1234ze(E), R-450A
and R-513A. In addition, manufacturers may develop and submit to SNAP
other alternatives for evaluation. Regardless, the commenter has
suggested a wide timeframe for the time in which it would take
manufacturers to convert equipment, but has provided no detail as to
the actual expected timeframe. We note that a January 1, 2024, change
of status date will provide the manufacturer slightly more than seven
years in which to achieve a conversion, which is on the later side of
the time they suggest might be needed. In addition, we note that the
commenter has already announced that the centrifugal and screw chillers
they offer, originally designed for HFC-134a, are compatible with R-
513A, which is not subject to the status change in this action.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ Johnson Controls, 2016. ``Johnson Controls Advances
Environmental Sustainability with Chiller Platforms Compatible with
Low GWP Refrigerants.'' January 20, 2016. http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/media-center/news/press-releases/2016/01/20/advanced-environmental-sustainability-with-chiller-platforms-compatible-with-low-gwp-refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: AHRI stated that the flammability of new refrigerants will
require safety upgrades for manufacturing and reclamation facilities.
AHRI also indicated that transition to flammable refrigerants involves
capital investments that need to be planned well in advance.
Response: AHRI did not provide any specific information on the time
required to prepare these facilities for flammable refrigerants and how
that might affect the proposed change of status date. We note that
neither of the two certified reclaimers that commented on the proposed
rule indicated that safety upgrades were needed and that a later change
of status date should be established to allow for such upgrades.
Comment: Johnson Controls stated that the AHRI/NRDC proposal called
for a tremendously aggressive transition away from HFCs in just over
eight years and compared that time period to what they indicated was
over 20 years to transition chillers from CFCs and HCFCs. They stated
that after more than 25 years from the signing of the Montreal
Protocol, there are manufacturers still using HCFCs in chillers. AHRI
also stated that the last refrigerant transition from ODS has taken 20
years and is still in process.
Response: EPA disagrees that a 2024 status change date is overly
aggressive or that the transition away from CFCs and HCFCs provides
support that an over seven-year period for moving away from the use of
many HFCs and HFC blends is insufficient. It is important to note that
the transition away from CFCs and HCFCs in the earlier years was due to
a phasedown, not a phaseout, of CFCs. While based on later regulations
CFCs were phased out of production in 1995, a phaseout in production of
HCFCs has only more recently started. Thus, during the first 15 years
of the SNAP program, there was no obligation and no incentive for
manufacturers to transition from HCFCs. Therefore, the pace of
transition away from HCFCs does not reflect the time needed to
transition away from the substitutes subject to the change of status.
As provided in more detail in section VI.A.5.b.iii, we evaluated the
steps it would take for manufacturers to transition chillers away from
the substitutes that we are changing the listing status to
unacceptability, examining the technical challenges for that transition
and considering the use of flammable alternatives and the related need
for changes to industry standards and model building codes and the
adoption of those codes. For the reasons provided there, we have
determined that January 1, 2024, is a reasonable, but expeditious date
for such a transition.
Comment: The Alliance asked EPA to explain in more detail what
technical analysis or timelines would be needed to justify a change of
status later than our lead proposal of January 1, 2024.
Response: EPA interprets this comment as applying to both
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers. EPA has not established
a specific list of items that are needed to justify a later change of
status date. In establishing a change of status date, EPA examined the
technical challenges in order to determine a reasonable, but
expeditious change of status date. Thus, to support a later change of
status date, EPA would need additional information indicating that the
information it relied on to support a January 1, 2024, change of status
date was flawed and that additional time was needed to meet the
technical challenges of a transition.
Comment: Arkema provided a list of steps needed for ``product line
development'' including ``researching options, risk assessment,
analyzing existing manufacturing capabilities, working with component
suppliers, building test units, testing beta units, updating
manufacturing processes (including employee training), building pre-
production units, field testing, completing the customer approval
process, phasing in production, disposing of trapped inventory, and
training installation and maintenance personnel'' and ensuring
``products conform to local building codes.'' For new chillers
specifically, Arkema suggested a change of status date of 2025 for HFC-
134a and R-410A, stating as their ``[r]ationale'' that ``HFC-134a is
used in screw and centrifugal chillers;
[[Page 86823]]
[R-]410A is used in smaller chillers, especially scroll chillers.''
Response: EPA interprets this comment as applying to both
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers. EPA agrees with the
commenter's indication of which types of chillers HFC-134a and R-410A
are currently used, but this does not provide any rationale for their
proposed change of status date for these refrigerants. Further, the
commenter did not provide any indication of how the product line
development tasks apply specifically to chillers and how they relate to
the change of status date proposed. The commenter did not provide any
justification to support a 2025 status change date instead of a change
of status date of January 1, 2024.
iii. Energy Efficiency
Comment: Information submitted and claimed as CBI compared the full
load efficiency and the integrated part-load value (IPLV), another
measure of efficiency, of several alternatives relative to HFC-134a.
Similar information was included for eight alternatives relative to R-
410A. Given the number of alternatives shown, this information appears
to be based on theoretical calculations (e.g. ``cycle calculations'')
or tests of non-optimized equipment rather than a sample of equipment
in operation. The estimates showed that R-450A, R-513A, and R-515A had
lower full load efficiencies than HFC-134a (up to 3.3 percent below)
and that R-1233zd(E) and HFO-1234ze(E) had higher full load
efficiencies and IPLVs than HFC-134a (up to 3.1 percent above). The
information provided and claimed as CBI also indicated that some
refrigerants have better IPLVs (up to 2.3 percent higher) and some have
worse IPLVs (up to 2.5 percent lower) than HFC-134a in chillers. Of the
eight alternatives compared to R-410A, including for example HFC-32 and
R-452B, seven had higher IPLVs (up to 0.7 percent) and all eight had
higher full load efficiencies (up to 3.2 percent).
UTC stated that ``the primary environmental impact (~95 percent) of
HVAC systems stems from the electric power needed to operate them, not
from refrigerant leaks (which constitute about five percent of the
overall impact).'' Johnson Controls and AHRI both stated that 98
percent of the CO2-equivalent emissions from chillers are
the result of the power. Johnson Controls claimed that medium-pressure
options to replace HFC-134a in chillers are two to four percent less
efficient in ``drop-in'' conditions while AHRI stated that some
acceptable alternatives ``may be two to three percent less efficient.''
Johnson Controls stated that ``the minimum efficiency of chillers is
mandated'' and indicated that it is unacceptable to offer lower-
efficiency equipment to their customers. They suggested that any loss
in efficiency might be possibly regained by increasing the surface area
of the heat exchangers and from modifying the aerodynamics of
compressors.
Response: EPA interprets these comments as applying to both
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers. As discussed in section
VII.D.3 below, energy efficiency is not a specific criterion under
SNAP; however, manufactures indicated the desire to maintain or improve
efficiency with alternative refrigerants, and EPA is supportive of that
as well. The information provided shows that some options offer better
energy efficiency than refrigerants such as HFC-134a and R-410A
currently used in many chillers.
While we agree with the commenters who suggest that certain
refrigerants may have a lower energy efficiency if used as ``drop-
ins,'' (i.e., without equipment modification), energy efficiency could
be addressed, as some commenters recognize, by adjusting design. The
change of status date allows time for such redesign to occur.
It is unclear what the commenter is referencing when it states that
``minimum efficiency of chillers is mandated.'' EPA does not mandate
energy efficiency and, as we noted in the proposal (81 FR 22845; April
18, 2016), there are no specific DOE requirements for minimum energy
efficiency for chillers apart from those used in federal government-
owned buildings.\125\ It is reasonable to assume that Johnson Controls'
line of ``over 40 chiller product families'' already comes with varying
degrees of energy efficiency and that as they move forward to develop
systems that comply with the status change there will still be a range
of energy efficient products available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ EPA stated in section VI.A.4.a.vi of the proposed rule (81
FR 22845; April 18, 2016) that DOE has established efficiency
requirements, based on ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2010, for
chillers used in federal buildings and provided our understanding of
that standard. Since that time, EPA has become aware that such
chiller efficiency requirements are now based on the 2013 version of
that standard (80 FR 68749; November 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also addresses energy efficiency in section VII.D.3 in this
action and in sections V.B.6.a, V.C.7, V.D.3.c, and VII.C.3 of the
preamble to the July 2015 rule (80 FR 42870; July 20, 2015).
Comment: UTC indicated generally that while it would not face any
code barriers, ``an A1 [i.e., nonflammable] refrigerant may result in
reduced energy efficiency that may limit customer demand and drive
decisions to repair, and not replace, existing equipment.''
Response: EPA interprets these comments as applying to both
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers. EPA recognizes that the
energy efficiency is a significant factor when choosing equipment. We
also recognize that the energy efficiency of any given piece of
equipment is in part affected by the choice of refrigerant and the
particular thermodynamic and thermophysical properties that refrigerant
possesses. We also do not believe that the evidence supports that the
change of status will result in end users needing to choose lower
efficiency equipment. As detailed in the previous comment and response,
the substitutes that will remain available provide both higher and
lower energy efficiencies than HFC-134a. Also, as noted by the
commenter in the previous comment and response, there are strategies
that manufacturers may pursue to mitigate against any loses in energy
efficiency.
With respect to UTC's comment that reduced energy efficiency may
drive decisions to repair rather than replace existing equipment, EPA
does not dictate through the SNAP program when a chiller must be
replaced rather than repaired. Instead, EPA allows the user to
determine when to repair and when to replace their system.
iv. Industry Standards and Codes
Comment: UTC stated that flammability is ``a new risk for comfort
cooling'' and that ``[s]afety cannot be compromised by setting
requirements ahead of the [ASHRAE] and [UL] standards.'' UTC, AHRI, and
Johnson Controls indicated that these standards would need to change to
allow for the safe use of alternatives, and that such changes would
only be a first step in that process. After that, model building codes
would need to incorporate the revised standards and then State and
local jurisdictions would adopt those codes, thereby making the use of
new alternatives viable in those locations. Commenters noted that HFO-
1234ze(E) is flammable and UTC listed eight options under consideration
to replace R-410A in positive displacement chillers and stated that
``[a]ll of these refrigerants are A2L and will require and [sic] update
of state and local codes.'' AHRI and NRDC jointly said ``[m]any
promising alternative refrigerants are mildly flammable (especially for
R-410A) and currently restricted under product safety standards and
building codes.'' The Alliance indicated ``[t]here has been notable
progress this year on the
[[Page 86824]]
challenge of incorporating the use of mildly flammable and flammable
low-GWP alternatives into the relevant codes and standards.'' Ingersoll
Rand stated that ``ASHRAE 15 and UL 60335-2-40 are being updated to
accommodate A2L refrigerants in chillers and are on track to be
complete by the end of 2017'' while EIA said ``ASHRAE Standards and
International Code Council (ICC) code changes required for adopting A2L
refrigerants . . . are already proposed and are expected to be
completed by 2018.'' AHRI pointed to an ``unprecedented effort''--a
$5.2 million program jointly funded by AHRI, ASHRAE and DOE--to
undertake independent research to allow flammable refrigerants to be
used safely in air conditioning and refrigeration equipment.
Response: EPA interprets these comments as applying to both
centrifugal chillers and positive displacement chillers. These comments
indicate that the process of updating standards for flammable
refrigerants is underway and expected to be completed shortly. The
results of this research announced by DOE, ASHRAE, and AHRI will
immediately be transmitted to the committees responsible for ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 15-2013, ``Safety Standard for Refrigeration Systems,''
and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013, ``Designation and Safety
Classification of Refrigerants,'' with a goal of using the results to
update the standards as soon as possible, subject to full compliance
with the ANSI consensus process. EPA is encouraged by this $5.2 million
program as part of the ongoing global effort to identify appropriate
climate-friendly alternatives and the announcement that another
$500,000 has been pledged for this work.\126\ While EPA acknowledges
that additional time may be needed to adopt such standards in codes, or
provide other means for approval of the use of chillers with flammable
refrigerants by authorities having jurisdiction, such time is provided
through our January 1, 2024, status change date. Furthermore, EPA has
noted that nonflammable alternatives are available for both centrifugal
and positive displacement chillers, especially for designs currently
using HCFC-123 or HFC-134a. While commenters stated that the
alternatives for positive displacement chillers currently using R-
410A--such as those listed by UTC--are flammable, this does not
preclude the possibility of designing a chiller using a nonflammable
alternative nor as mentioned the revision of standards to allow the use
of flammable refrigerants, the incorporation of those standards into
model building codes, and the adoption of these building codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ EPA, 2016c. A ``Cool'' Way to Combat Climate Change under
the Montreal Protocol. July 20, 2016. Available online at https://blog.epa.gov/blog/2016/07/a-cool-way-to-combat-climate-change/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: AHRI and NRDC maintained that ``appropriate mitigation
must be developed, proven, and finally adopted by safety standards''
before they can be used. They said that ``product and safety standards
will not be updated until 2018 at the earliest'' and that model
building codes reflecting those updates were expected in 2021. NAM and
UTC likewise indicated that state and local adoption of building and
fire codes was necessary for chillers to use 2L refrigerants, including
HFO-1234ze(E) and alternatives for R-410A positive displacement
chillers. UTC provided an undated table that showed the number of
states that had adopted various editions (from 2003 to 2015) of three
different codes. UTC said the process for adoption typically takes 8-10
years. They stated that they ``do not expect model codes to be
completely updated until 2021.'' Johnson Controls and AHRI also
provided information on code adoption by states. AHRI claimed that
historically it has taken on average up to 10 years to adopt updated
building codes and listed the four states using the 2006 or older IBC.
AHRI stated that a January 1, 2025, transition date is reasonable
``based on the assumption that the HVAC industry would work together
with the Federal government to accelerate the adoption of the standards
and codes necessary to allow for commercialization of the products.'' A
private citizen pointed out that codes produced by the ICC, including
the IBC, ``allows the jurisdiction to accept new methods and materials,
so long as that acceptance doesn't reduce the level of safety provided
by a code compliant material or method.'' This would indicate that a
manufacturer or other interested party could develop chillers using
those refrigerants and provide additional risk mitigation techniques
that could then be deemed as acceptable under the codes, even if the
codes did not specifically address the requirements to use 2L
refrigerants in such equipment. The citizen indicated that a subsidiary
company to the ICC can provide manufacturers with reports of its
assessment of such new products or methods, and that manufacturers in
turn can share that report with jurisdictions to demonstrate the
product meets the intent of the code. This would then allow the use of
that chiller, and possibly others, using 2L refrigerants in that
particular jurisdiction. Finally, the citizen noted two examples where
code changes are being undertaken that would ``more appropriately
address'' the use of A2L refrigerants. NRDC and IGSD pointed to
``several mechanisms'' by which individual building codes may be
modified by 2018 to allow for A2L refrigerants to be used. They further
pointed out that even without such measures building codes are expected
to allow the use of A2L refrigerants if a ``very high level of
ventilation and explosion-proof electronics are used.'' They concluded
that ``states with old codes will not truly be off limits to
manufacturers using mildly flammable refrigerants in their chillers.''
Response: EPA interprets these comments as applying to both
centrifugal chillers and positive displacement chillers. The comments
provided indicated that some changes could be incorporated into the
model codes 2018 cycle. Nonetheless, EPA agrees with other commenters
that the integration of appropriate changes to the model codes may not
occur until the 2021 cycle, and as explained in section VI.A.5.b.iii
above, finds that a January 1, 2024, change of status date, which
allows three years for State and local adoption of the 2021 model code,
is appropriate under such circumstances. AHRI is one of three entities
that announced a new research program between the HVAC industry and the
Federal government that ``will provide the technical knowledge needed
to facilitate and accelerate the safe use of these refrigerants.''
\127\ As the table provided by UTC shows, some states were already
using the most recent (2015) codes and the majority were just one cycle
(i.e., 2012) behind as of early 2016. This would imply that many states
will be able to adopt the 2021 codes by the 2024 status change date.
UTC, Johnson Controls, AHRI, and NRDC did not address whether
amendments could be made, either to the codes themselves or to state
and local adoptions of the codes, without full adoption of a specific
cycle of building codes, providing the necessary changes, if any, to
allow chillers with acceptable alternatives to be used after the status
change date, but other comment provide evidence of such possibility.
UTC, Johnson Controls, and AHRI also did not address whether
alternative means and measures, such as those discussed by the private
citizen
[[Page 86825]]
and NRDC jointly with IGSD, could be taken to obtain approval from the
authority having jurisdiction to approve the use of such chillers where
a state or locality had not otherwise adopted the building codes
suggested as needed. Finally, considering UTC, Johnson Controls, and
AHRI are aware that some state adoptions lag the most recent codes by
up to 12 years, it is logical to assume there would be plans to address
such adoptions if they were to persist past their proposed status
change date of 2025, which is only four years after the code cycle that
their comments presume will allow for implementation of A2L options.
UTC, Johnson Controls, and AHRI, did not provide any details on such
plans, or why they could not equally be implemented by the 2024 status
change date, apart from AHRI's assumption of Federal government
assistance and further announcements of such. EPA is not aware that any
part of the Federal government was represented or consulted when the
AHRI Chiller Section and NRDC agreed to recommend a January 1, 2025,
transition date; however, we do note subsequent to the AHRI Chiller
Section and NRDC letter announcing this agreement, DOE along with AHRI
and ASHRAE, announced the $5.2 million effort ``that will establish a
more robust fact base about the properties and the use of flammable
refrigerants'' with an intent to update standards.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ AHRI, 2016. ``AHRI, ASHRAE, DOE Partner to Fund Flammable
Refrigerant Research.'' June 2, 2016. This document is accessible at
http://www.ahrinet.org/News-Events/News-and-Shipping-Releases.aspx?A=1170.
\128\ ASHRAE, 2016. ``ASHRAE, AHRI, DOE Partner to Fund
Flammable Refrigerant Research.'' June 2, 2016. This document is
accessible at https://www.ashrae.org/news/2016/ashrae-ahri-doe-partner-to-fund-flammable-refrigerant-research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: UTC maintained that where codes did not allow the use of
A2L refrigerants after the status change date, businesses' only option
would be to repair a less efficient system. Elsewhere UTC stated that
another possibility would be for customers to use a packaged product or
variable refrigerant flow system.
Response: EPA interprets these comments as applying to both
centrifugal chillers and positive displacement chillers. As previously
noted, EPA believes that the change of status date of January 1, 2024,
allows sufficient time for adoption of industry standards and changes
to relevant codes. In determining a change of status date, EPA does not
simply pick the latest date by which the Agency can be certain that all
codes will be updated. To the extent there may be codes that have not
been modified by the change of status date, users will have several
options in addition to the option of repair of an existing system or
use of a non-chiller system. As noted in the preamble and in
information in the docket to this rule, multiple chillers using
nonflammable refrigerants are available today and others have been
announced for release by 2017. Both Ingersoll Rand and Johnson Controls
have indicated a full line of centrifugal chillers using nonflammable
options. These two companies also have nonflammable options for
positive displacement chillers. Although commenters indicated the only
options currently being investigated for positive displacement chillers
currently using R-410A are flammable refrigerants, there is sufficient
time to develop, certify and release such chillers prior to the change
of status date.
v. Narrowed Use Limits for Military Marine Vessels, Human-Rated
Spacecraft, and Related Support Equipment
Comment: Boeing, Chemours, and the Department of Defense (DoD)
supported EPA's proposal to find HFC-134a acceptable, subject to
narrowed use limits for centrifugal and positive displacement chillers
on military marine vessels. In addition to the reasons discussed in the
proposed rule (81 FR 22844; April 18, 2016), comments submitted by the
Department of the Navy on behalf of DoD addressed several alternatives
that are acceptable for chillers and not subject to status change that
have been found to not meet the stringent requirements for military
marine vessels. For instance, DoD pointed out that certain alternatives
that are flammable, such as HFO-1234ze(E) and R-717, would not meet the
DoD's requirements. While in stationary applications the flammability
may be handled, for instance, by increased ventilation, this is not a
practical solution for submarines or surface-going ships under warfare
conditions. DoD also discussed R-1233zd(E), noting that it would be
used in low-pressure chillers that are not acceptable for narrow
military uses due to reliability and maintenance issues. Boeing also
reiterated that ``testing of alternate refrigerants or blowing agents
for these niche markets may require more time than for mass-market
commercial items, due to customer and regulatory agency approval
requirements.''
Response: EPA interprets these comments as applying to both
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers. EPA agrees with the
assessment made by DoD of specific technical issues in transitioning
for military marine vessels and is finalizing the narrowed use limit.
Because EPA is finalizing a status change date of January 1, 2024 for
this refrigerant in other chillers, the narrowed use limit would
likewise start on January 1, 2024.
Comment: Boeing, Chemours, and NASA supported EPA's proposal to
find HFC-134a and R-404A acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers for human-rated
spacecraft and related support equipment. Although NASA anticipates
using this narrowed use limit for only a small number of chillers, they
indicated that critical properties of the chiller system were required
for such applications that include ground-based assembly, integration
and test operations, and launch of the spacecraft.
Response: EPA interprets these comments as applying to both
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers. EPA agrees with the
assessment made by NASA and is finalizing the narrowed use limit.
Because EPA is finalizing a status change date of January 1, 2024 for
these refrigerants in other chillers, the narrowed use limit would
likewise start on January 1, 2024.
6. Change of Status Listing for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New Cold
Storage Warehouses
a. Background
i. What is the affected end-use?
Cold storage warehouses are temperature-controlled facilities used
to store meat, produce, dairy and other products that are delivered to
other locations for sale to the ultimate consumer. This end-use within
the SNAP program describes an application of refrigeration equipment
for an intended purpose, and hence the listings of acceptable and
unacceptable refrigerants for this end-use apply regardless of the type
of refrigeration system used.
As explained in the proposed rule (81 FR 22849; April 18, 2016),
cold storage warehouses are usually deemed ``private'' or ``public,''
and some may be both, describing the relationship between the owner or
operator of the cold storage warehouse and the owner of the products
stored within.
Cold storage warehouses are also often divided into two general
uses: ``coolers'' that store products at temperatures above 32 [deg]F
(0 [deg]C) and ``freezers'' that store products below this temperature.
Some subdivisions of these types were also provided in the proposed
rule (81 FR 22849; April 18, 2016).
We explained that several other end-uses under the SNAP program
cover other parts of the food (and product) cold chain and are distinct
from the cold storage warehouse end-use. We
[[Page 86826]]
drew distinctions between the ``cold storage warehouse'' end-use which
is subject to this action and the IPR end-use while noting that many
facilities may have operations and refrigeration equipment for both
end-uses. We also discussed ``refrigerated food processing and
dispensing equipment,'' which is a category of the ``retail food
refrigeration'' end-use and is subject to separate decisions in this
action (see section VI.A.7). Finally, we discussed ``cold rooms'' and
``walk-in'' coolers and freezers, noting that many used for storage of
food and beverages at a retail food location (e.g., a supermarket or
restaurant) are considered to fall within other retail food
refrigeration end-use categories that were covered by a previous rule
(80 FR 42870; July 20, 2015). See section VI.A.4.c.i of the proposed
rule for background on the cold storage warehouse end-use (81 FR 22849-
51; April 18, 2016).
EPA understands that existing cold storage warehouses may undergo
expansion to handle needs such as increased production, consolidation
of distribution points, or increased population or other reasons for
increased demands of the products stored. Such expansions could include
a physical expansion of the storage space or using racking techniques
to increase the amount of product within a given facility. The owner of
cold storage warehouses undergoing such expansions (or the owner's
designer) may determine that a new system needs to be added. That new
system could be a complete newly manufactured system separate from the
existing system, or it could be equipment and refrigerant added to the
existing system increasing the capacity of the existing system. In both
cases, EPA considers these actions as the manufacturing of a new system
and hence that equipment is affected by the changes of status in this
final rule.
A commenter stated that cold storage warehouses are ``typically
designed with planned expansions'' and that the change of status should
not apply to any future expansion of such warehouses. EPA addressed the
definition of a ``new'' system as used in the SNAP program in a
previous rule (80 FR 42902-03; July 20, 2015). As explained there,
consistent with the definition in 40 CFR part 82, subparts A and I, EPA
considers a system to be new for purposes of these SNAP determinations
as of the date upon which the refrigerant circuit is complete, the
system can function, the system holds a full refrigerant charge, and
the system is ready for use for its intended purposes. Therefore, as
used in the SNAP program, ``new'' refers to the manufacture and often
installation of a refrigeration system for an intended purpose, which
may occur on a newly manufactured or an existing cold storage
warehouse. The status changes in this action would apply to the
expansion of the refrigeration system in an existing cold storage
warehouse if the capacity of that existing refrigeration system is
increased to handle the expansion. Because the existing system capacity
was inadequate to provide the necessary cooling for the expanded load,
the existing system did not meet the intended purpose of the expanded
capacity, and therefore if it were expanded to hand that load it would
be considered ``new'' with respect to SNAP. On the other hand, if an
existing refrigeration system is extended (for instance, by adding
additional refrigerant lines and evaporators to a newly manufactured or
newly commissioned building, to a portion of the existing facility
previously not used for cold storage, or to an extension of the
previous building), without requiring an increase in capacity and while
only needing the same full refrigerant charge as before, the system is
not considered ``new'' and hence may continue its operations with the
existing refrigerant. Likewise, a facility may increase the amount of
products it handles while at the same time providing better sealing
around infiltration points and/or increasing the insulation on walls
and roofs, and thereby avoid the need to increase the refrigeration
capacity of the equipment serving the cold storage warehouse.
Commenters suggested divisions in the cold storage warehouse market
by which EPA should finalize separate decisions. One suggestion was to
distinguish between indirect and direct systems. In today's action, EPA
is not subdividing the cold storage warehouse end-use based on whether
a direct or indirect system is used. As addressed below, the commenter
suggesting this subdivision, and different change of status decisions
for the two subdivisions, did not provide evidence how any of the SNAP
criteria varied between the two subdivisions, instead only addressing
energy efficiency and economic burden.
Another comment suggested a distinction between those cold storage
warehouses with a footprint of 3,000 square feet (279 square meters) or
less, noting they are covered by DOE energy conservation standards for
walk-in coolers and freezers, a point brought out in the proposed rule
(81 FR 22853; April 18, 2016). A commenter stated that EPA should
consider all such cold storage warehouses to be part of the retail food
refrigeration end-use because manufacturers make equipment that could
be used for retail food refrigeration or could be used in a manner that
would be classified as a cold storage warehouse within SNAP. In today's
action, EPA is not changing the definition of the cold storage
warehouse end-use such that some types are considered a different end-
use by virtue of their size. As addressed below, comments suggesting
this subdivision did not provide evidence how any of the SNAP criteria
varied between these two subdivisions. Although comments as well as the
proposed rule noted that such types of cold storage warehouses are
subject to DOE energy conservation regulations, the comments did not
indicate how this fact would change the availability of acceptable
alternatives by the change of status date proposed.
An equipment manufacturer commented that many industrial processors
have multiple cold storage warehouses on the same campus and that these
may be cooled from a system that also provides cooling to other
applications, such as an industrial process refrigeration system. The
manufacturer stated that EPA should ``treat campuses with multiple
building and processing areas as one complete industrial process.'' EPA
notes, however, that SNAP decisions are on an end-use basis, and
therefore any cold storage warehouse may only use a refrigerant listed
as acceptable for that end-use. While through today's action EPA is not
changing the status of refrigerants in the industrial process
refrigeration end-use, we are doing so for new cold storage warehouses,
and as such some refrigerants in this end-use will be listed as
unacceptable as of the change of status date.
EPA is not aware of other federal rules applying to efficiency of
cold storage warehouses (i.e., the buildings), but we find that some
federal rules apply to equipment that could be used in this specified
end-use. Specifically, EPA noted in the proposed rule (81 FR 22853;
April 18, 2016) that air-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners and
heat pumps (``CUACs'' and ``CUHPs'') might be applied at cold storage
warehouses, and such equipment is subject to DOE energy conservation
standards. Comment from NRDC and IGSD confirmed that cold storage
warehouses, among other types of designs, could be outfitted with
rooftop units that must comply with the DOE rule, and that
``[m]anufacturers are expecting to begin using HFC-32, R-452B, and
other A2L-class refrigerants in rooftop units in 2023 at the latest.''
For further information on the
[[Page 86827]]
relationship between this action and other federal rules, see section
VI.A.4.c.v of the proposed rule (81 FR 22853; April 18, 2016).
ii. What other types of equipment are used for similar application but
are not covered by this section of the rule?
EPA has found several not-in-kind systems (i.e., systems that
operate using thermodynamic cycles other than vapor-compression)
acceptable for this end-use, including ammonia absorption, evaporative
cooling, desiccant cooling, and Stirling cycle systems, which are not
subject to this action.
iii. What refrigerants are used in cold storage warehouses?
In section VI.A.4.c.i of the proposed rule, EPA indicated that R-
717 is believed to be the most common refrigerant used in cold storage
warehouses and provided information on equipment types and system
designs that facilitate the use of that refrigerant (81 FR 22850-22851;
April 18, 2016).
We noted that limitations on the use of R-717 do exist. For
example, it is reported that charge sizes exceeding 10,000 pounds of R-
717 ``may require government-mandated process safety management (PSM)
and [a] risk management plan (RMP).'' \129\ Various state and local
building codes could also apply, and adherence to such codes might
hinder or even eliminate the use of R-717 in some cold storage
warehouses. Likewise, regulations may require employing operators with
special levels of expertise, reporting of use or accidental releases,
and other actions not typically required for other alternatives,
increasing the operating cost compared to facilities using other
refrigerants. These increased costs however are often offset by the
high energy efficiencies typically achieved with R-717 systems. We also
pointed to equipment designs, such as low charge packaged R-717
systems, R-717/R-744 cascade systems, and indirect secondary-loop
systems using R-717 as the primary refrigerant in a machine room
separated from the cooled interior, that can overcome some limitations
on the use of R-717. These systems are described in market
characterizations found in the docket to this rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-
0663).\130\ While R-717 is the most common refrigerant used in cold
storage warehouses, others have used CFC-12, R-502 and HCFC-22 and more
recently R-404A, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, or R-507A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ ASHRAE, 2014. 2014 Handbook--Refrigeration. The American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-conditioning Engineers,
Inc. Atlanta, Georgia, USA. ISBN 978-1-936504-71-8; ISSN 1930-7195.
\130\ ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire Suppression,
Comfort Cooling, Cold Storage, and Household Refrigeration
Industries in the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. October 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter, AHRI, indicated manufacturers are developing R-407A
condensing units that could be used in cold storage warehouses,
particularly those less than 3,000 square feet which, as noted in
section VI.A.4.c.v of the proposed rule (81 FR 22853; April 18, 2016),
are subject to DOE energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers
and freezers.
b. What is EPA's final decision?
For new cold storage warehouses, EPA proposed to change as of
January 1, 2023, the status of the following refrigerants from
acceptable to unacceptable: HFC-227ea, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/
42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-
421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-423A, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A,
R-438A, R-507A, and RS-44 (2003 composition). In this action, we are
finalizing the status changes that we proposed with no changes. The
change of status determinations for new cold storage warehouses are
summarized in Table 9.
Table 9--Change of Status Decisions for New Cold Storage Warehouses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitutes Listing Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cold Storage Warehouses (new)........ HFC-227ea, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/ Unacceptable as of
1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-410A, R-410B, R- January 1, 2023.
417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-
422D, R-423A, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-438A, R-
507A, and RS-44 (2003 composition).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. How do these unacceptable refrigerants compare to other refrigerants
for this end-use with respect to SNAP criteria?
Other refrigerants for new cold storage warehouse not subject to
this action are FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R-407C,
R-407F, R-437A, R-450A, R-513A, R-717, R-744, RS-24 (2002 composition),
SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03. In the proposed rule, EPA provided
information on the environmental and health risks presented by the
alternatives that are being found unacceptable compared with other
available alternatives that are listed as acceptable (81 FR 22851-52;
April 18, 2016). In addition, a technical support document \131\ that
provides the Federal Register citations concerning data on the SNAP
criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for acceptable
alternatives, as well as those we are finding unacceptable, for new
cold storage warehouses may be found in the docket for this rulemaking
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered
in the Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing
Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter requested that EPA clarify which refrigerants in the
R-407 series were subject to a change in status, while others
specifically requested that we not change the status of R-407A and R-
407B in cold storage warehouses. We are finalizing a change of status
for the refrigerants we proposed. With respect to the R-407 series
refrigerants in this end-use, EPA only proposed a change of status for
R-407A and R-407B based on our analysis that these two blends posed a
higher overall risk to human health and the environment than other
available refrigerants for this end use. EPA did not propose and is not
taking action in this rule to change the status of R-407C and R-407F in
cold storage warehouses; those refrigerants remain acceptable in this
end-use. EPA has not listed others in the R-407 series, including R-
407D, R-407E and R-407G, and R-407H, acceptable in this end-use.
For cold storage warehouses, the refrigerants we are listing as
unacceptable have insignificant ODPs, but they have GWPs ranging from
2,090 to 3,990. As shown in Table 10, acceptable alternatives have GWPs
ranging from zero to 1,820.
[[Page 86828]]
Table 10--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Refrigerants in New Cold Storage Warehouses \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-450A, R-513A, R-717, R-744..... 0-630 0.................. No................. Acceptable.
IKON A, IKON B, THR-02........... 30-560 0--Not public \3\.. Yes \4\............ Acceptable.
HFC-134a, R-407C, R-407F......... 1,430-1,820 0.................. No................. Acceptable.
FOR12A, FOR12B, KDD6, R-437A, RS- 920-1,810 0--Not public \3\.. Yes \4\............ Acceptable.
24 (2002 composition), SP34E,
THR-03.
R-407A, R-407B, R-410A, R-410B, R- 2,090-2,800 0.................. No................. Unacceptable.
421A, R-423A.
R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/ 2,260-2,730 0.................. Yes \4\............ Unacceptable.
1.5), R-417A, R-422B, R-422D, R-
424A, R-438A, RS-44 (2003
composition).
HFC-227ea, R-421B, R-404A, R-507A 3,190-3,990 0.................. No................. Unacceptable.
R-422A, R-422C, R-428A, R-434A... 3,080-3,610 0.................. Yes \4\............ Unacceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses.
\2\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption.
\3\ The ODP of one or more alternatives is not published here in order to avoid disclosing information that is
claimed as confidential business information.
\4\ One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC.
Some of the refrigerant blends not subject to this action, as well
as several of the substitutes for which we are changing the listing
from acceptable to unacceptable, include small amounts of R-290, R-600,
or other substances that are VOCs. These amounts are small and for this
end-use, are not expected to contribute significantly to ground-level
ozone formation.\132\ In the actions where EPA listed these
refrigerants as acceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions, EPA
concluded none of these refrigerants in this end-use pose significantly
greater risk to ground-level ozone formation than other alternative
refrigerants that do not meet the definition of VOC under CAA
regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) or that are specifically excluded
from that definition for the purpose of developing SIPs to attain and
maintain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations.
February, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The refrigerants listed as acceptable and not subject to this
action are highly volatile and typically evaporate or partition to air,
rather than contaminating surface waters. Their effects on aquatic life
are expected to be small and pose no greater risk of aquatic or
ecosystem effects than those of the refrigerants that are subject to
the status change for this end-use.
With the exception of R-717, all other acceptable refrigerants, as
well as those that we are listing as unacceptable, are not flammable
and are of low toxicity (e.g., those listed under ASHRAE Standard 34-
2013 are Class A toxicity and Class 1 nonflammable). R-717 is mildly
flammable with a low flame speed; it is classified as a B2L refrigerant
under ASHRAE 34 (2013). R-717 has a long history of use as a
refrigerant in cold storage warehouses and other applications. In the
original SNAP rule, EPA noted ``[R-717] has been used as a medium to
low temperature refrigerant in vapor compression cycles for more than
100 years. Ammonia [R-717] has excellent refrigerant properties, a
characteristic pungent odor, no long-term atmospheric risks, and low
cost. It is, however, mildly flammable and toxic, although it is not a
cumulative poison. OSHA standards specify a 15 minute short-term
exposure limit of 35 ppm for ammonia [R-717].'' (53 FR 13072; March 18,
1994). We further noted its use in various food and beverage processing
and storage applications as well as other industrial applications. In
that rule, we found R-717 acceptable for use in new cold storage
warehouses, concluding that its overall risk to human health and the
environment was not significantly greater than the other alternatives
found acceptable. This conclusion was based on the assumption that the
regulated community adheres to OSHA regulations on such use as well as
standard refrigeration practices, such as ASHRAE Standard 15 and the
IIAR Standard 2,\133\ which are often utilized by local authorities
when setting their own building and safety requirements. See section
VI.A.4.c.iii.(b) of the proposed rule (81 FR 22852; April 18, 2016) for
a discussion on the long history of use of R-717 and our original
decision finding it acceptable in new cold storage warehouses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ ANSI/IIAR Standard 2-2008 (Addendum B)--American National
Standard for Equipment, Design, & Installation of Closed Circuit
Ammonia Mechanical Refrigerating Systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, because the risks other than GWP are not significantly
different for the other available alternatives than for those we
proposed to list as unacceptable, and because the GWPs for the
refrigerants we proposed to list as unacceptable are significantly
higher and thus pose significantly greater risk, we are listing the
following refrigerants as unacceptable: HFC-227ea, R-125/290/134a/600a
(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-
421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-423A, R-424A, R-428A,
R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS-44 (2003 composition).
ii. When will the status change?
EPA is establishing a change of status date for the above-listed
refrigerants new cold storage warehouses of January 1, 2023, which the
Agency finds is a reasonable yet expeditious date by which the
technical challenges can be met for a safe and smooth transition to
alternatives. This amount of time is needed particularly considering
the various equipment types that could be employed to provide the
cooling necessary for new cold storage warehouses and the requirement
for many of these equipment types to meet energy conservation standards
while undergoing such a transition. Although acceptable alternatives,
particularly R-717, are widely used, EPA recognizes based on comment
that R-717 is not an option due to technical or compliance constraints
at some facilities. For these facilities, the user would need the time
to investigate the use of other alternatives and to design, and
possibly certify to DOE energy conservation standards, equipment using
the chosen alternative. As discussed in the proposed rule (81 FR 22850;
April 18, 2016), in some cases, R-717 may not have been chosen based on
building code and regulatory restrictions that might have eliminated
its use. As also discussed there, and as supported by comment,
technologies are under development that can overcome some such
limitations; for example, newly-developed low-charge R-717 systems
[[Page 86829]]
can overcome building code and regulatory challenges that arise when
large charge sizes would otherwise be required, although we recognize
that such equipment may not be allowed in certain jurisdictions or may
not be practical in certain situations. EPA is establishing a January
1, 2023, status change date in part to allow these technologies to more
fully mature and become more fully available in the market. In addition
to these technologies, because a wide variety of other equipment types
can be applied at a cold storage warehouse, and some such equipment is
subject to DOE energy conservation requirements, EPA expects that this
period of time will allow acceptable alternatives to become more fully
available for cold storage warehouses. For locations and applications
that would otherwise use HFC blends subject to status change, primarily
R-404A, R-410A and R-507A, time is needed to develop equipment with
other alternative refrigerants or address the technical challenges of
using R-717 or other alternatives that are not subject to the proposed
change in status. As explained in section VI.A.4.c.v of the proposed
rule (81 FR 22853; April 18, 2016), certain types of equipment
potentially applied in cold storage warehouses are subject to energy
conservation standards, and hence time will be required to design, test
and certify equipment for those standards, while at the same time using
acceptable alternatives.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
EPA received comments on various topics including, the proposed
status change date of January 1, 2023, the refrigerants proposed for
status change, the acceptability of other refrigerants, and requests
for subdividing the category and limiting the status changes based on
those subdivisions.
Commenters included AHRI, an industry organization; CARB, a state
agency; Daikin and Zero Zone, equipment manufacturers; Chemours,
Honeywell, and National Refrigerants, three chemical producers; and
NRDC, IGSD, and EIA, three environmental organizations.
We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
i. Substitutes and End-Use Proposed
Comment: Daikin suggested that EPA subdivide the cold storage
warehouse end-use into ``Indirect Expansion Refrigeration System[s]''
and ``Direct Expansion Refrigeration System[s].'' They did not suggest
any different decisions for the former. For the latter, they
recommended that R-410A remain acceptable, noting that it (along with
R-407C and R-407F) is also used in direct systems. Daikin commented
that both direct and indirect systems may be used, even at the same
facility. Daikin said that customer requirements will typically
determine the refrigeration system and that these requirements depend
on ``the use conditions, structure of the building and climatic
considerations among other factors.''
Response: EPA is not subdividing the end-use as suggested. For
direct systems, two of the three refrigerants they mentioned as being
typically used--R-407C and R-407F--remain acceptable as proposed.
Daikin did not provide any indication of why in direct systems R-410A
would be required as opposed to these refrigerants not subject to
status change. The commenter did not indicate specifically what use
conditions, building structures, climates or other technical barriers
warranted subdividing the end-use as suggested, nor did the commenter
offer reasons for not changing the status of one particular refrigerant
in one of those subdivisions.
Comment: Zero Zone agreed with EPA's explanation of the distinction
between cold storage warehouses and IPR.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for this comment.
Comment: Zero Zone claimed that EPA should consider small cold
storage warehouses--those with a footprint of 3,000 square feet (279
square meters) or less--as fitting in the retail food refrigeration
end-use. They noted that DOE and California regulations cover such
items, whether they are cold storage warehouses or they are used for
retail food refrigeration, as walk-in coolers or freezers. They felt
that equipment manufacturers supplying equipment that meets such
definitions of walk-in coolers or freezers ``need to be able to supply
the same equipment'' regardless of whether they would be classified as
a cold storage warehouse or retail food refrigeration under SNAP. They
said that equipment manufacturers should not have to ``ascertain what
product will be in the building.'' Zero Zone stated that both R-407A
and R-407B should remain acceptable, especially if EPA did not treat
small cold storage warehouses as part of the retail food refrigeration
end use. AHRI also stated that R-407A and R-407B should be acceptable
in cold storage warehouses because the same unit cooler equipment,
whether used in a cold storage warehouse or in retail food
refrigeration, would need to comply with DOE energy efficiency
standards for walk-in coolers and freezers. They stated manufacturers
are preparing systems that use R-407A for small cold storage
warehouses. Daikin, NRDC, and IGSD indicated that R-407C and R-407F are
also used in cold storage warehouses. National Refrigerants asked EPA
to list all R-407 series refrigerants acceptable for cold storage
warehouses to provide additional options and to ``eliminate confusion
in the industry'' and ``ease compliance for technicians and equipment
owners by giving them the flexibility to utilize their R-407 preferred
refrigerant.''
Response: EPA disagrees that certain cold storage warehouses should
be included as part of the retail food refrigeration end-use. EPA
established status changes for three retail food refrigeration end-use
categories in a previous rule and stated that equipment in these
categories of the SNAP end-use could also be subject to DOE's energy
conservation standards for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers (80 FR 82902;
July 20, 2015). Likewise, we noted in our proposed rule (81 FR 22853;
April 18, 2016) that small cold storage warehouses could also be
covered by these DOE standards. We disagree that R-407A and R-407B
should remain acceptable despite the indication that some products are
being designed using the former or for a manufacturer's preference to
use the same refrigerant in different end-uses. We are particularly
confused by the inclusion of R-407B in the comments from Zero Zone and
AHRI requesting we find it acceptable, as we changed the status of that
refrigerant for all categories of new retail food refrigeration
addressed in a previous rule (80 FR 42870; July 20, 2015). If we were
to treat small cold storage warehouses as retail food refrigeration, as
these commenters also suggest, R-407B would be subject to status
change. Several alternatives that remain acceptable for cold storage
warehouses are also acceptable for various retail food refrigeration
end-use categories. For instance, R-407C and R-407F, which as noted are
being used in some cold storage warehouses, are also acceptable for the
retail food refrigeration remote condensing unit end-use category.
Manufacturers who wish to use only one refrigerant may do so and to the
extent they are already using a refrigerant that is subject to status
change in the cold storage warehouse end-use, EPA finds no evidence
that these or other acceptable alternatives cannot be adopted by the
[[Page 86830]]
2023 status change date while continuing to meet DOE energy
conservation standards.
Further, we disagree that to eliminate confusion, ease compliance,
or provide flexibility we should list all R-407 series refrigerants as
acceptable. EPA reviews refrigerants individually and is aware that
manufacturers, users, and owners make it their business to know the
exact refrigerant they are using, since they currently are aware that
not all R-407 series refrigerants are acceptable in this or any other
end-use. Just because two or more refrigerants are made up of the same
components \134\ does not mean they present the same overall risk to
human health and the environment. Indeed, R-407 and other series
refrigerants are made up of components having different flammability,
toxicity, GWP, and other characteristics considered by SNAP, making a
knowledge of specific composition critical to evaluating associated
risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ All R-407 series refrigerants are composed of HFC-32, HFC-
125 and HFC-134a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: EIA, NRDC, IGSD, Chemours, and CARB supported EPA changing
the status to unacceptable of those refrigerants we proposed for such
change in new cold storage warehouses.
Response: EPA thanks the commenters for these comments.
Comment: Chemours felt that R-407C and R-407F should also be listed
as unacceptable stating there are multiple alternatives. Daikin
compared R-410A to R-448A and R-449A, arguing that because R-410A can
reduce the amount of refrigerant needed by 30 percent, the total GWP-
weighted emissions would be similar to that of R-448A and R-449A. CARB
stated that R-717, especially in low-charge units, and R-744 could be
used. EIA suggested that EPA continue to evaluate additional
refrigerants and consider those for status change, mentioning HFC-134a,
R-407C, R-407F, R-450A, and R-513A.
Response: EPA's proposal was limited to determinations for the
specific refrigerants proposed which pose significantly greater risk
than other available refrigerants. We cannot take final action changing
the status of additional refrigerants without first performing the
necessary analysis of the SNAP criteria and providing notice and an
opportunity for comment.
In response to the suggestion that we list additional specific
refrigerants as unacceptable, we note that at least two--R-407C and R-
407F--are currently used in cold storage warehouses. In addition to
considering the SNAP criteria in determining whether to propose action
to change the status of an acceptable substitute, we also need to
consider whether there are other alternatives available. Although we
recognize that alternatives such as R-717 and R-744 are available for
certain types of equipment in certain applications in the cold storage
warehouses end-use, the information available at this time does not
indicate that there are available alternatives for all types of
equipment in all types of applications.
Comment: AHRI, Zero Zone, and Honeywell all supported an EPA action
to list R-448A and R-449A as acceptable for cold storage warehouses.
Honeywell noted that they are already being implemented in similar
equipment for the supermarket systems end-use category. On the other
hand, NRDC and IGSD urged EPA to find these two refrigerants
unacceptable, while EIA asked EPA to ``[r]equest advance comments on
changing the listing status'' of these two HFC/HFO blends as well as R-
450A and R-513A for new cold storage warehouses.
Response: These comments suggesting that EPA take action to list
additional substitutes as acceptable or to change the listing status of
already-listed substitutes go beyond the scope of this rulemaking. As
noted previously, EPA may in the future issue a new proposal to change
the status of additional refrigerants in this end use after considering
what other alternatives are available and performing an analysis using
the SNAP criteria. Regarding the request that EPA substitutes not
already on one of the lists as acceptable or unacceptable, EPA notes
that R-448A and R-449A have been submitted to the SNAP Program for
review, but EPA has not yet issued a proposed decision for these
refrigerants or issued a Notice of Acceptability.
ii. Change of Status Date
Comment: EIA, NRDC, IGSD, and Chemours supported EPA's proposed
2023 status change date for new cold storage warehouses.
Response: EPA thanks the commenters for these comments.
Comment: Honeywell suggested a status change date of January 1,
2019, based on the fact that several options, including R-407F, R-717,
and R-744, are acceptable for new cold storage warehouses. They also
indicated R-448A and R-449A are potential options that could be
implemented by January 1, 2019.
Response: EPA agrees that many of the acceptable refrigerants not
subject to status change have been and can continue to be used in many
types of equipment for many of the applications for new cold storage
warehouses. EPA established a status change date of 2023 based on the
time required to address the number of different equipment types and
system designs used for cold storage warehouse and to redesign, and if
required recertify as compliant with DOE energy conservation standards.
EPA has determined that a change of status date of January 1, 2023, is
reasonable and expeditious in light of the various DOE energy
conservation standards that must be met (and for which equipment needs
to be designed and manufactured), the need to further assess currently
acceptable nonflammable and low toxicity alternatives in specific
applications, and the need to develop safe practices and institute
State and local code changes if required for flammable and higher
toxicity alternatives for certain equipment where the application and/
or the location limits the use of flammable or higher toxicity
refrigerants at this time. The commenter did not provide a discussion
of these equipment design and application issues or an indication of
how those can be addressed by 2019.
Comment: CARB suggested a status change date of 2020, noting that
low-charge R-717 systems address issues with that refrigerant's use in
cold storage warehouses and where it cannot be used, R-744 or other
non-toxic, low-GWP refrigerants could be used.
Response: The commenter did not provide technical support that a
change of status date of January 1, 2020, was feasible. The commenter
does not provide any detail on the use of R-744 in those applications
where R-717 is not an option, and we are not aware that its use has
been demonstrated for all of those applications. We are aware that R-
744 is being used for new cold storage warehouses in cascade and
secondary loop systems with R-717. However, we did not see similar
evidence it can be used in a direct system (i.e., not in a cascade or
secondary loop system with R-717) in the various equipment types and
designs used for this end-use.
Comment: Zero Zone stated that the change of status for R-404A and
R-507A should be January 1, 2025, because those refrigerants offer the
low-glide properties desired for flooded or liquid overfeed systems.
They compared these to R-450A and R-513A--both of which are acceptable
in new cold storage warehouses and are not subject to the change in
status--which they described as also having low glide but low
volumetric efficiency. They felt the time was necessary ``to allow
technology and chemical companies to come up with a solution to this
design issue.''
Response: The commenter did not provide any information that it was
not
[[Page 86831]]
technically feasible to transition away from R-404A and R-507A until
January 1, 2025. No explanatory timeline or past experience was
provided that indicated how long it might take to resolve the issues
they described. Other commenters have noted that R-407C and R-407F,
which are also high-glide blends, are used in cold storage warehouses.
Although they did not mention whether those were specifically used in
the flooded evaporator systems described, we are not aware and Zero
Zone has not provided any information on why they could not be used.
Zero Zone also did not discuss why single-component (no glide)
refrigerants including R-717 and R-744 could not be used in the types
of systems with which they are concerned. Finally, the commenter noted
that there are some low-glide blends available, but did not provide the
detail on the steps needed to redesign equipment to account for the low
volumetric efficiency they indicated for those available alternatives
and why those steps could not be completed before January 1, 2025.
iii. SNAP Review Criteria
Comment: Daikin believed that ``it is important to note the
equipment's potential total environmental impact (i.e. refrigerant
quantity multiplied with GWP), not only the refrigerant's GWP value.''
As such, they stated that R-410A could reduce the total charge size up
to 30 percent compared to R-404A.
Response: EPA interprets this comment to be based on the SNAP
review criteria of ``atmospheric effects,'' which is discussed above in
section II.E.1. In a previous proposed rule and in the response to
comments document for the associated final rule, we discussed the
possibility of allowing refrigerants with a higher GWP in low-charge
systems. In particular, we stated ``given the high GWP of these
refrigerants compared to other refrigerants that are available in
[supermarket systems], we do not believe that use with a small charge
size adequately addresses the greater risk they pose.'' (79 FR 46148;
August 6, 2014). The same consideration is applicable here for R-410A,
even if systems were designed to reduce the total charge size as Daikin
says is possible. Use in a lower-charge system does not guarantee lower
overall emissions. If catastrophic losses occurred in a system
employing R-410A or other high-GWP refrigerants, the emissions in
CO2-equivalent terms could be more than if a lower-GWP
refrigerant were used in the same or a similarly low-charge design. For
instance, an acceptable alternative could be used in a secondary loop
design, reducing the amount of that refrigerant used for the given
application.
7. Change of Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New Retail Food
Refrigeration (Refrigerated Food Processing and Dispensing Equipment)
a. Background
i. What is the affected end-use?
In the SNAP July 2015 rule (80 FR 42902), EPA clarified that
``equipment designed to make or process cold food and beverages that
are dispensed via a nozzle, including soft-serve ice cream machines,
`slushy' iced beverage dispensers, and soft-drink dispensers'' was not
included as part of the retail food refrigeration end-use categories
specifically identified in that final rule. EPA clarified that this
equipment is part of a separate end-use category within the retail food
refrigeration end-use. This end-use category, ``refrigerated food
processing and dispensing equipment,'' is covered in this section of
the final rule. For an overview of this end-use category, please refer
to section VI.A.4.d.i of the proposed rule (81 FR 22854-55; April 18,
2016).
One commenter, UTC, pointed out that certain soft-serve and other
frozen dairy treats may not fall within the technical definition of
ice-cream due to milk fat content, but that such products ``are handled
like ice-cream and shake products from an operational point of view.''
UTC also stated that a creamer dispenser (refrigerated unit dispensing
creamer in a dosed amount) and bulk milk dispensers (refrigerated unit
holding a container of milk that dispenses through a small nozzle when
the handle is lifted) would fit in this category as well. EPA's use of
``including'' in its description of the type of equipment that falls
under this end use indicates that the list was not intended to be
exclusive. EPA considers the types of equipment identified by UTC,
which dispense products through a nozzle, to fit within the end-use.
ii. What other types of equipment are used for similar applications but
are not covered by this section of the rule?
As noted in section VI.A.4.d.i of the proposed rule (81 FR 22854;
April 18, 2016) certain types of equipment, including water coolers and
stand-alone retail food refrigeration units, do not fall within this
end-use category.
iii. What Refrigerants Are Used in Retail Food Refrigeration
(Refrigerated Food Processing and Dispensing Equipment)
EPA discussed which refrigerants were acceptable in the
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment end-use category
in section VI.A.4.d.i of the proposed rule (81 FR 22855; April 18,
2016). While numerous refrigerants are acceptable in this end use, as
noted by the comments from UTC, R-404A is typically used for freezing
applications and HFC-134a for refrigerated applications.
In comments submitted on the proposal, AHRI and UTC discussed the
potential use of R-448A and R-449A in this end-use category, and AHRI
urged EPA to find these blends acceptable. Other information claimed as
CBI indicated the potential to transition R-404A applications within
this end-use category to those refrigerants. Tecumseh also urged EPA to
list these two refrigerants acceptable as well as R-452A. EPA has
received submissions for these three refrigerants. Concurrent with this
rule, EPA is listing R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B as acceptable without
use conditions for new refrigerated food processing and dispensing
equipment. We are currently reviewing R-452A for this end-use.
b. What is EPA's final decision?
For new refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment, EPA
proposed to change as of January 1, 2021, the status of the following
refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable: HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/
290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-
407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C,
R-422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003
formulation). In this action, we are finalizing the status changes we
proposed with no changes. The change of status determinations for new
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment are summarized in
Table 11.
[[Page 86832]]
Table 11--Change of Status Decisions for New Retail Food Refrigeration
[Refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitutes Listing status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail food refrigeration HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/ Unacceptable as
(refrigerated food 290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/ of January 1,
processing and dispensing 42.5/1.5), R-404A, R- 2021.
equipment) (new only). 407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-
407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-
417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-
422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-
422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-
434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-
507A, RS-44 (2003
formulation).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. How do these unacceptable refrigerants compare to other refrigerants
for this end-use with respect to SNAP criteria?
For new refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment, the
substitutes that will remain listed as acceptable pose lower overall
risk to human health and the environment than the refrigerants we are
listing as unacceptable. Acceptable refrigerants include: FOR12A,
FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B, R-426A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), R-
450A, R-513A, R-744, SP34E, THR-02 and THR-03. In the proposed rule (81
FR 22855-22856; April 18, 2016) and SNAP Notice 31 (81 FR 32241; May
23, 2016), EPA provided information on the environmental and health
risks presented by the alternatives that are being found unacceptable
compared with other available alternatives that are listed as
acceptable. Also, concurrent with this rule, EPA is listing R-448A, R-
449A and R-449B acceptable for new refrigerated food processing and
dispensing equipment. A technical support document \135\ that provides
the Federal Register citations concerning data on the SNAP criteria
(e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for acceptable
alternatives, as well as those we are finding unacceptable, for new
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment may be found in
the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered
in the Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing
Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable have GWPs ranging
from 1,770 to 3,990. As shown in Table 12, acceptable alternatives have
GWPs ranging from one to 1,510.
Table 12--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Refrigerants in New Retail Food Refrigeration
[Refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment] \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFC-134a, R-448A, R-449A, R- 1-1,430 0........................ No............... Acceptable.
449B, R-450A, R-513A, R-744.
FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON A, IKON B, 30-1,510 0--Not public \3\........ Yes \4\.......... Acceptable.
R-426A, RS-24 (2002
composition), SP34E, THR-02,
THR-03.
R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, 1,770-2,800 0........................ No............... Unacceptable.
R-410A, R-410B, R-421A.
KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/ 1,810-2,730 0........................ Yes \4\.......... Unacceptable.
42.5/1.5), R-417A, R-422B, R-
422D, R-424A, R-437A, R-438A,
RS-44 (2003 composition).
HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-421B, R- 3,190-3,990 0........................ No............... Unacceptable.
507A.
R-422A, R-422C, R-428A, R-434A. 3,080-3,610 0........................ Yes \4\.......... Unacceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses.
\2\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption.
\3\ The ODP of one or more alternatives is not published here in order to avoid disclosing information that is
claimed as confidential business information.
\4\ One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC.
Some of the refrigerant blends not subject to this action, as well
as several of the substitutes for which we are changing the listing
from acceptable to unacceptable, include small amounts of VOC such as
R-290 (propane) and R-600 (n-butane). These amounts are small, and for
this end-use category are not expected to contribute significantly to
ground-level ozone formation.\136\ In the actions where EPA listed
these refrigerants as acceptable, EPA concluded none of these
refrigerants in this end-use pose significantly greater risk to ground-
level ozone formation than other alternative refrigerants that do not
meet the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s))
or that are specifically excluded from that definition for the purpose
of developing SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations.
February, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The refrigerants not subject to this action are highly volatile and
typically evaporate or partition to air, rather than contaminating
surface waters. Their effects on aquatic life are expected to be small
and pose no greater risk of aquatic or ecosystem effects than those of
the refrigerants that are subject to the proposed status change for
this end-use.
For this end-use category, all of the refrigerants, including those
which we are listing as unacceptable, are not flammable (e.g., those
listed under ASHRAE Standard 34-2013 are class 1 flammability).
Additionally, as discussed at section VI.A.4.d.iii.(c) of the proposed
rule (81 FR 22856; April 18, 2016) and in SNAP Notice 31 (81 FR 32245-
46; May 23, 2016), the toxicity of the refrigerants we are listing as
unacceptable is comparable to that of other alternatives that are
acceptable in this end-use.
In summary, because the risks other than GWP are not significantly
different for the other available alternatives than for those we
proposed to list as unacceptable, and because the GWPs for the
refrigerants we proposed to list as unacceptable are significantly
higher and thus pose significantly greater risk, we are listing the
following refrigerants as unacceptable: HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/
134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-
[[Page 86833]]
407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C,
R-422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003
formulation).
i. When will the status change?
EPA proposed and is establishing a change of status date for
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment of January 1,
2021, which the Agency finds is a reasonable yet expeditious date by
which the technical challenges can be met for a safe and smooth
transition to alternatives particularly considering the need for
equipment to comply with any sanitation and safety standards while
continuing to maintain the properties, characteristics and quality of
the food or beverage provided by the equipment. As discussed below and
in our response to comments, EPA relied on information from an
equipment manufacturer claimed as CBI that estimated different
conversion periods based on two refrigerants--specifically three years
for R-448A and five years for R-744--and the technical hurdles posed by
those refrigerants. While current efforts are focused on using those
two refrigerants, there are a number of other refrigerants listed as
acceptable for this end-use that manufacturers may also choose to use.
However, there is no information that suggests that a conversion period
for these other refrigerants would be any quicker than that for R-448A
and R-744.
To address what alternatives might be available and when, comments
were provided by manufacturers and an association representing
manufacturers regarding certain refrigerants not currently acceptable
in this end-use category. Information was provided for R-448A and R-
449A, two HFC/HFO blends designed to mimic the properties of R-404A,
and one manufacturer and an association representing manufacturers
requested we find them acceptable for this end-use category. As noted
above, concurrent with this rule EPA is listing R-448A, R-449A, and R-
449B acceptable in this end-use. EPA views the interest expressed by
comments to be indicative of the progress being made in this end-use
category and the likely future use of R-448A, R-449A, or R-449B. As
noted above, information claimed as CBI indicates a transition to one
of these refrigerants could occur by January 1, 2021, and was being
planned by a manufacturer of equipment for this end-use category. EPA
discussed the status of these HFC/HFO blends and the availability of
their HFO components in a previous action (80 FR 42870; July 20, 2015).
For instance, we concluded then that there was ample supply of these
refrigerants and we pointed out that Emerson, a major supplier of
compressors and other components, was qualifying these refrigerants for
use in its products. Others have followed suit. For instance, Tecumseh
has approved R-449A as an acceptable alternative to R-404A and was in
the process of releasing R-449A compressors for use in remote
condensing units.\137\ This technology and know-how could then likely
translate into the refrigerated food processing and dispensing
equipment market, thereby allowing a transition by the January 1, 2021,
change of status date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ Tecumseh, 2016. ``Tecumseh Outlines Position on
Refrigerant Transition.'' January 25, 2016. This document is
accessible at http://www.tecumseh.com/en/North-America/Newsroom/Press-Releases/2016/2016-AHR-Press-Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information was also supplied by equipment manufacturers regarding
the use of R-290 specifically or HCs generically in this equipment. An
environmental organization indicated that equipment using R-290 is
already being used in markets outside the United States and recommended
finding R-290 and R-600a acceptable subject to use conditions. EPA has
not received a submission for these refrigerants specifically for the
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment end-use category.
If in the future we decide to list these as acceptable, they would be
included in a Notice of Acceptability published in the Federal
Register, or, if we were to propose finding them acceptable subject to
use restrictions or unacceptable, we would publish a separate proposed
rule.
Equipment manufacturers also submitted comments on some but not all
of the acceptable refrigerants not proposed for status change. One
manufacturer deemed HFC-134a as not appropriate for their equipment
while a second manufacturer indicated that refrigerant is typically
used for refrigerated (as opposed to freezing) applications in this
end-use category. Based on these comments, EPA recognizes that HFC-134a
is available for a portion of this end-use category, but additional
time would be required for it, or other acceptable alternatives, to be
considered available for all of this end-use category.
One manufacturer provided technical information regarding the
challenges with using R-744 although as mentioned above information
claimed as CBI indicated at least one equipment manufacturer was
planning to transition to that refrigerants. A state agency indicated
that low-GWP refrigerants including R-744 ``are currently available for
refrigeration in retail food.'' Also, a group of companies,
Refrigerants, Naturally!, stated that ``there are natural refrigerant
alternatives available on the market'' for dispensing equipment. The
former comment discussed retail food refrigeration generally, rather
than the refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment category
specifically. The latter comment only mentioned ``dispensing
equipment'' and did not mention equipment that may also process food
and beverages as well as dispensing it. As such EPA views these
statements as indicative of the availability of alternatives for a
portion but not necessarily all of the equipment within this end-use
category.
EPA finds however that the progress using R-744 is far enough along
to consider that it will be available for the vast majority, if not
all, of the equipment in this end-use category that are using
refrigerants subject to status change by January 1, 2021. As noted in
the proposal (81 FR 22856; April 18, 2016), the Coca-Cola Company,
which purchases equipment in this and other retail food refrigeration
end-use categories, has announced their plans to convert to non-HFC
technologies for all new cold-drink equipment by 2015, and selected R-
744 as its refrigerant of choice.\138\ The Coca-Cola Company has
already placed over 1.4 million HFC-free units globally (80 FR 42919-
42920; July 20, 2015) and it was reported that the company would only
``narrowly miss'' its 2015 target to be HFC-free.\139\ The demand
created by this company for R-744 in this end-use category (as well as
for commercial refrigeration equipment in other end use categories
addressed in a previous rule) is expected to increase the availability
of R-744 components over the next several years. The time provided by
the status change date will allow other components to be developed, for
example to provide R-744 compressors designed for this end-use category
rather than the ``continuous, longer run systems'' as mentioned by an
equipment manufacturer. Further, as this company purchases equipment
from other suppliers, EPA expects that similar equipment, and the
components used by such equipment, will become more
[[Page 86834]]
widely available in the market. While today's action allows less time
than the five-year transition time estimated by a manufacturer in
information claimed as CBI for a full transition of R-404A equipment to
R-744, EPA believes based on experience to date and the market built by
the demand created by the Coca-Cola Company will allow for a faster
transition than the commenter estimated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ Coca-Cola, 2014. ``Coca-Cola Installs 1 Millionth HFC-Free
Cooler Globally, Preventing 5.25MM Metrics Tons of CO2.'' January
22, 2014. This document is accessible at http://www.coca-colacompany.com/press-center/press-releases/coca-cola-installs-1-millionth-hfc-free-cooler-globally-preventing-525mm-metrics-tons-of-co2.
\139\ Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Magazine, 2015. ``Coca
Cola to narrowly miss HFC-free global refrigeration target.'' March
20, 2015. This document is accessible at www.racplus.com/news/cocacola-to-narrowly-miss-hfc-free-global-refrigerationtarget/8680290.article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this information claimed as CBI and other comments as
discussed above, we find that a January 1, 2021, change of status date
is necessary to provide a reasonable yet expeditious time for the
transition to acceptable alternatives to occur.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
EPA received several comments from individuals and organizations
with various interests in the refrigerants industry. Comments addressed
the proposed status change date of January 1, 2021, the refrigerants
proposed for status change, the technical challenges of using
refrigerants remaining acceptable and other refrigerants that may be
listed as acceptable in the future, energy efficiency, and other rules
and standards that may apply to equipment in this end-use category.
Commenters included AHRI, an industry organization; Arkema and
Chemours, chemical producers; CARB, a state agency; EIA, NRDC and IGSD,
environmental organizations; and Stoelting, Tecumseh and UTC, equipment
and component manufacturers. Additional comments claimed as CBI were
submitted.
We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
i. Substitutes and End-Use Proposed
Comment: UTC was in general agreement with how EPA defined this
end-use category, but pointed out that ``soft-serve and other frozen
dairy treats may not fall within the technical definition of ice-cream
due to milk fat content.'' They also stated that ``it appears a creamer
dispenser (refrigerated unit dispensing creamer in a dosed amount) and
bulk milk dispensers (refrigerated unit holding a container of milk
that dispenses through a small nozzle when the handle is lifted) would
fit in this category as well.''
Response: As noted previously in section VI.A.7.a.i, EPA agrees
that the type of equipment identified by the commenter falls within
this end-use.
Comment: UTC, Refrigerants Naturally!, Chemours, EIA, NRDC, and
IGSD agreed with EPA's proposal to change the status of refrigerants
for this end-use category.
Response: EPA thanks the commenters for the comments.
Comment: AHRI and UTC both claimed that the number of currently
listed acceptable substitutes is limited and that EPA should list R-
448A and R-449A as acceptable for this end-use category. Tecumseh
suggested listing those two refrigerants and R-452A as acceptable.
Response: As shown in Table 12, multiple refrigerants are
acceptable for this end-use category. After the proposal was published,
but before the comment period closed, EPA added another alternative to
the list of acceptable refrigerants in this end-use category,
specifically R-513A. R-448A, R-449A, R-449B, and R-452A have been
submitted to the SNAP Program for review. Concurrent with this rule,
EPA is finding R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B acceptable for new
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment. EPA has not
proposed or made a final listing decision for R-452A in the
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment end-use category.
If in the future we decide to list this as acceptable, it would be
included in a Notice of Acceptability published in the Federal
Register. Likewise, if we were to propose finding it acceptable,
subject to use restrictions or unacceptable, we would publish a
separate proposed rule.
Comment: Responding to EPA's statement in the preamble to the
proposed rule that currently HCs such as R-290, R-600a and R-443A are
not listed as acceptable in this end-use category, UTC and Stoelting
identified technical challenges affecting the potential use of these
refrigerants in this end-use category. EIA recommended that EPA find R-
290 and R-600a acceptable, subject to use conditions as soon as
possible. They indicated that manufacturers are already making R-290
refrigerated dispensing systems abroad pointing to equipment offered by
several companies, and felt this demonstrates a change in status is
feasible.
Response: EPA did not propose and is not taking action regarding
the use of HCs in this end-use category at this time. In any future
action EPA may take addressing the use of HCs in this end-use, EPA
would consider relevant technical information such as the availability
of equipment operating on R-290 in markets outside the United States.
Comment: An initiative of a group of companies encouraged EPA to
find HFC-134a unacceptable ``for systems where there are
environmentally safe, low GWP alternatives.'' Information claimed as
CBI indicated that a manufacturer plans to transition from HFC-134a
after converting its R-404A equipment.
Response: EPA did not propose to change the status of HFC-134a for
this end-use category and we are not taking such action today. While we
recognize that there are plans to transition from HFC-134a by at least
one manufacturer, the information provided did not offer sufficient
basis to determine when alternatives would be available for the limited
applications within this end-use category that rely on HFC-134a.
ii. Change of Status Date
Comment: Three commenters submitted information regarding the
technical challenges of using certain refrigerants that have been
submitted to EPA for review but for which EPA has not made a listing
decision. UTC stated that the time to transition different products
``may vary based on technical challenges with product sensory
characteristics and differences in dispense rate requirements.'' They
indicated that a challenge for using R-448A, which they proposed should
be found acceptable, existed with the compressor discharge temperature
which might reduce the compressor reliability. Stoelting requested an
extension (of unspecified time) or exemption to continue to use R-404A.
They stated that ``R-448 or R-449 have an inherent temperature glide of
8 [deg]F [4.4 [deg]C] or more'' that causes two issues. They stated
that they could not ``account for the fractionation'' of such
refrigerants in equipment with flooded evaporators. They also stated
that meeting the temperature variances required (+/-1 [deg]F [0.56
[deg]C]) would be difficult and lead to a ``too cold/firm'' region and
a ``too warm/soft'' region. Information submitted and claimed as CBI
estimated that at least three years was needed to transition to R-448A,
if it is found acceptable.
Response: EPA recognizes that challenges exist with any transition
and based on the technical information provided for this end-use EPA is
establishing a change of status date of January 1, 2021. EPA notes that
there are refrigerants currently listed as acceptable that would
alleviate or eliminate the concern regarding temperature glide that
Stoelting mentioned. For instance, R-744 as a pure substance does not
have a temperature glide, although separate limitations were discussed
by UTC as explained in the following comment.
[[Page 86835]]
Also, while R-450A is zeotropic, it has a low temperature glide that
presumably can be addressed based on past experience with R-404A,
another low-glide zeotropic blend. In addition, R-513A is an azeotrope
with no temperature glide.
With respect to the other issues concerning R-448A discussed by
UTC, concurrent with this rule, EPA is listing R-448A as acceptable in
this end-use. As noted above, information provided and claimed as CBI
indicates a transition to R-448A is feasible by the change of status
date established.
Comment: UTC emphasized that sufficient time is needed to
transition equipment to refrigerants not subject to status change. They
described multiple challenges with using R-744, which is currently
listed as acceptable. One challenge they described is the additional
space required in the heat exchangers and that this additional space
requirement must be balanced with the need to minimize increases in
footprints which would be difficult to accommodate in many foodservice
settings that utilize this equipment. The commenter further indicated
the challenges with ``compressor availability, compressor operating
envelope, refrigerant controls availability (in our capacity range),
footprint, and cost.'' Another challenge with R-744 noted was the need
to design for higher operating pressures and a more complex cooling
cycle. The commenter also stated that additional work on the compressor
designs was needed to develop models that are suited for the varying
cooling demands of this type of equipment as opposed to other
applications where R-744 compressors are used. For example, UTC stated
that ``R-744 compressors have been traditionally designed for
continuous, longer run system.'' CARB however stated that R-744 is
currently available for retail food refrigeration, arguing for a 2020
status change date, while information claimed as CBI indicated at least
one equipment manufacturer was already planning to convert to R-744 in
the future. This information claimed as CBI by an equipment
manufacturer estimated that they would need at least a five-year
timeframe to transition to R-744.
Response: EPA agrees that some challenges exist when converting to
R-744, but the technical progress to date in using this refrigerant in
various applications indicates these challenges can be met by the
change of status date. Although some components are available, R-744
components have not yet become widely available and could not currently
satisfy the entire market for this end-use category by CARB's suggested
January 1, 2020 date. Nonetheless, although specific comments
suggesting the solutions to the technical concerns raised were not
provided, the transition by the Coca-Cola Company and other comments
indicate that such solutions exist and can be implemented. As discussed
in section VI.A.7.b.ii above, EPA finds that R-744 will be available
for most if not all of the equipment in this end-use category by the
change of status date, and sees various paths forward in the case that
it is not fully available for all such equipment.
iii. Relationship With Other Rules
Comment: In response to EPA's request for comment on applicable DOE
energy conservation standards for equipment in this end-use category,
UTC indicated that there are currently no DOE directives or
requirements for this equipment. They also indicated the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM International) was developing a
test standard for this equipment, implying such a standard might form
the basis of future DOE rulemaking. They also indicated that European
rules covering ice-cream and shake machines are being drafted.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for this information regarding
the development of testing standards and the current status of DOE and
European requirements for this equipment. We did not consider possible
future action by ASTM or DOE in establishing a change of status date
for this end-use category, but if one or both those actions occur, EPA
could consider it at that time.
iv. Industry Standards and Codes
Comment: UTC provided a list of multiple industry standards,
including ones from the Canadian Standards Association (CSA,) UL, and
IEC that apply to this equipment. The commenter did not indicate how
the information was related to the proposal.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for the information regarding
standards.
8. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New
Household Refrigerators and Freezers
a. Background
i. What is the affected end-use?
Household refrigerators, freezers and combination refrigerator/
freezers are intended primarily for residential use, although they may
be used outside the home. The designs and refrigeration capacities of
equipment vary widely. Household refrigerators and freezers are
composed of three main categories of equipment. Household freezers only
offer storage space at freezing temperatures, while household
refrigerators only offer storage space at non-freezing temperatures.
Products with both a refrigerator and freezer in a single unit are most
common. In addition to the three main categories of equipment, other
small refrigerated household appliances exist (i.e., chilled kitchen
drawers, wine coolers, and mini-fridges) that are also within this end
use. Household refrigerators and freezers have all refrigeration
components integrated, and for the smallest types, the refrigeration
circuit is entirely brazed or welded. These systems are charged with
refrigerant at the factory and typically require only an electricity
supply to begin operation.
The 2014 ASHRAE Handbook of Refrigeration provides an overview of
food preservation in regards to household refrigerators and freezers.
Generally, a storage temperature between 32 and 39 [deg]F (0 to 3.9
[deg]C) is desirable for preserving fresh food. Humidity and higher or
lower temperatures are more suitable for certain foods and beverages.
Wine chillers, for example, are frequently used for storing wine, and
have slightly higher optimal temperatures from 45 to 65 [deg]F (7.2 to
18.3 [deg]C). Freezers and combination refrigerator-freezers that are
designed to store food for long durations have temperatures below 8
[deg]F (-13.3 [deg]C) and are designed to hold temperatures near 0 to 5
[deg]F (-17.7 to -15 [deg]C). In single-door refrigerators, the optimum
conditions for food preservation are typically warmer than this due to
the fact that food storage is not intended for long-term storage.
DOE energy conservation standards apply to household refrigerators
and freezers, as discussed in section VI.A.9.b.ii.
i. What refrigerants are used in household refrigerators and freezers?
The following alternatives are currently acceptable for new
household refrigerators and freezers: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-
152a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-
290, R-404A, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-
422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-427A, R-428A, R-434A,
R-437A, R-438A, R-441A, R-450A, R-513A, R-507A, R-600a, RS-24 (2002
formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-02 and THR-03. Of
those, R-290, R-441A and R-600a are acceptable, subject to use
conditions.
[[Page 86836]]
Currently, the most commonly used refrigerant in the United States
for household refrigerators and freezers is R-134a, an HFC with a GWP
of 1,430. However, throughout many parts of the world, R-600a with a
GWP of approximately four is the most commonly used refrigerant and
there are ongoing efforts to help facilitate the adoption and continued
use of R-600a in this industry globally.\140\ The European Union (EU)
banned the use of HFCs with a GWP greater than 150 (which includes R-
134a) for household refrigerators and freezers as of January 1,
2015.\141\ R-600a has been used in Europe for approximately two
decades. Throughout parts of Asia, Africa, and South America, R-600a is
the dominant refrigerant for this end-use. In its 2014 assessment
report,\142\ the TEAP's Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps
Technical Options Committee (RTOC) projects that by 2020 about 75
percent of new household refrigerators globally will use R-600a, a
small percentage will use HFOs, and the rest will use HFC-134a. There
are other alternatives that may be determined to work well in this end
use. For example, R-450A and R-513A, which EPA has listed as acceptable
for use in this end-use (79 FR 62863, October 21, 2014; 80 FR 42053,
July 16, 2015, respectively), were designed to match the
characteristics and performance of HFC-134a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ ORNL, 2015. ORNL's JUMP Challenge: JUMP in to Advance Tech
Innovation! Presented by Brian Fricke, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory. November 17, 2015.
\141\ EU, 2014. Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated
greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006.
Available online at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.150.01.0195.01.ENG.
\142\ RTOC, 2015. 2014 Report of the Refrigeration, Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee. Available
at: http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/mop-27/presession/Background%20Documents%20are%20available%20in%20English%20only/RTOC-Assessment-Report-2014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to R-600a, EPA previously found a number of other
flammable HC refrigerants including R-290 and R-441A and R-600a as
acceptable, subject to use conditions in household refrigerators and
freezers (76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19454, April 10, 2015).
b. What is EPA's final decision?
For new household refrigerators and freezers, EPA proposed to
change as of January 1, 2021, the status of the following refrigerants
from acceptable to unacceptable: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, KDD6, R-125/
290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-
410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A,
R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002
formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, and THR-03. In this
action, we are finalizing the status changes as proposed. The change of
status determinations for new household refrigerators and freezers:
Table 13--Change of Status Decisions for Household Refrigerators and Freezers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitutes Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Household refrigerators and freezers FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, KDD6, R-125/290/ Unacceptable as of January
(new only). 134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R- 1, 2021.
407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-
421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-
422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R-
437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002
formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation),
SP34E, and THR-03.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. How do these unacceptable refrigerants compare to other refrigerants
for this end-use with respect to SNAP criteria?
Other refrigerants for new household refrigerators and freezers are
HFC-152a, IKON A, IKON B, THR-02; R-513A, R-450A, R-290, R-441A and R-
600a. In the proposed rule, EPA provided information on the
environmental and health risks presented by the alternatives that are
being found unacceptable compared with other alternatives listed as
acceptable (81 FR 22858; April 18, 2016). In addition, a technical
support document \143\ that provides the Federal Register citations
concerning data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity,
flammability) for acceptable alternatives as well as those we are
finding unacceptable for new household refrigerators and freezers may
be found in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered
in the Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing
Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable through this action
have insignificant ODP and they have GWPs ranging from 920 to 3,990. As
shown in Table 14, the other alternatives, listed as acceptable or as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, have GWP ranging from three to
630.
Table 14--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Refrigerants in New Household Refrigerators and Freezers \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IKON A, IKON B, R-290, R-441A, 3-560 0--Not public \3\........ Yes \4\.......... Acceptable.
R-600a, THR-02.
HFC-152a....................... 124 0........................ No............... Acceptable.
R-450A, R-513A................. 600-630 0........................ No............... Acceptable.
HFC-134a....................... 1,430 0........................ No............... Unacceptable.
FOR12A, FOR12B, R-426A, RS-24 920-1,510 0--Not public \3\........ Yes \4\.......... Unacceptable.
(2002 composition), SP34E, THR-
03.
R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, 1,770-2,630 0........................ No............... Unacceptable.
R-421A.
KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/ 1,810-2,730 0........................ Yes \4\.......... Unacceptable.
42.5/1.5), R-417A, R-422B, R-
422D, R-424A, R-437A, R-438A,
RS-44 (2003 composition).
R-404A, R-421B, R-507A......... 3,190-3,990 0........................ No............... Unacceptable.
R-422A, R-422C, R-428A, R-434A. 3,080-3,610 0........................ Yes \4\.......... Unacceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses.
\2\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption.
\3\ The ODP of one or more alternatives is not published here in order to avoid disclosing information that is
claimed as confidential business information.
\4\ One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC.
[[Page 86837]]
Three substitutes that remain acceptable, subject to use
conditions, R-290, R-600a, and R-441A, are HCs or a blend of HCs. R-290
and R-600a are VOCs while R-441A is a blend composed primarily of
compounds that are VOC. EPA's analysis indicates that their use as
refrigerants in this end-use is not expected to contribute
significantly to ground level ozone formation.\144\ In the action in
which EPA listed these refrigerants as acceptable, subject to use
conditions (80 FR 19454; April 10, 2015), EPA concluded none of these
refrigerants as used in this end-use pose significantly greater risk to
ground-level ozone formation than other alternative refrigerants that
are not VOCs or that are specifically excluded 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations.
February, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The refrigerants not subject to this action are highly volatile and
typically evaporate or partition to air, rather than contaminating
surface waters. Their effects on aquatic life are expected to be small
and pose no greater risk of aquatic or ecosystem effects than those of
the refrigerants that are subject to the status change for this end-
use.
With the exception of HFC-152a, R-290, R-600a and R-441A, all other
refrigerants listed as acceptable, including those we are listing as
unacceptable, are not flammable. R-290 and R-600a, which are HCs, and
R-441A, which is a blend of HCs, are classified as A3 refrigerants by
ASHRAE Standard 34-2013, indicating that they have low toxicity and
high flammability, while HFC-152a is classified as an A2 refrigerant,
indicating that it has low toxicity and low flammability. To address
flammability, EPA listed these R-290, R-441A and R-600a as acceptable,
subject to use conditions. 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. Our assessment and
listing decisions (76 FR 78832; December 20, 2011 and FR 80 19454;
April 10, 2015) found that the overall risk, including the risk due to
flammability with the use conditions, is not significantly greater than
for other refrigerants listed as acceptable at that time. EPA found
HFC-152a acceptable for new household refrigerators and freezers in the
original SNAP rule indicating ``[a]lthough HFC-152a is flammable, a
risk assessment demonstrated it could be used safely in this end-use''
(59 FR 13081; March 18, 1994). Toxicity is not a significant concern
for the refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable. Their toxicity is
comparable to that of other alternatives that are acceptable in this
end-use. The refrigerants subject to the status change and the
refrigerants not subject to the status change, if listed under ASHRAE
34 (2013), are classified as Class A refrigerants (lower toxicity).
In summary, because the risks other than GWP are not significantly
different for the other available alternatives than for those we
proposed to list as unacceptable, and because the GWPs for the
refrigerants we proposed to list as unacceptable are significantly
higher and thus pose significantly greater risk, we are listing the
following refrigerants as unacceptable: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, KDD6,
R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-407F, R-
410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D,
R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002
formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, and THR-03.
ii. When will the status change?
As proposed, EPA is establishing a change of status date for new
household refrigerators and freezers of January 1, 2021. There are
technical challenges that must be met for a safe and smooth transition
to alternatives, particularly considering the likely use of one or more
of the flammable alternatives. The primary step that must occur for a
transition is product design work for alternative refrigerants, drawing
from current models used both in the United States and elsewhere. For
those designing with flammable refrigerants, this would include
complying with the use conditions EPA established when listing those
refrigerants as acceptable (76 FR 78832; December 20, 2011, and FR 80
1954; April 10, 2015). Although some models have recently and others
are currently transitioning,
EPA recognizes that manufacturers will need time to continue
product design work for alternative refrigerants, drawing from current
models used both in the United States and elsewhere.
Household refrigerators are subject to DOE energy conservation
standards and will need to be tested to demonstrate compliance with
those standards.\145\ EPA noted in a previous action that ``we do not
have a practice in the SNAP program of including energy efficiency in
the overall risk analysis'' but also pointed out that ``[w]e do,
however, consider issues such as technical needs for energy efficiency
(e.g., to meet DOE standards) in determining whether alternatives are
`available.' '' (80 FR 42921; July 20, 2015). Hence, we find that the
need for household refrigerator and freezers to meet DOE energy
efficiency standards plays a part in determining the availability of
alternatives and factors into our decision on the applicable change of
status date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ DOE's previous energy conservation rulemaking for this
end-use was finalized in 2011 with a compliance date of September
15, 2014 (76 FR 57516; September 15, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With a change of status date of 2021, the evidence presented
indicates that current models--already meeting the current DOE
standards--when redesigned for alternative refrigerants are expected to
continue to meet those existing standards. In fact, comments indicate
an increase in energy efficiency with some of the acceptable
alternatives, some of which have been implemented in products both in
the U.S. market and globally. See for example comments from Electrolux
and NRDC. Furthermore, as the typical compliance period for DOE energy
efficiency regulations is three years from the date issued, a status
change date over four years from today gives manufacturers should
provide a more than adequate period of time to redesign models to meet
such standards with an alternative refrigerant. This time frame also
allows manufacturers time to redesign models considering the use
conditions that must be met if a flammable acceptable alternative is
chosen, as discussed above.
We understand however that there may be limitations with regard to
the availability of testing facilities in the event that, in the midst
of this implementation of new models with alternative refrigerants, the
energy efficiency requirements were to change in a manner that required
redesigning models to meet the new efficiency standards DOE has not
initiated the process under which new energy efficiency standards would
be promulgated. Commenters have suggested that this process could begin
as early as 2017 with an eventual compliance date of 2024 or 2025.
Therefore, at this point in time it is not evident that there will be
any constraint on laboratory availability to meet the January 1, 2021,
status change date in this rule. Should DOE finalize new energy
efficiency standards for household refrigerators-freezers in the next
few years, EPA could consider at that time whether laboratory
availability
[[Page 86838]]
issues might affect the transition to alternative refrigerants by the
2021 change of status date.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
EPA received several comments from organizations with various
interests in the household refrigerators and freezers end-use. Several
commenters commented on the proposed January 1, 2021, change of status
date. Other comments focused on substitutes and end-use proposed,
industry standards and codes, and general comments such as the need for
technician training.
Commenters included AHAM, a trade association; and three equipment
manufacturers, Whirlpool, Sub Zero, and Electrolux. EPA also received
comments from Arkema and Chemours, chemical producers; NRDC, IGSD and
EIA, environmental organizations; UL, a safety consulting and
certification company; and CARB, a state agency.
We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
i. Substitutes and End-Use Proposed
Comment: AHAM noted that although alternatives have been approved
for and can be used in refrigerators and freezers, the only viable
alternative is R-600a and there are no available ``drop-ins.'' AHAM
also noted that while the appliance industry is moving to replace HFC
refrigerants in their products and has produced and sold hundreds of
millions of units safely around the world using HC alternatives,
factories must be reengineered, and education, logistics and disposal
systems would need to be established to manage the safe transportation,
servicing and disposal of flammable refrigerants in North America.
Whirlpool also commented that major manufacturing changes are required
across the industry to achieve widespread use of flammable
refrigerants. Three environmental organizations, NRDC, IGSD, and EIA,
along with a state government agency, CARB, and a chemical producer,
Chemours, supported EPA's proposal to change the status of HFC-134a in
this end-use.
Response: EPA appreciates comments submitted in support of the
proposed rule and thanks commenters. As to AHAM's comments that there
are no ``drop-in'' substitutes for this end use, although EPA prefers
not to use the term ``drop-in,'' it is sometimes used by various
parties to refer to the circumstance where one refrigerant can be used
in place of another without any modification to the relevant piece of
refrigeration equipment. While equipment manufacturers may prefer to
use HC refrigerants as they do in other markets, EPA believes that R-
450A and R-513A may meet the characteristics that AHAM uses to define
``drop-in'' replacements. These are non-flammable and were developed to
have characteristics similar to R-134a. That said, EPA finds that the
change of status date provides sufficient time for redesigning to use
HC refrigerants if so preferred by equipment manufacturers.
ii. Change of Status Date
Comment: Chemours, a chemical producer, supported the change of
status for the refrigerants proposed to be listed as unacceptable,
noting that it has sufficient supply of commercial replacement
solutions with comparable or improved energy efficiency compared to the
substitutes subject to the proposed status change. UL commented on the
proposed change of status for HFC-134a for use in this end-use, stating
it did not expect to be adversely impacted by any testing or retesting
of refrigerators and freezers due to proposed provision.
Response: EPA acknowledges UL's statement that under the proposed
timeline for the change of status of R-134a they do not anticipate any
difficulty in providing laboratory capacity to perform any testing
needed for newly designed refrigerators and freezers and we have
considered this information in determining an appropriate change of
status date. In addition, we considered whether there was sufficient
manufacturing capacity for substitutes by Chemours and other chemical
producers in order to meet the established change of status date and
determined that production would be more than sufficient for a January
1, 2021, change of status date.
Comment: Several commenters commented on the proposed January 1,
2021, change of status date for household refrigerators and freezers.
AHAM and Sub Zero suggested that a complete transition date should be
no earlier than 2024. AHAM noted that, while the industry is moving to
replace HFC refrigerants in products, this transition process is
expensive, time consuming, and industry faces technical challenges.
AHAM and Whirlpool suggested that the proposed change of status date
would create significant difficulties in designing products with
flammable refrigerants while also meeting DOE energy conservation
standards and charge size limitations for flammable refrigerants in the
UL refrigerators and freezers safety standard. AHAM and Sub Zero
suggested there would be a small environmental impact from moving the
change of status date to 2024. Whirlpool also recommended a transition
date of 2024 due to the design and engineering changes that would be
necessary. Electrolux noted that they could transition out of HFC based
refrigerants by January 1, 2021, if the charge size limit on HC
refrigerants could be increased. NRDC, IGSD, and EIA urged EPA to
maintain the proposed status change date of January 1, 2021, and noted
requests for extended delays are completely unwarranted given that
refrigerator manufacturers have offered models with R-600a for over a
decade outside the United States.
Response: EPA appreciates points raised by AHAM, Sub Zero, and
Whirlpool and understands that challenges exist; however we do not
agree that additional time beyond what was proposed is needed. We
understand that time is needed for adapting certain model designs to
the U.S. market but do not believe the commenters have provided
sufficient information to indicate that more time than what EPA
proposed would be needed. Although the comments did not provide a
detailed analysis of what steps are required to complete a transition
and how long each step takes, and whether steps can occur
simultaneously or must occur in series, we find that much component
equipment development can occur at the same time as other product
design work. In other words, as certain components become available,
appropriate units could be redesigned using those components,
prototypes could be built and tested, and final designs could be
manufactured. While redesigns and prototypes are developed, additional
components can be developed as needed for other designs. Indeed, once
product models are designed, testing and certification could take place
while additional models are designed.
We agree with NRDC, IGSD, and EIA that a status change date of
January 1, 2021, can be met, and will allow sufficient time for
manufacturers to redesign any products that require additional
engineering to meet this rule. EPA notes that R-600a is currently being
used in more than 500 million household refrigerator and freezer units
worldwide, including some units in the United States.\146\
Additionally, although changing the charge size limit for hydrocarbon
refrigerants as mentioned by Electrolux is beyond the scope of this
[[Page 86839]]
rule, many manufacturers have already identified a portion of their
products that they could redesign using R-290 under the existing limit.
EPA notes that 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 plan accordingly for any changes required at the
factory and in the designs of the products they manufacture. We note
that R-450A and R-513A, which are not subject to status change, will
not require as many changes to the equipment design particularly since
these are nonflammable and operate with similar characteristics to HFC-
134a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ (TEAP, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the comment that there would be little environmental
impact by delaying the change of status date until 2024, we do not
consider that as part of the analysis for determining the appropriate
change of status date. We consider environmental effects, as part of
the SNAP review criteria for determining whether safer alternatives are
available. Once we have determined that other alternatives can be used
that pose less risk we look at the technical challenges of a transition
and the availability of alternatives to identify a reasonable but
expeditious change of status date that reflects when alternatives can
be used broadly within the end-use. Regarding Arkema's specific
suggestion for a change of status date of 2025, EPA does not agree that
equipment being hermetically sealed justifies a later change of status
date. As noted, EPA has determined that other alternatives pose less
risk than those for which the status is being changed can reasonably be
used earlier than 2025. Even assuming that the commenter is correct
that alternatives may be used in a manner that would pose even less
risk at a later date, such an assumption would not justify delaying the
change of status date. Manufacturers could still choose to manufacture
new equipment that is hermetically sealed in 2025 and beyond.
iii. Industry Standards and Codes
Comment: AHAM, Whirlpool, NRDC, IGSD, and EIA discussed charge size
limitations for flammable refrigerants in the UL refrigerators and
freezers safety standard. Whirlpool and Electrolux noted the need for a
new safety standard that would replace the current UL standard that has
established the charge size limit of HC-based refrigerants to 57 g.
Electrolux suggested that this charge size limit should be harmonized
with the IEC 60335-2-40 standard in place in the European Market at 150
g. Arkema stated that building codes do not yet support use of
flammable materials at a sufficient charge size. CARB mentioned the
$5.2 million commitment announced on June 2, 2016, by DOE, AHRI, and
ASHRAE discussed previously to fund vital research that will establish
a more robust fact base about the properties and uses of flammable
refrigerants. This new research program will help provide the technical
knowledge needed to facilitate and accelerate the safe use of these
refrigerants. NRDC and IGSD commented that, in addition to finalizing
the change of status date for HFC-134a in new household refrigerators
and freezers, EPA should revisit the charge size limit of 57 g for HC
refrigerants used in any refrigerator, freezer, or combination
refrigerator and freezer for each circuit. NRDC and IGSD also
recommended that UL and AHAM ``review the technical justification for
such a wide gulf between U.S. and international safety standards and
close it as soon as possible.'' Similarly, EIA commented that ``the
current UL 250 charge size limit of 57 g of R-600a is effectively and
unnecessarily prohibiting market penetration of low-GWP hydrocarbon
systems in the U.S. . . . Even with the current overly restrictive UL
standard in place, manufacturers have R-600a based systems on the U.S.
market, though the charge size is a major restriction to refrigerator
volume, or substantially increases the price if dual compressor systems
are used to make a standard sized U.S. refrigerator.'' EIA recommended
that, while the UL 471 harmonization process to replace UL 250
continues, EPA should recognize the 150 g charge size limit under the
currently recognized International Electrochemical Commission (IEC)
standard (IEC 60335-2-89) as an acceptable use condition for the sale
of household refrigerators and freezers using HCs in the United States.
EIA believes this will help support the proposed change of status date
of January 1, 2021, for HFC-134a. EIA referenced their October 2015
petition to the Agency requesting that EPA incorporate by reference the
IEC standard 60335-2-89 as the basis for charge size limitations as use
conditions for R-290 and R-600a in household refrigerators and
freezers.
Response: EPA understands the interest in reconsidering safe charge
limits and the potential for UL and IEC standards to be harmonized. EPA
understands that there are efforts in this direction underway. EPA is
encouraged by the June 2016 announcement by DOE, ASHRAE and AHRI and
understands that other stakeholders have been invited to join this
effort. While there may be opportunities to make changes to applicable
standards, and subsequently change the use conditions that currently
apply, such changes are beyond the scope of this rule. If and when
those standards are harmonized, EPA could consider whether to revise
the SNAP listing consistent with the new standards. This action is
based on the Agency's view that the other alternatives including those
acceptable to use conditions are feasible for use, as demonstrated by
several manufacturers, including GE and BOSCH. We understand that other
manufacturers are earlier in the process of designing equipment using
alternatives that remain acceptable and EPA has established a change of
status date of January 1, 2021 to allow time for manufacturers to
address the technical challenges.
iv. Other Suggestions or Requests
Comment: AHAM recommended that service personnel must be trained to
adequately protect themselves and consumers from activities that may be
routine for handling equipment with non-flammable refrigerants but that
are not protective when servicing equipment with flammable HC
refrigerants. AHAM commented that repairing leaks or replacing/filling
refrigerant lines will involve new training techniques that must be
developed and communicated.
Response: EPA is not taking action in this rulemaking regarding the
use of flammable refrigerants for this end-use and thus this comment is
outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, we note that we are
aware that at least two organizations--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 CAA
section 608 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
[[Page 86840]]
separate process outside the scope of this final rule.
B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning
1. Background
The vehicle types that are addressed in this action include limited
types of HD vehicles, specifically, MDPVs,\147\ HD trucks, and complete
HD vans.\148\ EPA has previously listed HFO-1234yf as acceptable,
subject to use conditions, in light-duty (LD) motor vehicles and trucks
(76 FR 17490; March 29, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ Defined at 40 CFR 86.1801-03.
\148\ MVAC systems provide passenger comfort cooling for LD cars
and trucks, HD vehicles (large pick-ups, delivery trucks,
recreational vehicles, and semi-trucks), off-road vehicles, buses,
and rail vehicles. EPA is not addressing other types of HD vehicles,
off-road vehicles, buses, or trains in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The types of HD vehicles addressed in this action are in many ways
more similar to LD vehicles than they are to the HD vehicles with a
higher gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), which is a measure of the
combined curb (empty) weight and cargo carrying capacity of the truck.
Table 15 outlines the HD vehicle weight classifications commonly used.
MDPVs,\149\ HD pickup trucks, and HD vans are Class 2b and 3 vehicles
with GVWRs between 8,501 and 14,000 lb. These vehicle types are similar
to LD vehicles technologically and most are manufactured in a similar
manner to LD vehicles by companies with major light-duty markets in the
United States.\150\ Ford, General Motors, and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
(FCA) produce approximately100 percent of HD pickup trucks and
approximately 95 percent of HD vans, with Daimler and Nissan producing
the remaining approximately five percent of HD vans.\151\ In many
cases, these types of HD vehicles are versions of their LD
counterparts.\152\ For example, the Silverado 1500, Ram 1500, and Ford
F-150 are the LD counterparts of the HD Silverado 2500/3500, Ram 2500/
3500, and Ford F-250/F-350/F-450 pickup trucks.\153\ The primary
difference between HD pickup trucks and vans and their LD counterpart
vehicles is that HD pickups and vans are occupational or work vehicles
that are designed for much higher towing and payload capabilities
compared to LD pickups and vans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ MDPVs are classified as HD vehicles based on their GVWR,
but due to their similarities to LD vehicles they are subject to the
GHG emissions standards established for LD trucks.
\150\ This is more broadly true for HD pickup trucks than vans
because every manufacturer of HD pickup trucks also makes LD pickup
trucks, while only some heavy-duty van manufacturers also make
light-duty vans (80 FR 40148; July 13, 2015).
\151\ EPA, 2015. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed
Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--Phase 2.
EPA-420-D-15-900. June 2015. Available at http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420d15900.pdf.
\152\ ICCT, 2015. International Council on Clean Transportation:
Regulatory Considerations for Advancing Commercial Pickup and Van
Efficiency Technology in the United States. Available online at:
http://www.theicct.org/us-commercial-pickups-vans-efficiency-technology.
\153\ ICF, 2015. Market Characterization of the U.S. Motor
Vehicle Air Conditioning Industry, U.S. Foams Industry, U.S.
Aerosols Industry, and U.S. Commercial Refrigeration Industry. July,
2015.
Table 15--Vehicle Weight Classification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 2b 3 4 5 6 7 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GVWR (lb)........................ 8,501-10,000 10,001-14,000 14,001-16,000 16,001-19,500 19,501-26,000 26,001-33,000 >33,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All types of HD vehicles can be sold as ``complete'' or
``incomplete'' vehicles (76 FR 57259-60; September 15, 2011). Complete
vehicles are sold by vehicle manufacturers to end-users with no
secondary manufacturer making substantial modifications prior to
registration and use. Incomplete vehicles are sold by vehicle
manufacturers to secondary manufacturers without the primary load-
carrying device or container attached. See section VI.B.1 of the
proposed rule for additional information on HD vehicles and the vehicle
types within the MVAC end-use that are addressed in this action.
Section 608(c) of the CAA prohibits the knowing venting, release or
disposal of all refrigerants by any person maintaining, servicing,
repairing or disposing of an appliance or IPR in a manner which permits
the refrigerant to enter the environment, except for certain substitute
refrigerants that have been specifically exempted from this venting
prohibition under CAA section 608(c)(2). MVAC end-of-life disposal and
recycling specifications are also covered under section 608 of the CAA
and our regulations issued under that section of the Act, which are
codified at subpart F of 40 CFR part 82. Additionally, CAA section 609
establishes standards and requirements regarding servicing of MVAC
systems. Under section 609, no person repairing or servicing motor
vehicles for consideration \154\ may perform any service on an MVAC
that involves the refrigerant without properly using approved
refrigerant recovery or recovery and recycling equipment and no such
person may perform such service unless such person has been properly
trained and certified. This action will not have a direct impact on
EPA's regulations under section 609. For further information on the
relationship between this action and other federal rules, see section
VI.B.6 of the proposed rule (81 FR 22866-67; April 18, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ Service for consideration means receiving something of
worth or value to perform service, whether in money, credit, goods,
or services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What is EPA's final decision?
As proposed, EPA is listing HFO-1234yf as acceptable, subject to
use conditions, in MVAC systems for newly manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup
trucks, and complete HD vans. The use conditions are detailed in
section VI.B.2.b, ``What are the final use conditions?''. EPA sought
comment and information on listing HFO-1234yf as acceptable subject to
use conditions for some incomplete HD vans. One commenter provided
information to EPA and EPA will consider that information to determine
whether to take further action regarding the listing of HFO-1234yf for
use in incomplete HD vans.
As explained in section VI.B.1, section 608 of the CAA prohibits
the knowing venting, release or disposal of all refrigerants by any
person maintaining, servicing, repairing or disposing of an appliance
or IPR in a manner which permits the refrigerant to enter the
environment, except for certain substitute refrigerants that have been
specifically exempted from this venting prohibition. Because HFO-1234yf
has not been exempted from the venting prohibition in any end use, such
knowing releases of HFO-1234yf in the course of maintaining, servicing,
repairing or disposing of MVAC systems of MDVPs, HD pickup trucks, and
complete HD vans addressed in this action is prohibited.
[[Page 86841]]
a. How does HFO-1234yf compare to other refrigerants for these MVAC
applications with respect to SNAP criteria?
Available refrigerants for newly manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup
trucks, and complete HD vans include HFC-134a, HFC-152a,\155\ and
CO2.\156\ There are also several blend refrigerants that are
listed as acceptable for new HD MVAC systems, subject to use
conditions, including the HFC blends SP34E and R-426A (also known as
RS-24) and the HCFC blends, R-416A (also known as HCFC Blend Beta or
FRIGC FR12), R-406A, R-414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-
414B (also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known
as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as
GHG-HP). HFC-134a is the refrigerant most widely used today in HD MVAC
systems; however, given the change of status for HFC-134a for LD
vehicles, it is likely that the manufacturers of these similar vehicle
types will also consider transitioning to another alternative which is
listed as acceptable for LD vehicles. All MVAC refrigerants that are
acceptable for use are listed as acceptable subject to use conditions.
For each listed refrigerant, the use conditions require labeling and
the use of unique fittings and are subject to additional use conditions
mitigating flammability and toxicity as appropriate to the alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ HFC-152a is listed as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, for new vehicles only at 40 CFR part 82 subpart G; final
rule published June 12, 2008 (73 FR 33304).
\156\ CO2 is listed as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, for new vehicles only at 40 CFR part 82 subpart G; final
rule published June 6, 2012 (77 FR 33315).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In section VI.B.3 of the proposed rule (81 FR at 22860-65; April
18, 2016), EPA provided information on the environmental and health
properties of HFO-1234yf and the available alternative in this end-use
in this action. In addition, EPA's risk assessments for HFO-1234yf and
a technical support document \157\ that provides the Federal Register
citations concerning data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC,
toxicity, flammability) for acceptable alternatives in the relevant
end-uses may be found in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0663). In summary, HFO-1234yf has a GWP of one to four. HFO-1234yf
has a GWP similar to or lower than the GWP of other alternatives for
the HD vehicle types addressed in this action. For example, its GWP is
significantly lower than that of HFC-134a, the refrigerant most widely
used in these vehicles today, which has a GWP of 1,430. HFC-152a,\158\
and CO2\159\ have GWPs of 124 and one, respectively. The
refrigerant blends acceptable for use in MVAC systems for the HD
vehicle types addressed in this action have GWPs ranging from 1 to
1,510.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered
in the Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing
Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.
\158\ HFC-152a is listed as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, for new vehicles only at 40 CFR part 82 subpart G; final
rule published June 12, 2008 (73 FR 33304).
\159\ CO2 is listed as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, for new vehicles only at 40 CFR part 82 subpart G; final
rule published June 6, 2012 (77 FR 33315).
Table 16--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of HFO-1234yf Compared to Other Refrigerants in MVAC Systems of Newly
Manufactured MDPVs, HD Pickup Trucks, and Complete HD Vans \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC status Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFO-1234yf..................... 1-4 0.......................... No................ Acceptable,
subject to use
conditions.
CO2, HFC-152a, HFC-134a........ 1-1,430 0.......................... No................ Acceptable.
IKON A, R-416A, R-426A, SP34E.. 30-1,510 0-Not public \3\........... Yes \4\........... Acceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-use.
\2\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption.
\3\ The ODP of one or more alternatives is not published here in order to avoid disclosing information that is
claimed as confidential business information.
\4\ One or more constituents of the blend are VOC.
HFO-1234yf does not deplete the ozone layer. Likewise, HFC-134a,
HFC-152a, CO2 and the HFC blends SP34E and R-426A do not
deplete the ozone layer; the HCFC blends have ODPs ranging from 0.012
to 0.056. HFO-1234yf, HFC-134a, HFC-152a, and CO2 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 HFC blends and some of the HCFC blends have one or more components
that are VOCs and that are not exempt from the definition in 40 CFR
51.100(s).
A potential environmental impact of HFO-1234yf is its atmospheric
decomposition to trifluoroacetic acid (TFA, CF3COOH). TFA is
a strong acid that may accumulate on soil, on plants, and in aquatic
ecosystems over time and that may have the potential to adversely
impact plants, animals, and ecosystems.\160\ Simulations have found
that the amount of TFA in rainfall produced from a transition of all
mobile air conditioners in the continental United States to HFO-1234yf
has been estimated to be double or more the values observed in the
United States in 2009 from all sources, natural and artificial (i.e.,
HFC-134a) sources.\161\ In comparison, the amount of TFA produced from
HFO-1234yf is expected to be higher than that of other fluorinated
refrigerants in this end-use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ Other fluorinated compounds also decompose into TFA,
including HFC-134a.
\161\ Luecken et al., 2009. Ozone and TFA impacts in North
America from degradation of 2, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-
1234yf), a potential greenhouse gas replacement. Environmental
Science & Technology 2009. The document is accessible at: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Waterland/publication/40481734_Ozone_and_TFA_impacts_in_North_America_from_degradation_of_2333-Tetrafluoropropene_(HFO-
1234yf)_a_potential_greenhouse_gas_replacement/links/
00b7d514ca9595bf5e000000.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In support of the 2011 listing decision for HFO-1234yf in LD
vehicles, EPA analyzed potential TFA concentrations from a full
transition to HFO-1234yf in all MVAC applications, not limited to LD
vehicles.162 163 164 165 166 The analysis
[[Page 86842]]
found a maximum projected concentration of TFA in rainwater of
approximately 1,700 ng/L. This maximum projected concentration
identified in EPA's analysis, 1700 ng/L,\167\ was roughly 34 percent
higher than that projected in a 2009 peer reviewed article.\168\ The
differences in projected TFA concentrations in water is a reflection of
EPA's reliance on higher emission estimates.\169\ Even when relying on
more conservative emission estimates, a concentration of 1700 ng/L
corresponds to roughly \1/600\th of the No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-
Level (NOAEL) for the most sensitive algae species, which is also well
below the NOAEL for the most sensitive aquatic animal species.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ ICF, 2009a. Revised Final Draft Assessment of the
Potential Impacts of HFO-1234yf and the Associated Production of TFA
on Aquatic Communities and Local Air Quality.
\163\ ICF, 2010a. Summary of HFO-1234yf Emissions Assumptions.
\164\ ICF, 2010b. Summary of Updates to the Vintaging Model that
Impacted HFO-1234yf Emissions Estimates.
\165\ ICF, 2010c. Revised Assessment of the Potential Impacts of
HFO-1234yf and the Associated Production of TFA on Aquatic
Communities, Soil and Plants, and Local Air Quality.
\166\ ICF, 2010d. Sensitivity Analysis CMAQ results on projected
maximum TFA rainwater concentrations and maximum 8-hr ozone
concentrations.
\167\ ICF, 2010d. Sensitivity Analysis CMAQ results on projected
maximum TFA rainwater concentrations and maximum 8-hr ozone
concentrations.
\168\ Luecken et al., 2009. Ozone and TFA impacts in North
America from degradation of 2, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-
1234yf), a potential greenhouse gas replacement. Environmental
Science & Technology 2009. The document is accessible at: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Waterland/publication/40481734_Ozone_and_TFA_impacts_in_North_America_from_degradation_of_2333-Tetrafluoropropene_(HFO-
1234yf)_a_potential_greenhouse_gas_replacement/links/
00b7d514ca9595bf5e000000.pdf.
\169\ ICF, 2010d. Sensitivity Analysis CMAQ results on projected
maximum TFA rainwater concentrations and maximum 8-hr ozone
concentrations.
\170\ ICF, 2009a. Revised Final Draft Assessment of the
Potential Impacts of HFO-1234yf and the Associated Production of TFA
on Aquatic Communities and Local Air Quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking into consideration the analysis conducted in support of the
2011 listing decision, which was based on conservative emissions
assumptions and a transition from HFC-134a to HFO-1234yf for all MVAC
systems (not limited to LD vehicles), and the research that has been
conducted since, EPA concludes that the use of HFO-1234yf in the HD
vehicle types addressed in this action will not pose a significant risk
to the environment from atmospheric decomposition to TFA.
HFO-1234yf is a flammable refrigerant classified as A2L under
ASHRAE 34-2013. HFC-134a and CO2 are nonflammable
refrigerants, while HFC-152a is slightly more flammable than HFO-1234yf
with an ASHRAE classification of A2. The blends listed as acceptable
are not flammable.
EPA compared worker exposures to a workplace exposure limit of 250
ppm \171\ over an 8-hour time-weighted average for long-term
occupational exposure to HFO-1234yf. For short-term occupational
exposure to HFO-1234yf, we compared worker exposure to an acute
exposure limit of 98,211 ppm, divided by a margin of exposure of 30,
for a value of 3,270 ppm over 30 minutes.172 173 Concerning
workplace exposure, we expect that professional technicians have proper
training and certification and have the proper equipment and knowledge
to minimize their risks due to exposure to refrigerant from an MVAC
system. Thus, worker exposure to HFO-1234yf is expected to be low. If
workers service MVAC systems using certified refrigerant recovery
equipment after receiving training and testing, exposure levels to HFO-
1234yf are estimated to be on the order of 4 to 8.5 ppm on an 8-hour
time-weighted average (as compared with a 250 ppm workplace exposure
limit \174\) and 122 ppm on a 30-minute average (as compared with a
short-term exposure level of 98,211 ppm divided by a margin of exposure
of 30, for a value of 3270 ppm over 30 minutes
175 176).177 178 We also analyzed exposure levels
during manufacture and final disposition at vehicle end-of-life, and
found that they would be no higher than 28 ppm on a 15-minute average
or 8.5 ppm on an 8-hour time-weighted average.\179\ The manufacture,
use, and disposal or recycling of HFO-1234yf MVAC systems are not
expected to present a toxicity risk to workers. Other alternatives such
as HFC-134a and HFC-152a also do not present a toxicity risk to workers
in the same scenarios; therefore, HFO-1234yf
[[Page 86843]]
poses the same or less risk than other alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ This was based on a NOAEL of 4000 ppm from the study, ``An
Inhalation Prenatal Developmental Toxicity Study of HFO-1234yf
(2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoropropene) in Rabbits,'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-
0041. We used a factor of 1.9 to account for differences in blood
concentrations between animals and humans, and a margin of exposure
or collective uncertainty factor of 30. Uncertainty factors of 3
were assigned for animal to human extrapolation, and 10 for
variability within the human population. The long-term workplace
exposure limit was calculated as follows: 4000 ppm (animal exposure)
x 1.9 (ratio of estimated human exposure/animal exposure) x \1/3\
(UF for animal to human extrapolation) x \1/10\ (UF for variability
within the human population) exposure) = 250 ppm. This value was
compared against 8-hour average concentrations. See EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0664-0036 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0038.
\172\ This was based on a NOAEL of 51,690 ppm from the study,
``Sub-acute (2-week) Inhalation Toxicity Study with HFO-1234yf in
rats,'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0020 through-0020.4, a factor of 1.9 to
account for differences in blood concentrations between animals and
humans and a margin of exposure or collective uncertainty factor of
30. Uncertainty factors of 3 were assigned for animal to human
extrapolation, and 10 for variability within the human population.
The short-term workplace exposure value was calculated as follows:
51,690 ppm (animal exposure) x 1.9 (ratio of estimated human
exposure/animal exposure) = 98,211 ppm This value was then divided
by the expected exposure in each scenario, and compared against the
target margin of exposure of 30. See EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0036 and
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0038.
\173\ For comparison, the SAE CRP used exposure limits of 500
ppm over 8 hours and 115,000 ppm over 30 minutes to evaluate risks
for these same time periods. These are based on the 8-hr Workplace
Environmental Exposure Limit (WEEL) for HFO-1234yf and for short-
term exposure, assuming a NOAEL of approximately 405,800 ppm from
the study, ``Acute (4-hour) inhalation toxicity study with HFO-
1234yf in rats.'' Note that EPA disagrees with the finding that the
acute inhalation toxicity study found a NOAEL. We consider this
study to show adverse effects at all levels because of the presence
of grey discoloration in the lungs of the test animals. In order to
ensure sufficient protection, EPA's risk assessment used a NOAEL
from a subacute study instead of a LOAEL from an acute study.
\174\ This was based on a NOAEL of 4000 ppm from the study, ``An
Inhalation Prenatal Developmental Toxicity Study of HFO-1234yf
(2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoropropene) in Rabbits,'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-
0041. We used a factor of 1.9 to account for differences in blood
concentrations between animals and humans, and a margin of exposure
or collective uncertainty factor of 30. Uncertainty factors of 3
were assigned for animal to human extrapolation, and 10 for
variability within the human population. The long-term workplace
exposure limit was calculated as follows: 4000 ppm (animal exposure)
x 1.9 (ratio of estimated human exposure/animal exposure) x \1/3\
(UF for animal to human extrapolation) x \1/10\ (UF for variability
within the human population) exposure) = 250 ppm. This value was
compared against 8-hour average concentrations. See EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0664-0036 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0038.
\175\ This was based on a NOAEL of 51,690 ppm from the study,
``Sub-acute (2-week) Inhalation Toxicity Study with HFO-1234yf in
rats,'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0020 through-0020.4, a factor of 1.9 to
account for differences in blood concentrations between animals and
humans and a margin of exposure or collective uncertainty factor of
30. Uncertainty factors of 3 were assigned for animal to human
extrapolation, and 10 for variability within the human population.
The short-term workplace exposure value was calculated as follows:
51,690 ppm (animal exposure) x 1.9 (ratio of estimated human
exposure/animal exposure) = 98,211 ppm. This value was then divided
by the expected exposure in each scenario, and compared against the
target margin of exposure of 30. See EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0036 and
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0038.
\176\ For comparison, the SAE CRP used exposure limits of 500
ppm over 8 hours and 115,000 ppm over 30 minutes to evaluate risks
for these same time periods. These are based on the 8-hr Workplace
Environmental Exposure Limit (WEEL) for HFO-1234yf and for short-
term exposure, assuming a NOAEL of approximately 405,800 ppm from
the study, ``Acute (4-hour) inhalation toxicity study with HFO-
1234yf in rats.'' Note that EPA disagrees with the finding that the
acute inhalation toxicity study found a NOAEL. We consider this
study to show adverse effects at all levels because of the presence
of grey discoloration in the lungs of the test animals. In order to
ensure sufficient protection, EPA's risk assessment used a NOAEL
from a subacute study instead of a LOAEL from an acute study.
\177\ EPA, 2009b. Risk Assessment: PMN 07-0601. Available at:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-
0036.
\178\ ICF International, 2009b. Risk Screen on Substitutes for
CFC-12 in Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning: Substitute: HFO-1234yf.
Available online at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0038.
\179\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in section VI.B.3 of the proposed rule (81 FR at
22860-65; April 18, 2016), to evaluate environmental, flammability, and
toxicity risks resulting from the use of HFO-1234yf in new MDPVs, HD
pickup trucks, and complete HD vans, the Agency relied on EPA's
analysis conducted in support of the 2011 listing decision for HFO-
1234yf for LD vehicles. EPA was able to rely on the 2011 analysis of
HFO-1234yf in LD vehicles in support of this rule because the MVAC
systems, vehicle designs, and the potential for exposure for the HD
vehicle types for which EPA is listing HFO-1234yf as acceptable,
subject to use conditions, in this action are identical or very similar
to those of LD vehicles. In addition, we considered risk assessments
performed by OEMs and independent consultants on the use of HFO-1234yf
in LD vehicles through SAE Cooperative Research Programs (CRPs) and
found these were consistent with our analysis. Based on that analysis,
at proposal, EPA concluded HFO-1234yf did not pose a significantly
greater due to environmental effects, flammability or toxicity than the
other alternatives when used in accordance with use conditions
established as part of the listing decision. The refrigerants to which
HFO-1234yf was compared in the 2011 action for LD vehicles are the same
refrigerants available for use in the vehicle types included in this
action.
Based on the consideration of all of SNAP criteria, EPA has
determined that HFO-1234yf does not pose significantly greater risk
than the other alternatives, when used in accordance with use
conditions, for use in newly manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and
complete HD vans. Further information on these analyses and EPA's risk
assessments are available in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0663).
b. What are the final use conditions?
All MVAC refrigerants listed as acceptable are subject to use
conditions requiring labeling and the use of unique fittings. EPA is
listing HFO-1234yf as acceptable, subject to use conditions, because
the use conditions are necessary to ensure that use of HFO-1234yf will
not have a significantly greater overall impact on human health and the
environment than other alternatives for use in MDPVs, HD pickup trucks,
and complete HD vans. EPA is requiring the same use conditions for HFO-
1234yf in these HD vehicle types as are required for the use of HFO-
1234yf in newly manufactured LD vehicles. Because of the similarities
in the MVAC systems used for these vehicles, these use conditions will
ensure use of HFO-1234yf in MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and complete HD
vans does not pose significantly greater risk than use of other
alternatives.
The first use condition requires that MVAC systems designed to use
HFO-1234yf must meet the requirements of SAE J639, ``Safety Standards
for Motor Vehicle Refrigerant Vapor Compression Systems.'' This
standard sets safety standards that include unique fittings; a warning
label indicating the refrigerant's identity and that it is a flammable
refrigerant; and requirements for engineering design strategies that
include a high-pressure compressor cutoff switch and pressure relief
devices. This use condition also requires that for connections with
refrigerant containers for use in professional servicing, use fittings
must be consistent with SAE J2844 (revised January 2013), which
specifies quick-connect fittings that are different from those for any
other refrigerant. The low-side service port and connections will have
an outside diameter of 14 mm (0.551 inches) and the high-side service
port will have an outside diameter of 17 mm (0.669 inches), both
accurate to within 2 mm. Under SAE J2844 (revised January 2013),
containers of HFO-1234yf for use in professional servicing of MVAC
systems must have a left-handed screw valve with a diameter of 0.5
inches and Acme (trapezoidal) thread with 16 threads per inch. The SAE
standards did not include and EPA did not receive a submission for
unique fittings for small containers of HFO-1234yf refrigerant prior to
the publication of the proposed rule.
Based on EPA's analysis of the safety study and consistent with the
conclusion EPA drew at the time of EPA's listing decision for HFO-
1234yf in LD vehicles relied, EPA believes that the safety requirements
that are included in SAE J639 sufficiently mitigate risks of both HF
generation and refrigerant ignition (e.g., flammability and toxicity)
(March 29, 2011; 76 FR 17488) for MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and complete
HD vans subject to this action. HFO-1234yf is mildly flammable (class
2L) and, like other fluorinated refrigerants, can decompose to form the
toxic compound HF when exposed to flame or to sufficient heat. For
example, SAE J639 provides for a pressure relief device designed to
minimize direct impingement of the refrigerant and oil on hot surfaces
and for design of the refrigerant circuit and connections to avoid
refrigerant entering the passenger cabin. The pressure release device
ensures that pressure in the system will not reach an unsafe level that
might cause an uncontrolled leak of refrigerant, such as if the AC
system is overcharged. The pressure release device will reduce the
likelihood that refrigerant leaks would reach hot surfaces that might
lead to either ignition or formation of HF. Designing the refrigerant
circuit and connections to avoid refrigerant entering the passenger
cabin ensures that if there is a leak, the refrigerant is unlikely to
enter the passenger cabin. Keeping refrigerant out of the passenger
cabin minimizes the possibility that there would be sufficient levels
of refrigerant to reach flammable concentrations or that HF would be
formed and transported where passengers might be exposed.
The second use condition requires the manufacturer of MVAC systems
and vehicles to conduct Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) as
provided in SAE J1739 (adopted 2009) and keep records of the FMEA on
file for three years from the date of creation. SAE J1739 (adopted
2009) describes a FMEA as ``a systematic group of activities intended
to: (a) Recognize and evaluate the potential failure of a product/
process and the effects and causes of that failure, (b) identify
actions that could eliminate or reduce the change of the potential
failure occurring, and (c) document the process.'' Through the FMEA,
OEMs determine the appropriate protective strategies necessary to
ensure the safe use of HFO-1234yf across their vehicle fleet. It is
standard industry practice to perform the FMEA and to keep it on file
while the vehicle is in production and for several years afterwards. As
with the previous use condition, this use condition is intended to
ensure that new MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and complete HD vans
manufactured with HFO-1234yf MVAC systems are specifically designed to
minimize release of the refrigerant into the passenger cabin or onto
hot surfaces that might result in ignition or in generation of HF.
c. When will the listing apply?
EPA is establishing a listing date as of January 3, 2017. Based on
information the Agency possessed at the time of the proposal and
additional information submitted during the comment period regarding
the technical feasibility of transitioning the fleet of HD vehicles and
refrigerant supply, we conclude that this date, the same as the
effective date of this regulation, allows for the safe use of this
substitute at the earliest opportunity.
[[Page 86844]]
3. How is EPA responding to comments?
EPA received comments from organizations with various interests in
the MVAC industry on the proposed listing of HFO-1234yf as acceptable,
subject to use conditions, in newly manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup
trucks, and complete HD vans. All commenters supported the proposed
listing decision and effective date of 30 days after date of
publication of the rule in the Federal Register. However, EIA raised
concerns about continued growth of the use of HFO-1234yf as an MVAC
refrigerant based on environmental impacts. Some commenters indicated
that the industry is already in the process of transitioning to HFO-
1234yf in response to EPA's Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas (LD GHG) Rule and
policy incentives. One commenter also indicated that production
capacity of HFO-1234yf is sufficient to meet the increased demand under
this rule. Other comments were in reference to the environmental
impacts of the proposed listing of HFO-1234yf, the relationship of the
proposed rule with other federal rules, and status changes for R-134a
in end uses beyond LD vehicles.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM), a trade
association, submitted comments on behalf of twelve car and light truck
manufacturers including BMW Group (BMW), FCA, Ford Motor Company,
General Motors Company, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes[hyphen]Benz
USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche Cars, Toyota, Volkswagen Group and
Volvo Cars. EPA also received comments from two chemical producers,
Chemours and Honeywell; three environmental organizations, NRDC, IGSD,
and EIA; and a state agency, CARB.
We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
a. Substitute and End-Uses Proposed
Comment: AAM, Chemours, Honeywell, NRDC, IGSD, EIA, and CARB
supported the listing of HFO-1234yf as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, in MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and complete HD vans. AAM
commented that their member companies have been adopting HFO-1234yf for
passenger cars and light duty trucks and would like to make use of HFO-
1234yf for other vehicle types.
Response: EPA appreciates the support for finding HFO-1234yf as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, as proposed.
Comment: EIA and NRDC commented that EPA should list HFO-12134yf in
all types of on-road and off-road vehicles, rather than only in MDPVs,
HD pickup trucks, and complete HD vans. To support their argument, the
commenters stated that these additional vehicle types are not
materially different.
Response: EPA appreciates EIA's suggestions regarding the listing
of HFO-1234yf for use in HD vehicle types not covered in this rule and
will take them into consideration as the Agency considers any
additional listing changes under the SNAP program.
b. SNAP Review Criteria
Comment: AAM and Chemours supported EPA's use of the 2011 analysis
of HFO-1234yf in LD vehicles to support the listing of HFO-1234yf in
the HD vehicles in this action. AMM commented that it is ``appropriate
for EPA to have applied the HFO-1234yf risk analysis performed for
light duty vehicles to these additional categories of vehicles, which
do not pose significantly higher risks.'' Additionally, Chemours
commented that EPA's use of the 2011 analysis was reasonable because
the systems evaluated are very similar to light duty systems.
Response: EPA appreciates the support.
Comment: EIA commented on the environmental impacts of the
atmospheric decomposition of HFO-1234yf to TFA. EIA commented that the
studies EPA relied upon to support the proposed listing of HFO-1234yf
``projected maximum rainwater concentrations of TFA from certain
emission assumptions, but did not ``take into account the much higher
potential for high levels of accumulation of TFA in urban surface and
landscape waters, particularly those bodies where inflows of water
accumulate but have little or no outlet other than evaporation.'' EIA
cited a 2015 Peking University \180\ study showing increases in TFA
concentrations between 2002 and 2012 in urban landscape waters, other
water bodies, and snow samples in the region in and around Beijing. EIA
stated that ``more research is needed to understand whether continued
growth in automobile and HFC consumption and the transition of this
sector and others to HFO-1234yf would lead to concentrations of TFA
that could pose a significant risk to aquatic ecosystems.'' EIA also
recommended that EPA conduct similar studies on TFA concentrations in
bodies of water (e.g., vernal pools) in the United States, given that
they are critical to the life cycle of amphibians, reptiles, insects,
and other aquatic animals, and to contact the authors of the Peking
University study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ Zhai Z., J. Wu, X. Hu, L. Li, L. Guo, B. Zhang, J. Hu, and
J. Zhang: A 17-fold increase of trifluoroacetic acid in landscape
waters of Beijing, China during the last decade, Chemosphere, 129,
110-117, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: EPA appreciates the additional information provided by
EIA on the atmospheric decomposition of HFO-1234yf to TFA. EPA's
analysis was based on conservative emissions assumptions and a
transition from HFC-134a to HFO-1234yf for all MVAC systems. As
mentioned previously, even when relying on these conservative emission
estimates, a concentration of 1700 ng/L corresponds to roughly 1/600th
of the NOAEL for the most sensitive algae species, which is also well
below the NOAEL for the most sensitive aquatic animal species.
Research on TFA has been conducted since the 2011 final rule
listing HFO-1234yf as acceptable for LD vehicles and the information
shows no greater risk than our earlier analysis. As EPA indicated in
their comments, the 2015 study by Zhai et al. reported a 17-fold
increase in TFA concentration in landscape waters in Beijing, China,
over the period 2002-2012. The authors associated the increase of TFA
concentrations with the increased HFC-134a emissions in China (factor
of 5.5 from 2005 to 2015) although no model evaluation was conducted.
In an earlier combined observation and modeling study in China, only 14
percent of annual total TFA deposition flux was attributable to HFC-
134a, with the balance from unknown sources.\181\ This value is an
upper limit because it was obtained using the upper limit of the TFA
yield from HFC-134a.\182\ Despite the observed 17-fold increase, the
TFA concentrations measured by Zhai et al. in surface waters (up to
0.828 [mu]g L-1) and in tap water (0.155 [mu]g
L-1) in 2012 are comparable to TFA concentrations measured
in other countries (e.g., 0.012-0.328 [mu]g L-1 in rivers,
0.037-0.36 [mu]g L-1 in lakes, and 0.016-0.123 [mu]g
L-1 in drinking water in Switzerland in 1996-1997.\183\ The
study by Zhai et al. shows
[[Page 86845]]
that the emissive use of HFC-134a and emissions of unknown
anthropogenic TFA precursors \184\ have increased TFA concentrations in
surface bodies of water. Since HFO-1234yf has a shorter atmospheric
lifetime (several days) and higher TFA yield (100%) than HFC-134a, its
substitution for HFC-134a is expected to further increase TFA
concentrations in precipitation and in bodies of water near large
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ Wu, J., J. Martin, Z. Zhai, K. Lu, L. Li, X. Fang, H. Jin,
J. Hu, and J. Zhang. Airborne trifluoroacetic acid and its fraction
from the degradation of HFC-134a in Beijing, China. Environ. Sci.
Technol., 10.1021/es4050264, 2014.
\182\ Wallington, T. J., J. J. Orlando and G. S. Tyndall, O. J.
Nielsen: Comment on ``Airborne Trifluoroacetic Acid and Its Fraction
from the Degradation of HFC-134a in Beijing, China'', Environ. Sci.
Technol., 48, 9948-9948, DOI: 10.1021/es502485w, 2014.
\183\ Berg, M., S.R. Muller, J. Muhlemann, A. Wiedmer, and R.P.
Schwarzenbach: Concentrations and mass fluxes of chloroacetic acids
and trifluoroacetic acid in rain and natural waters in Switzerland.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 34, 2675-2683, 2000.
\184\ Wu, J., J. Martin, Z. Zhai, K. Lu, L. Li, X. Fang, H. Jin,
J. Hu, and J. Zhang. Airborne trifluoroacetic acid and its fraction
from the degradation of HFC-134a in Beijing, China. Environ. Sci.
Technol., 10.1021/es4050264, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, a 2014 study by Kazil, et al. analyzed TFA deposition
in the United States assuming 100 percent of all MVAC systems use HFO-
1234yf. The results indicated that rainwater TFA concentrations, while
varying strongly geographically, will on average be low compared to the
levels at which toxic effects are observed in aquatic systems. The UNEP
Ozone Secretariat also provided a summary of key information pertaining
to TFA based on the 2014 Assessment Reports of the Environmental
Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) and the Scientific Assessment Panel
(SAP) of the Montreal Protocol. The brief states, ``While it is well
established that TFA is a ubiquitous natural component in rivers,
lakes, and other surface water bodies, uncertainties remain regarding
anthropogenic sources, long-term fate and abundances as these are
linked to current and future use and emissions of HFCs, HCFCs, and
HFOs. Based on estimates to 2040, increases are predicted to remain
relatively low and are therefore not expected to be a significant risk
to human health or detrimental to the environment. Projected future
increased loadings of TFA to playas, land-locked lakes, and the oceans
due to continued use of HCFCs, HFCs, and replacement products such as
HFOs are still judged to present negligible risks for aquatic organisms
and humans.'' The UNEP background document also states that TFA and its
salts ``do not bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms, and do not
biomagnify in the food chain. Thus they present negligible risk to
organisms higher on the food chain, including humans.'' See the docket
for this rulemaking for additional information on TFA projections in
the environment.
c. Relationship With Other Rules
Comment: AAM and Chemours commented that EPA should use incentives
similar to the LD GHG Rule to encourage transition to low-GWP solutions
in medium and heavy-duty vehicles. Chemours indicated that automakers
in the United States, Canada, Mexico, EU, Japan, and South Korea are
deploying HFO-1234yf in a range of models, largely in response to
policy incentives including the US light-duty vehicle tailpipe GHG
standards and the EU Mobile Air Conditioning Directive. To support
their argument, AAM provided comments submitted by the American
Automotive Council's (AAC) on EPA's Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas (HD GHG)
Phase 2 proposed rule and encouraged the Agency to adopt a credit
allowance mechanism to ``incentivize the quicker adoption of HFO-1234yf
and leakage improvements for HD pickup trucks and complete HD vans.''
AAM stated that ``the opportunities for fuel savings and GHG emission
reductions on these medium and heavy duty vehicles are even greater,
per vehicle, than on light duty vehicles given the larger refrigerant
charge sizes, higher fuel consumption engines, longer vehicle lifetimes
and greater lifetime VMT in these heavier vehicle categories.''
Response: This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. We
note that as part of the Model Year (MY) 2017-2025 LD GHG rule,\185\
EPA established the availability of credits for the use of alternative
refrigerants with lower GWPs than that of HFC-134a. In this action, EPA
is listing HFO-1234yf as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for
MDPVs which are included in the MY 2017-2025 LD GHG rule; therefore,
vehicle manufacturers will be able to obtain credits for the use of
HFO-1234yf in these vehicles as allowed for in the MY 2017-2025 LD GHG
rule. The LD GHG standards do not require any specific means of
compliance, so manufacturers have the flexibility to either switch
refrigerants or to comply with the standards by other means.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ 77 FR 62624, 62807-810 (October 15, 2012); see also 75 FR
25325, 25431-32 (May 7, 2010) (discussing the same issue for MY
2012-2016 light-duty vehicles).
\186\ 77 FR 62804-809
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Status Change for Other Refrigerants
Comment: CARB, Honeywell, NRDC, and IGSD suggested that EPA change
the status of HFC-134a and other high-GWP alternatives to unacceptable
in MVAC systems for newly manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and HD
vans. These commenters indicated that HFC-134a is unacceptable for LD
vehicles and changing the status of HFC-134a for HD vehicles could
result in significant reductions in carbon equivalent emissions. NRDC
and IGSD commented that similar to the listing of HFC-134a as
unacceptable for newly manufactured light-duty vehicles beginning in
Model Year 2021, EPA should establish a similar status change date for
HFC-134a in MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and complete HD vans to secure
additional climate benefit at negligible additional risk. Honeywell
commented that if EPA were to change the status of HFC-134a to
unacceptable for these HD vehicle types, avoided emissions could be
approximately one million MtCO2eq annually. CARB and Honeywell
suggested that EPA should change the status of HFC-134a for these
applications and also suggested a change of status date of MY 2021. In
support, these commenters claimed it is feasible for the industry can
transition to low-GWP alternatives by MY 2021 based on the following:
Stakeholder input suggest OEMs need two to three years to evaluate safe
and effective implementation of low-GWP alternatives and another two to
three years to adopt necessary changes; substitutes exist for mobile
air conditioning systems, including HFO-1234yf; international policy is
driving global auto manufacturers to transition to alternatives other
than HFC-134a by the end of 2016 and U.S. car manufacturing can apply
the lessons learned from global manufactures to transition U.S.
vehicles to non-HFC-134a alternatives; several U.S. car manufactures
are already selling vehicle models that use HFO-1234yf systems; and
commercial scale HFO-1234yf production plants are operating and supply
will continue to increase.
Response: EPA did not propose to change the status of HFC-134a in
MVAC systems for newly manufactured HD vehicles; therefore, the Agency
is not establishing a change of status date as part of the final rule.
EPA appreciates the comments submitted and will take them into
consideration when the Agency considers any additional changes of
status under the SNAP program.
Comment: NRDC and IGSD commented that EPA should take steps to
ensure thatnew vehicles designed for HFO-1234yf are not serviced or
recharged with HFC-134a. The commenters stated that HFC-134a will
remain approved to service existing motor vehicles and, therefore, it
is possible to modify new vehicles to recharge with HFC-134a. NRDC and
IGSD recommended that EPA enact ``stronger, more comprehensive and
enforceable rules to discourage and prohibit'' the modification of new
HFO-1234yf systems with HFC-134.'' Specifically, the commenters
[[Page 86846]]
recommended that the Agency ``classify refrigerant-containing
components as part of the emission control system, which would make it
illegal to substitute refrigerants or unqualified replacement parts.''
They also suggested that EPA require OEMs to apply tamper-proof seals
to refrigerant charge ports, similar to the plastic seals used on
pharmaceutical products, to identify tampering and alert service
technicians, owners, or potential buyers to the possibility that a
refrigerant other than HFO-1234yf is in the system.
Response: The SNAP listings for all MVAC refrigerants require the
use of unique fittings for each alternative refrigerant. These fittings
are found at attachment points on the car itself, on all recovery and
recycling equipment, on can taps and other charging equipment, and on
all refrigerant containers. The purpose of these fittings is to prevent
cross-contamination. Using an adapter or deliberately modifying a
fitting to use a different refrigerant is a violation of these use
conditions. The commenter did not identify other methods to discourage
and prohibit use of HFC-134a in systems designed from HFO-1234yf or how
EPA could otherwise strengthen the current conditions that discourage
cross-contamination of refrigerants in MVAC. See section VI.B.6.e of
the July 2015 final rule for a response to several comments on
servicing CFC-12, HFC-134a, and the lower-GWP alternative refrigerant
MVAC systems. EPA will consider updating the information on our Web
site, as appropriate.
e. Other Suggestions or Requests
Comment: Honeywell recommended that EPA consider listing high-GWP
substances as unacceptable for use in refrigerated transport, as early
as January 1, 2019, in a future rulemaking. Honeywell stated that two
leading manufacturers of mobile refrigeration systems have introduced
systems that utilize refrigerants with GWPs below 2,200 and have been
selling these systems for more than a year. They also commented that
there are commercially available refrigerant options with a GWP of less
than 1,500, including R-448A, R-449A, R-134a, R-450A, R-513A and
CO2.
Response: EPA appreciates receiving this information and will
consider the comments as it evaluates possible future actions.
Comment: EIA commented that CO2 is listed as an
acceptable substitute in HD vehicles and should also be listed as
acceptable in the end-uses covered in this action as well.
Response: EPA notes that CO2 is currently listed as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in all MVAC applications
for new equipment, including newly manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup
trucks, and complete HD vans.
Comment: CARB commented that they are aware of Chemours' SNAP
application for the use of HFO-1234yf in various heavy-duty vehicle
classifications and encouraged EPA to expedite the review and
determination process upon receiving the application.
Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's suggestion. EPA is
reviewing the submission from Chemours regarding the use of HFO-1234yf
in other heavy duty vehicle classes.
C. Foam Blowing Agents
1. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Foam Blowing Agents for
Rigid PU Spray Foam
a. Background
In the NPRM published on August 6, 2014, EPA proposed to change the
listings from acceptable to unacceptable for HFC-134a and blends
thereof, and the HFC blend Formacel TI for spray foam as of January 1,
2017 (79 FR 46149). After considering the comments received on the
proposed rule, EPA deferred taking final action on spray foam in the
final rule. See sections V.D.2.a and V.D.3.b of the preamble to the
final rule (80 FR 42870; July 20, 2015).
In the past, EPA combined spray foam, commercial refrigeration
foam, sandwich panels, and marine flotation foam within a single end-
use: Rigid PU commercial refrigeration, spray, and sandwich panels.
However, because of differences in the exposure and fire safety
characteristics of these uses as well as the fact that different
alternatives are generally used for each of these applications, EPA
more recently created separate end-use listings for each of these
applications. See 80 FR 42870; July 20, 2015. Commercial refrigeration
and sandwich panels include insulation for walls, pipes (including
``pipe-in-pipe''), metal doors, vending machines, refrigerated and
unrefrigerated coolers, refrigerated transport vehicles, and other
laboratory and commercial refrigeration equipment, as well as foam for
taxidermy. These foams may be injected or applied using ``pour-in-
place'' equipment, depending on the agent used and on whether the
formulation is pressurized. Marine flotation foam includes buoyancy or
flotation foam used in construction of boats and ships. These foams
typically are injected into a cavity in the boat wall from a two-
canister (A- and B-side) system under lower pressures and they provide
structure as well as buoyancy. The end-use affected here, rigid PU
spray foam, hereafter called ``spray foam,'' includes insulation for
roofing, walls, doors, and other construction uses, as well as foam for
building breakers for pipelines. These foams are rigid with closed
cells that still contain the foam blowing agent, which can contribute
to the foam's ability to insulate. Spray foam may have similar
chemistry to other rigid PU end-uses, but it differs by being sprayed
onto a surface in the location where it is to be used, either when
constructing a new building or when adding insulation to an existing
building, rather than being injected or poured or being produced in a
manufacturing facility. As a result, it may be more difficult to
provide engineered ventilation during application of spray foam than
for other foam end-uses. In addition to federal rules and guidance
applying to the application of spray foam, insulation foam used in
construction (e.g., high-pressure two-component spray foam) must meet
insulation value requirements in state and local building codes.
We have identified three distinct and separate spray foam
applications for this end-use: (1) High-pressure two-component, (2)
low-pressure two-component, and (3) one-component foam sealants.
High-pressure two-component spray foam products are pressurized
800-1600 psi during manufacture, are sold in pressurized containers as
two parts (i.e., A-side and B-side), and are sprayed in the field for
thermal insulation and air sealing of buildings and in roofing
applications. High-pressure two-component spray foam is blown and
applied in situ using high-pressure pumps to propel the foam
components, and thus, may use liquid blowing agents without an
additional propellant. Common liquid foam blowing agents used in high-
pressure two-component spray foam include HFC-245fa; blends of HFC-
365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa; and commercial blends of
HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-
365mfc. This type of spray foam is applied by professionals who wear
personal protective equipment (PPE) while applying high-density foam
insulation for roofing or walls. High-pressure two-component spray foam
comprises the largest portion of the spray foam market.
Low-pressure two-component spray foam products are pressurized to
less than 250 psi during manufacture, are
[[Page 86847]]
sold in pressurized containers as two parts (i.e., A-side & B-side),
and are also sprayed in the field for thermal insulation and air
sealing of buildings. Low-pressure two-component spray foams are
typically applied in situ relying upon a gaseous foam blowing agent
that also serves as a propellant; pumps typically are not needed. This
type of spray foam has primarily used the gaseous blowing agent HFC-
134a; the Foams Technical Options Committee has also identified
CO2 and water as options. Low-pressure two-component spray
foam is usually applied by home improvement contractors to fill in
cracks and gaps in a residence using kits that are available for
sale.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ Low-pressure two-component spray foam kits should only be
used by trained professionals. The polyurethanes industry has
guidance on how to use low pressure kits available at: http://spraypolyurethane.org/spf-chemical-health-and-safety-training and at
http://spraypolyurethane.org/Main-Menu-Category/Weatherization-Contractors/Installing-SPF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-component foam sealants are packaged in aerosol cans and are
applied in situ using a gaseous foam blowing agent that is also the
propellant for the aerosol formulation. This end-use category primarily
uses light saturated HCs as the blowing agent, as well as HFCs such as
HFC-134a and HFC-152a. This type of spray foam may be used by consumers
and by home improvement contractors in order to seal cracks and leaks
in a residence, as well as used for pest management.
b. What is EPA's final decision?
EPA proposed to change the status of the following HFCs and HFC
blends that have previously been listed as acceptable foam blowing
agents for use in spray foam: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof;
blends of HFC-365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa; commercial
blends of HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the
remainder HFC-365mfc; and Formacel TI.\188\ In this action, we are
finalizing the status changes that we proposed with no changes. The
change of status determinations for rigid PU spray foam are summarized
in Table 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ We note that neat HFC-365mfc has never been listed as
acceptable for use in spray foam.
Table 17--Change of Status Decisions for Foam Blowing Agents in Rigid PU
Spray Foam
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitutes Listing status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigid PU: Spray foam--high- HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Acceptable subject
pressure two-component. and blends thereof; to narrowed use
blends of HFC- limits for military
365mfc with at or space- and
least four percent aeronautics-related
HFC-245fa, and applications * as
commercial blends of January 1, 2020.
of HFC-365mfc with Unacceptable for all
seven to 13 percent applications other
HFC-227ea and the than military or
remainder HFC- space- and
365mfc; and aeronautics-related
Formacel TI. applications as of
January 1, 2020.
Unacceptable for all
uses as of January
1, 2025.
Rigid PU: Spray foam--low- HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Acceptable subject
pressure two-component. and blends thereof; to narrowed use
blends of HFC- limits for military
365mfc with at or space- and
least four percent aeronautics-related
HFC-245fa, and applications * as
commercial blends of January 1, 2021.
of HFC-365mfc with Unacceptable for all
seven to 13 percent applications other
HFC-227ea and the than military or
remainder HFC- space- and
365mfc; and aeronautics-related
Formacel TI. applications as of
January 1, 2021.
Unacceptable for all
uses as of January
1, 2025.
Rigid PU: Spray foam--one HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of
component foam sealants. and blends thereof; January 1, 2020.
blends of HFC-
365mfc with at
least four percent
HFC-245fa, and
commercial blends
of HFC-365mfc with
seven to 13 percent
HFC-227ea and the
remainder HFC-
365mfc; and
Formacel TI.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Under the narrowed use limit, an end user must make reasonable efforts
to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due
to performance or safety requirements.
i. How do these unacceptable blowing agents compare to other blowing
agents for these end-uses with respect to SNAP criteria?
Over the past ten years, the number of available alternative
blowing agents for spray foam has increased. A number of new foam
blowing agents with low GWPs, both fluorinated and non-fluorinated,
have been introduced during the past several years.
In the proposed rule, EPA provided information on the environmental
and health risks presented by the alternatives that are being found
unacceptable compared with other available alternatives that are listed
as acceptable (81 FR 22869-71; April 18, 2016). In addition, a
technical support document \189\ that provides the Federal Register
citations concerning data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC,
toxicity, flammability) for acceptable alternatives, as well as those
we are finding unacceptable in the relevant end-uses, may be found in
the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663). In summary, the
risks other than GWP for the acceptable alternatives are not
significantly different from the risks for the alternatives than for
the blowing agents we are proposing to list as unacceptable, and the
GWPs for the blowing agents we are proposing to list as unacceptable
are significantly higher and thus pose significantly greater risk. The
HFCs that we are listing as unacceptable for rigid PU spray foam have
GWPs ranging from 1,030 for HFC-245fa to 1,430 for HFC-134a. The HFC
blends that we are listing as unacceptable have GWPs that vary
depending on the specific composition; the range of GWPs for blends is
740 to 1,030 for blends of HFC-365mfc with at least four percent HFC-
245fa, 900 to 1,100 for commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with seven to
13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc, and 1,330 to
approximately 1,500 for Formacel TI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\ EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered
in the Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing
Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acceptable alternatives for all three spray foam applications
include CO2, water, Exxsol blowing agents, ecomate, HFC-
152a, HFO-1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene. As
shown in Table 18, these alternatives have GWPs ranging from zero to
124. In addition, for one-component foam sealants only, light saturated
HCs are acceptable, with GWPs in the range of three to 15. For high-
pressure two-component spray foam only, HFO-1336mzz(Z) is acceptable,
with a GWP of approximately nine. These GWPs are significantly lower
than the GWPs of 740 to 1,500 for the HFC and HFC blend
[[Page 86848]]
substitutes subject to the proposed change of status.
Table 18--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Foam Blowing Agents in Rigid Polyurethane High-Pressure Two-Component
Spray Foam, Low-Pressure Two-Component Spray Foam, and Rigid PU One-Component Foam Sealants \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blowing agents GWP ODP VOC Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigid PU High-Pressure Two-Component Spray Foam
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends 740-1,500 0....................... No................. Acceptable,
thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc subject to
with at least four percent HFC- narrowed use
245fa, and commercial blends of limits \2\ or
HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 unacceptable.
percent HFC-227ea and the
remainder HFC-365 mfc; and
Formacel[supreg] TI.
CO2; Ecomate; Formic Acid; HFC- 0-124 0-0.00034............... No................. Acceptable.
152a; HFO-1234ze; trans-1-
chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-
ene (SolsticeTM 1233ze(E)) \
1\; Water.
Formic Acid; HFO-1336mzz(Z)..... >1-9 0....................... Yes................ Acceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigid PU Low-Pressure Two-Component Spray Foam
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends 740-1,500 0....................... No................. Acceptable,
thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc subject to
with at least four percent HFC- narrowed use
245fa, and commercial blends of limits \2\ or
HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 unacceptable.
percent HFC-227ea and the
remainder HFC-365mfc; and
Formacel[supreg] TI.
CO2; Ecomate; HFC-152a; HFO- 0-124 0-0.00034............... No................. Acceptable.
1234ze; trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoroprop-1-ene; Water.
Formic Acid; HFO-1336mzz(Z)..... >1-9 0....................... Yes................ Acceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigid PU One-Component Foam Sealants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends 740-1,500 0....................... No................. Unacceptable.
thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc
with at least four percent HFC-
245fa, and commercial blends of
HFC-365mfc with seven to 13
percent HFC-227ea and the
remainder HFC-365mfc; and
Formacel[supreg] TI.
CO2; Ecomate; HFC--152a; HFO- 0-124 0-0.00034............... No................. Acceptable.
1234ze; Methyl Formate; trans-1-
chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-
ene; Water.
Formic Acid; HFO-1336mzz(Z); >1-9 0....................... Yes................ Acceptable.
Saturated Light HCs C3-C6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses or
additives combined with other acceptable blowing agents.
\2\ For military or space- and aeronautics-related applications.
All of the HFCs and HFC blends we are listing as unacceptable
consist of compounds that are non-ozone-depleting. Only one of the
alternatives in these three spray foam applications--trans-1-chloro-
3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene--contains chlorine and has an ODP, which is
0.00024 to 0.00034. Estimates of its maximum potential impact on the
ozone layer indicate a statistically insignificant impact, comparable
to that of other substitutes in the same end-use that are considered to
be non-ozone-depleting.190 191
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. ``Preliminary Report:
Analyses of tCFP's Potential Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.''
Department of Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana,
IL. September 26, 2011.
\191\ Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ``Atmospheric Lifetimes and
Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
trichloropropylene and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene in a three-
dimensional model.'' Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867-10874, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the HFCs and HFC blends we are listing as unacceptable
consist of compounds that are excluded 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 alternatives, with the
exception of light saturated HCs (for one-component foam sealants
only),\192\ and HFO-1336mzz(Z) (for high-pressure two-component spray
foam only), contain compounds that are not VOC (i.e., water) or are
excluded 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 (e.g., CO2, component of ecomate, HFO-1234ze(E),
trans-1-chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoroprop-1-ene). Based on the small
anticipated usage of HCs, and due to existing state regulations under
SIPs affecting aerosol products that may include HCs as the blowing
agent in one-component foam sealants, we do not expect this alternative
to have a significantly greater impact on local air quality than other
available alternatives in these applications. The manufacturer of HFO-
1336mzz(Z) has petitioned EPA to exempt HFO-1336mzz(Z) from the
definition of VOC under those regulations. As provided in our decisions
listing these substitutes as acceptable, we determined that emissions
of these alternatives in this end-use would not pose a significantly
greater risk than that posed by other available alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\192\ EPA has also listed the hydrocarbon blowing agent brand
Exxsol blowing agents as acceptable for all rigid PU spray foam
applications. However, the manufacturer of that blowing agent has
withdrawn this agent from the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the HFCs and HFC blends with specific compositions that we
are listing as unacceptable are nonflammable. There has been use of
blends of HFC-134a and HFC-152a, composition unspecified, in the past;
those blends may be flammable depending on the exact composition. Such
blends are unacceptable under this final rule as blends of HFC-134a.
Of the other alternatives, ecomate is the only one that is
flammable. The manufacturers of ecomateTM have developed
training to teach users of high-pressure two-component spray foam about
the flammability hazards of
[[Page 86849]]
these flammable foam blowing agents in this end-use and how to minimize
flammability risks.193 194 As we determined at the time that
we listed ecomate as acceptable, it can be used in these spray foam
applications in a manner that ensures it would not pose significantly
greater risk than other available substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\193\ UNEP, 2013. Report of the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel, Volume 2: Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report,
Additional Information on Alternatives to ODS. September, 2013.
\194\ FTOC, 2011. Report of the Rigid and Flexible Foams
Technical Options Committee, 2010 Assessment. This document is
accessible at: http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/FTOC/FTOC-2010-Assessment-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toxicity must be considered and addressed with all of the
alternatives in this end-use, with the possible exception of water.
Both the HFC substitutes we are listing as unacceptable and the other
alternatives have workplace exposure limits, either as regulatory
requirements (i.e., OSHA PEL) or as a recommendation (e.g., AIHA WEEL,
ACGIH TLV or manufacturer recommended workplace exposure limits).
Proper training, use of PPE, and use of ventilation should be adhered
to when applying spray foam. As we determined at the time that we
listed each of these substitutes as acceptable, they can be used in
these spray foam applications consistent with the relevant workplace
exposure limits. For further information, see docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-
0663.
ii. Narrowed Use Limits for Military or Space- and Aeronautics-Related
Applications
EPA is establishing a time-limited exception to the unacceptability
determination for military or space- and aeronautics-related
applications when used in low pressure two-component and high pressure
two-component spray foam. Specifically, EPA is finalizing a narrowed
use limit that expires on January 1, 2025. As provided in section
VI.C.1.b.iii, the vast majority of applications for spray foams are
anticipated to be able to transition to acceptable alternatives by
January 1, 2020, for high-pressure two-component spray foam and as of
January 1, 2021, for low-pressure two-component spray foam. However,
for the military, there are several unique performance requirements
related to weapon systems that require extensive testing and
qualification prior to adoption of alternatives for the currently used
foams. The same is true for other specialty applications with unique
military requirements such as undersea; aerospace; and chemical,
biological, and radiological warfare systems. In the case of space- and
aeronautics-related applications, the challenging operational
environment and the lengthy requalification process associated with
human-rated space flight systems require a longer transition time than
would otherwise apply.
Users of a restricted agent within the narrowed use limits category
must make a reasonable effort to ascertain that other substitutes or
alternatives are not technically feasible. Users are expected to
undertake a thorough technical investigation of alternatives to the
otherwise restricted substitute. Although users are not required to
report the results of their investigations to EPA, users must document
these results, and retain them in their files for the purpose of
demonstrating compliance.
Users should include the following documentation to demonstrate
compliance with the narrowed use applications. This information
includes descriptions of:
Process or product in which the substitute is needed;
Substitutes examined and rejected;
Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g.,
performance, technical or safety standards; and/or
Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and
projected time for switching.
iii. When will the status change?
Except for the narrow use limits addressed above, EPA is changing
the listings from acceptable to unacceptable (1) in high-pressure two-
component spray foam and in one-component foam sealants as of January
1, 2020, and (2) in low-pressure two-component spray foam as of January
1, 2021. The change of status applies to the following blowing agents:
HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with at
least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with
seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc and Formacel
TI. The Agency is aware of several companies that have begun to
transition.\195\ However, a change of status date of January 1, 2020,
is necessary for high-pressure two-component spray foam to allow
sufficient opportunity for affected entities to address the technical
issues associated with using a different foam blowing agent, including
the time required for reformulation (about one year), and the time
required for testing and certification of the final commercial product
(one to one and a half years). Part of the process of testing and
certification for high-pressure two-component and low-pressure two-
component spray foam used for building insulation includes verifying
sufficient insulation value to meet building code requirements. Some
studies have indicated that CO2 may provide less insulation
value to an insulation foam, pound for pound, than HFCs. Recent
information on some of the newer fluorinated foam blowing agents with
low GWPs, such as HFO-1234ze(E), HFO-1336mzz(Z), and trans-1-chloro-
3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, indicates these foam blowing agents provide
comparable or greater insulation value than their HCFC and HFC
predecessors. Thus, requirements to meeting building code requirements
for insulation value will not impede a transition to alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ Public and private sector commitments made at the White
House Roundtable on October 15, 2015 is available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/15/fact-sheet-obama-administration-and-private-sector-leaders-announce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To allow sufficient time for manufacturers of low-pressure two-
component spray foam kits to complete working through the technical
challenges of alternatives, as well as time for existing kits to be
distributed, purchased, and used by the end user, we are establishing a
change of status date of January 1, 2021. A change of status date of
January 1, 2021, is necessary for low-pressure two-component to address
the technical issues associated with using a different foam blowing
agent. Based on information from several companies developing low-
pressure two-component spray foam products, the process of
reformulation has been more difficult than for high-pressure two-
component spray, because it must have a significantly longer shelf
life. The product manufacturer must have time to determine a workable
reformulation, a process that is expected to last up to two years. The
products then need to be tested, which is expected to take
approximately one to one and a half years. This includes testing both
the formulation in separate containers (A- and B-side) and ensuring the
long-term stability of the final blown foam once the two parts are
mixed to blow the foam. Based on those technical hurdles, we are
establishing a reasonable but expeditious change of status date of
January 1, 2021 for low-pressure two-component spray foam.
For one-component foam sealants, we believe a reasonable time for
reformulation is one year and for testing is one to two years. Testing
for this application should be shorter than that required for low-
pressure two-
[[Page 86850]]
component spray foam because testing is required only for a final
formulation in an aerosol can for one-component foam sealants and
because no certification testing would be required for the one-
component foam sealant, unlike for high-pressure two-component foam. We
are establishing a change of status date of January 1, 2020, after
which date, no more one-component foam sealants (cans) may be
manufactured using the specified HFC blowing agents; the manufacturer
may sell and the end user may continue to use cans that were
manufactured prior to January 1, 2020. We limit the applicability of
the use prohibition on closed cell foam products (discussed in section
VI.C.3), so that it does not apply to closed cell foam products
produced through the use of a one-component spray foam manufactured
prior to the status change date.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
EPA received several comments from individuals and organizations
with various interests in foam blowing agents and spray foam in
particular. Comments were in reference to the descriptions of the
applications in the preamble to the proposed rule, the proposed change
of status dates, and the narrowed use limits for military and space-
and aeronautics uses of certain HFC blowing agents. Most commenters
supported the proposed listing decisions, with some opposing or
suggesting different change of status dates. Commenters supported the
narrowed use exemption for military and space- or aeronautics-related
uses. Some commenters suggested a similar narrowed use limit for a
polyurethane preformed composites, and suggested either providing a
separate listing for this specific use or as including it under the low
pressure two-component spray foam application.
Commenters included the American Chemistry Council's Center for the
Polyurethanes Industry (CPI) and Spray Foam Coalition (SFC),
organizations representing the foam industry; BASF and Dow, two major
systems houses; Foam Supplies, Honeywell and Chemours, suppliers of
alternative foam blowing agents; Clayton Corporation, a manufacturer of
low-pressure two-component spray polyurethane foam kits; Structural
Composites and Compsys, manufacturers of a specialized composite foam
product for boats and refrigerated trailers; the National Marine
Manufacturing Association (NMMA), an organization representing
manufacturers of boats; the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA); and environmental organizations, NRDC and IGSD.
We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
i. Substitutes and End-Uses Proposed
Comment: BASF and Dow supported EPA's distinctions between
different types of rigid PU spray foam, including low-pressure two-
component spray PU foams, high-pressure two-component spray PU foams,
and one-component spray foam. They stated that the distinctions are
important because the different applications require different
chemistries and result in different challenges for formulators. BASF
gave a variety of examples of formulation challenges for specific
blowing agents and applications.
Response: EPA appreciates the support for the distinctions between
these three applications.
ii. Change of Status Dates
Comment: CPI, SFC, Clayton Corporation, and Dow Chemical Company
all stated that EPA should clearly state that the end-use change of
status decisions apply to the act of a manufacturer combining the
component chemicals (i.e., polyol, blowing agent, catalyst) in their
plant to form the polyol resin blends and packaging the blends into a
drum, canister, or can that is sold to end users. Clayton Corporation
noted that advantages to this approach include greater transparency for
enforcement, efficient raw material management by the manufacturers,
improved production planning for compliance with the regulatory
control, avoidance of ``abandoned'' inventories in the supply chain,
and clarity to the marketplace that resin blends made prior to the
change of status dates can still be used without restrictions.
Response: EPA proposed that for high pressure two-component spray
foam kits and for low pressure two-component spray foam kits, the
change of status date would apply to both the manufacture of the kits
and the use of those kits by the end user. For one-component foam, EPA
proposed that the change of status date would apply to the manufacture
of the one-component foam canisters but that end users could still
purchase and use one-component foam canisters manufactured before the
change of status date to apply the foam sealant. EPA adopted a
different approach for one-component foams because such products are
often manufactured well-before their ``use-by'' dates; they are
manufactured in bulk and marketed to consumers at hardware and other
stores where they may have a fairly long shelf-life (up to a year); and
are typically purchased by the general public and may be used by the
purchaser well after the purchase date. Thus, for the one-component
canisters it would be much more difficult to plan for and avoid
stranded inventory, which would then need to be disposed of, for this
end-use. Moreover, because these products are widely used by the
general public and may not be used at or near the time of purchase
because of their longer shelf-life, it is significantly more difficult
to ensure that users are aware of the regulations and also to ensure
compliance by the end user. EPA has taken a similar approach for
aerosol products that are largely purchased by individual consumers
rather than businesses. See, e.g., 79 FR 46139, August 6, 2014; 80 FR
42884, July 20, 2015. Similar issues apply to low pressure two-
component foam kits, such as extended shelf lives. In contrast, high
pressure two-component spray foam kits are primarily marketed to
businesses; high pressure two-component spray foam kits are frequently
formulated on-demand, are typically used much closer to their purchase
date, and typically do not have a long shelf-life. In this final rule,
the change of status date applies to the manufacture of the one-
component foam canisters or low pressure two-part spray foam kit, and
end users may still purchase and use one-component foam canisters or
low pressure two-part spray foam kits manufactured after the change of
status dates.
Comment: Clayton Corporation suggested making the change of status
date January 1, 2021, after which low-pressure two-component spray
polyurethane foam kits containing HFCs cannot be manufactured. This
commenter stated that this change of status date is necessary for low
pressure two-component spray foam manufacturers, based on when the HFO
stability research and certification listings would be completed. Dow
stated that a January 1, 2021 change of status date for low pressure
two-component spray foams is a target that will be difficult to
achieve. BASF supported EPA's proposed change of status date for low
pressure spray foam. Chemours strongly encouraged EPA to establish a
change of status date of January 1, 2023 or later for low pressure two-
component spray foams. They claimed such date should not be until
multiple low-GWP alternatives with appropriate technical
[[Page 86851]]
performance qualities become commercially available and they noted that
there were stability issues and uncertainties about the only low-GWP
alternative currently commercially available. Honeywell expressed
concern that if the change of status date is later than January 1,
2019, EPA's action could slow down the momentum that is already
supporting adoption of low-GWP alternatives. NRDC and IGSD supported
EPA's decision to establish change of status dates of January 1, 2020,
for one-component foam sealants and high pressure two-component spray
foam and January 1, 2021, for low pressure two-component spray foam.
Response: EPA disagrees with those commenters who claim a status
change date later than January 1, 2021, for low pressure two-component
spray is necessary. One manufacturer of low pressure two-component
spray foam kits has successfully used HFO-1234ze(E) as a blowing agent
for at least one of its products, demonstrating that the technical
challenges with stability of that HFO are surmountable with sufficient
research and development.\196\ We also note that there are other
commercially available alternatives for this end-use in addition to
HFO-1234ze(E); as mentioned in the preamble to the NPRM, the Foams
Technical Option Committee has also identified CO2 and water
as options (81 FR 22869), and both are acceptable substitutes. The
approximate four-year period before the change of status date will
allow sufficient time for manufacturers of low-pressure two-component
spray foam kits to complete working through the technical challenges of
alternatives, allowing for two years for reformulation and one to one
and a half years for testing. Setting a change of status date of
January 1, 2019, would not allow sufficient time for identifying,
reformulating and testing alternatives for the various product types
being manufactured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\196\ Kline et al., 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Dow Chemical Company and BASF commented that the proposed
change of status date for high pressure two-component spray foam of
January 1, 2020, is appropriate. Chemours Company stated that the
change of status date for high-pressure two-component spray foam
systems should be January 1, 2021, to allow for additional supply of
alternatives and to allow foam manufacturers sufficient time for
conversion to lower GWP alternatives. Honeywell stated the transition
for high pressure two-component spray foam can occur a year earlier, by
January 1, 2019, asserting that this was the quickest and easiest
application, taking six to 18 months. NRDC and IGSD supported EPA's
decision to ban manufacture of rigid polyurethane spray foams between
2020 and 2021.
Response: To date, a number of foam supply houses and spray foam
applicators have successfully used trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-
1-ene as a blowing agent in high pressure two-component spray foam and
they have generally had lead times of one to two years to work through
the transition. A change of status date approximately three years from
now should provide sufficient lead time to transition other products,
including both reformulation of products (one-half to one and a half
years) and certification testing (one to one and a half years). Another
alternative, HFO-1336mzz(Z), is expected to become commercially
available in mid-2017; we expect that a change of status date of
January 1, 2019, would not provide enough time for both reformulation
of products with alternatives and testing. January 1, 2020, will allow
more than two years to develop foam blowing formulations using HFO-
1336mzz(Z) and test them, and will allow for additional supply of
blowing agent. In addition, there are other acceptable alternatives
available for this end-use, e.g., ecomate.
Comment: BASF supported the proposed change of status date for one-
component spray foam of January 1, 2020.
Response: EPA appreciates the support for the proposed change of
status date and we are adopting it in the final rule.
Comment: NAFEM commented that the change of status date for the
blowing agent HFC-134a does not provide manufacturers with sufficient
time to integrate new blowing agents into their products. The
transition away from HFC-134a requires additional capital investments,
dedicated research and development resources, employee training,
product testing and certification. Therefore, NAFEM requests that HFC-
134a be listed as an acceptable alternative for ten years after the
rule is finalized, and under no circumstances should the change of
status date be earlier than 2022.
Response: NAFEM does not specify the end-use for which it submitted
this comment. While the commenter lists actions they claim would be
needed in order to transition from HFC-134a to another alternative,
they have not provided any detail regarding the time it would take for
the various actions. Moreover, as noted in our response to comment
above regarding the change of status date for low pressure two-
component spray foam, a manufacturer has successfully transitioned to
other alternatives. For one component spray foam, one manufacturer has
committed to converting 95 percent of its one component spray foam
products from HFCs to HFOs and hydrocarbons by summer 2016 and a second
manufacturer has committed to transitioning to use of hydrocarbons as a
blowing agent in one to two years from now.\197\ HFC-134a is not
currently used in high-pressure two-component spray foam systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ FACT SHEET: Obama Administration and Private-Sector
Leaders Announce Ambitious Commitments and Robust Progress to
Address Potent Greenhouse Gases. October 15, 2015. Accessible online
at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/15/fact-sheet-obama-administration-and-private-sector-leaders-announce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. SNAP Review Criteria
Comment: Foam Supplies, Inc., the supplier of the alternative
ecomate, supported EPA's proposal to change the listing status of HFC
blowing agents in the spray foam applications in the proposed rule from
acceptable to unacceptable. The commenter mentioned a number of
potential advantages of using ecomate in spray foam, including thermal
efficiencies comparable to or better than foam blown with HFCs; ability
to use with existing spray foam dispensing equipment; competitive
pricing; shipping and handling requirements the same as for HFC foam
systems; availability of systems that meet fire resistance and other
safety specifications for various industry and building codes; and
recent increases in production capacity. Foam Supplies, Inc. described
ecomate as an environmentally benign blowing agent (no GWP, no ozone
depletion potential and VOC exempt) that is readily available to
replace HFC blowing agents in polyurethane spray foam.
Response: We appreciate the support for the proposed rule and for
the update about the recent increases in manufacturing capacity of
ecomate and other features of this substitute that allow it to be
available for use in rigid PU spray foam.
Comment: NAFEM commented that EPA has failed to recognize important
complications with the blowing agents that it now proposes as
acceptable alternatives. NAFEM member Unified Brands describes such
complications in their comments on the August 2014 proposal for a
different rule, specifically mentioning the alternatives pentane,
water-based blowing agents and methyl formate:
[[Page 86852]]
Pentane based blowing agents are strong candidates due to their
insulation performance, but require all foam fixtures and processes
to be redeveloped due to the flammable nature of the refrigerant.
Water-based blowing agents are environmentally friendly, but suffer
from poorer insulation performance and also are more affected by
processing temperature which requires improved control of fixture
temperatures. Methyl formate is also environmentally friendly, but
has had significant shrinkage issues once units have been placed in
the field. This agent requires very specific foaming processes to be
developed to ensure proper stability of the foam over time. While
viable alternatives do exist, the amount of testing and factory/
process upgrades required make it impossible to transition to any
replacement by January 1, 2017.
Response: We note that these comments submitted by Unified Brands
on this action are the same comments it submitted on a different rule,
which addressed commercial refrigeration foam. It is difficult to
determine how these comments relate to the specific action in this
proposal regarding spray foam. As an initial matter, EPA is not taking
action listing the mentioned foam blowing alternatives for these three
foam blowing applications. We note that pentane is not currently listed
as an acceptable blowing agent for use in two-component spray foams and
the concerns raised by the commenter all relate to its use in a
refrigerated system and not to spray foam primarily used for building
construction. Methyl formate has not been listed as acceptable in the
three applications addressed in this rule; the blowing agent ecomate,
which contains methyl formate, is listed as acceptable. Water-based
blowing agents are listed as acceptable in the three applications
addressed in this rule. The concerns raised by the commenter can be
taken into consideration by the manufacturer in determining the
appropriate alternative to use for any specific foam-blowing kit or
canister.
2. Revision to Change of Status Date of Certain HFCS and HFC Blends for
Space- and Aeronautics-Related Foam Applications
a. Background
In the July 2015 final rule, EPA established narrowed use limits
for certain HFCs and HFC blends for military and space- and
aeronautics-related uses in all end-uses except for rigid PU spray
foam, allowing continued use of those blowing agents until January 1,
2022. The specific foam blowing agents and end-uses are codified in
appendix U to subpart G of 40 CFR part 82. Based on recent discussions
with other government agencies, the most recent U.S. space flight
program is still being developed, and it now appears that it may not be
possible to qualify all foams needed with alternative foam blowing
agents by the January 1, 2022, change of status date established in the
July 2015 final rule. The qualification process is necessary to ensure
the safety of space vehicles.
b. What is EPA's final decision?
As proposed, EPA is revising the date upon which certain HFCs and
HFC blend foam blowing agents for space- and aeronautics-related
applications change status from acceptable, subject to narrowed use
limits, to unacceptable. EPA is revising the change of status date to
January 1, 2025, for space- and aeronautics-related applications.
Military uses will continue to have a January 1, 2022, change of status
date.
Table 19--Revisions to Change of Status Dates for Foam Blowing Agents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitutes Listing status *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigid Polyurethane: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Acceptable subject
Appliance. HFC-365mfc and to narrowed use
blends thereof; limits for military
Formacel TI, and or space- and
Formacel Z-6. aeronautics-related
applications * and
unacceptable for
all other uses as
of January 1, 2020.
Unacceptable for
military uses as of
January 1, 2022 and
unacceptable for
space- and
aeronautics-related
applications as of
January 1, 2025.
Rigid Polyurethane: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Acceptable subject
Commercial Refrigeration HFC-365mfc, and to narrowed use
and Sandwich Panels. blends thereof; limits for military
Formacel TI, and or space- and
Formacel Z-6. aeronautics-related
applications * and
unacceptable for
all other uses as
of January 1, 2020.
Unacceptable for
military uses as of
January 1, 2022 and
unacceptable for
space- and
aeronautics-related
applications as of
January 1, 2025.
Rigid Polyurethane: Marine HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Acceptable subject
Flotation Foam. HFC-365mfc and to narrowed use
blends thereof; limits for military
Formacel TI, and or space- and
Formacel Z-6. aeronautics-related
applications * and
unacceptable for
all other uses as
of January 1, 2020.
Unacceptable for
military uses as of
January 1, 2022 and
unacceptable for
space- and
aeronautics-related
applications as of
January 1, 2025.
Rigid Polyurethane: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Acceptable subject
Slabstock and Other. HFC-365mfc and to narrowed use
blends thereof; limits for military
Formacel TI, and or space- and
Formacel Z-6. aeronautics-related
applications * and
unacceptable for
all other uses as
of January 1, 2019.
Unacceptable for
military uses as of
January 1, 2022 and
unacceptable for
space- and
aeronautics-related
applications as of
January 1, 2025.
Rigid Polyurethane and HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Acceptable subject
Polyisocyanurate Laminated HFC-365mfc and to narrowed use
Boardstock. blends thereof. limits for military
or space- and
aeronautics-related
applications * and
unacceptable for
all other uses as
of January 1, 2017.
Unacceptable for
military uses as of
January 1, 2022 and
unacceptable for
space- and
aeronautics-related
applications as of
January 1, 2025.
Flexible Polyurethane....... HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Acceptable subject
HFC-365mfc, and to narrowed use
blends thereof. limits for military
or space- and
aeronautics-related
applications * and
unacceptable for
all other uses as
of January 1, 2017.
Unacceptable for
military uses as of
January 1, 2022 and
unacceptable for
space- and
aeronautics-related
applications as of
January 1, 2025.
[[Page 86853]]
Integral Skin Polyurethane.. HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Acceptable subject
HFC-365mfc, and to narrowed use
blends thereof; limits for military
Formacel TI, and or space- and
Formacel Z-6. aeronautics-related
applications * and
unacceptable for
all other uses as
of January 1, 2017.
Unacceptable for
military uses as of
January 1, 2022 and
unacceptable for
space- and
aeronautics-related
applications as of
January 1, 2025.
Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet. HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Acceptable subject
HFC-365mfc, and to narrowed use
blends thereof; limits for military
Formacel TI, and or space- and
Formacel Z-6. aeronautics-related
applications * and
unacceptable for
all other uses as
of January 1, 2017.
Unacceptable for
military uses as of
January 1, 2022 and
unacceptable for
space- and
aeronautics-related
applications as of
January 1, 2025.
Polystyrene: Extruded HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Acceptable subject
Boardstock and Billet (XPS). HFC-365mfc, and to narrowed use
blends thereof; limits for military
Formacel TI, or space- and
Formacel B, and aeronautics-related
Formacel Z-6. applications * and
unacceptable for
all other uses as
of January 1, 2021.
Unacceptable for
military uses as of
January 1, 2022 and
unacceptable for
space- and
aeronautics-related
applications as of
January 1, 2025.
Polyolefin.................. HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Acceptable subject
HFC-365mfc, and to narrowed use
blends thereof; limits for military
Formacel TI, and or space- and
Formacel Z-6. aeronautics-related
applications * and
unacceptable for
all other uses as
of January 1, 2020.
Unacceptable for
military uses as of
January 1, 2022 and
unacceptable for
space- and
aeronautics-related
applications as of
January 1, 2025.
Phenolic Insulation Board HFC-143a, HFC-134a, Acceptable subject
and Bunstock. HFC-245fa, HFC- to narrowed use
365mfc, and blends limits for military
thereof. or space- and
aeronautics-related
applications * and
unacceptable for
all other uses as
of January 1, 2017.
Unacceptable for
military uses as of
January 1, 2022 and
unacceptable for
space- and
aeronautics-related
applications as of
January 1, 2025.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Under the narrowed use limit, use is limited to military or space- and
aeronautics-related applications where reasonable efforts have been
made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible
due to performance or safety requirements.
c. How is EPA responding to comment?
EPA received comments from NASA and Boeing, two end-users of foams
used in space- and aeronautics uses, addressing the descriptions of the
applications in the preamble to the proposed rule, the proposed change
of status dates, and the narrowed use limits for military and space-
and aeronautics uses of certain HFC blowing agents. Both commenters
supported the proposed modification to the change of status date for
space and aeronautics.
We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
Comment: NASA and Boeing supported EPA's proposed modification of
the date on which the status of acceptable subject to narrowed use
limits would change to unacceptable. NASA stated that being able to use
HFC-blown foams in space-and aeronautics-related applications through
2024 will help ensure crew safety and vehicle reliability while
providing additional time to seek and qualify substitute foams in
technologically-challenging applications such as space vehicle thermal
protection and cryoinsulation. Boeing stated that suppliers of foams
used in military or aerospace hardware may face significant obstacles
meeting a host of performance and safety requirements imposed by
Boeing, the military services, NASA or FAA and agreed that testing of
blowing agents for these niche markets may require more time than for
mass-market commercial items, due to customer and regulatory agency
approval requirements.
Response: EPA appreciates the support.
3. Change of Listing Status for Methylene Chloride in Foams
a. Background
Methylene chloride, also known as dichloromethane, has the chemical
formula CH2Cl2 and the CAS Reg. No. 75-09-2. EPA
initially listed this substitute as acceptable for flexible PU foam in
the initial SNAP rule (79 FR 13044; March 18, 1994). In the April 18,
2016, proposed rule, EPA proposed to change the listing status of
methylene chloride from acceptable to unacceptable in flexible PU foam,
integral skin PU foam, and polyolefin foam. Flexible PU includes foam
in furniture, bedding, chair cushions, and shoe soles. Integral skin PU
includes car steering wheels, dashboards, and shoe soles. Polyolefin
includes foam sheets and tubes.
Since EPA's initial listing decision for methylene chloride in
flexible PU foam, the Agency has separately issued a residual risk
standard under section 112 of the CAA for flexible PU foam production.
(National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Residual Risk
and Technology Review for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production, (79 FR
48073; August 15, 2014). In that regulation, EPA examined the risk
posed by emissions from source regulated under a maximum achievable
technology (MACT) standard for flexible polyurethane foam
manufacturing. EPA determined that it was necessary to tighten the MACT
standard to reduce the level of risk posed by emissions of methylene
chloride from the regulated sources. In the residual risk standard, EPA
prohibited the use of methylene chloride as an auxiliary blowing agent
in flexible PU slabstock foam production operations at major sources.
Relying on the risk analysis performed for the MACT risk review, EPA
proposed to change the status of methylene chloride from acceptable to
unacceptable in flexible PU foam. In addition, because methylene
chloride is
[[Page 86854]]
the only blowing agent in the integral skin PU foam and polyolefin foam
end-uses that is carcinogenic, EPA proposed that it posed greater
overall risk to human health and the environment and proposed to change
the status of methylene chloride from acceptable to unacceptable in
those end-uses.
b. What is EPA's final decision?
As provided in Table 20, EPA is changing the status of methylene
chloride from acceptable to unacceptable when used as a blowing agent
in the production of flexible PU foam. At this time, we are not
finalizing a change of status for integral skin PU foam and polyolefin
foam.
Table 20--Change of Status Decisions for Flexible PU, Integral Skin PU,
and Polyolefin Foam Blowing Agents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Listing status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flexible PU................. Methylene Unacceptable as of 30
chloride. days after date of
publication of a final
rule.
Integral Skin PU............ Methylene Acceptable.
chloride.
Polyolefin.................. Methylene Acceptable.
chloride.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA initially proposed to change the listing status of methylene
chloride from acceptable to unacceptable in flexible PU foam in order
to be consistent with the revisions to the MACT that prohibited the use
of HAP in slabstock flexible PU foam production operations at major
sources. EPA is relying on the risk analysis performed as part of the
risk review for the MACT, and which served as the basis for its
decision to revise the MACT, to support its determination in this rule
that the toxicity risk from methylene chloride in this end-use is
significant and that there are other alternatives that pose an overall
lower risk based on our analysis under the SNAP review criteria. See 81
FR at 22876, April 18, 2016. As a policy matter, the Agency considers
it inappropriate to continue to list as acceptable a substitute that is
prohibited in this end-use under other environmental regulations. At
best, continuing to list a prohibited substance as acceptable is
misleading to the public as to whether the substitute is available and
may be used; it also may lead to a misallocation of resources if there
are any users of HFCs in this end-use that are transitioning away by
January 1, 2017, as required under appendix U to 40 CFR part 82 subpart
G.
For integral skin PU and polyolefin foams, we also proposed to
change the listing status of methylene chloride from acceptable to
unacceptable on the basis that methylene chloride poses significantly
greater risks than the other alternatives available for this end-use
because it is the only acceptable alternative in these end-uses that is
a carcinogen and thus poses a significantly greater toxicity risk.
Based on public comments urging EPA to do additional risk assessment
before reaching such a conclusion for these two end-uses that are not
subject to the MACT standard and were not part of the risk review of
the MACT standard, we are not finalizing a change of status for
methylene chloride in integral skin PU and polyolefin foams in this
action.
i. How does methylene chloride compare to other blowing agents for the
flexible PU end-use with respect to SNAP criteria?
In the proposed rule, EPA provided information on environmental and
health risks of methylene chloride and other available alternatives (81
FR 22875-76; April 18, 2016). In addition, a technical support document
\198\ that provides the Federal Register citations concerning data on
the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for
methylene chloride and for these other, acceptable alternatives may be
found in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered
in the Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing
Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methylene chloride contains chlorine and thus could have an ODP. We
are unaware of a calculated ODP for methylene chloride in the peer-
reviewed literature, but it has historically been considered negligibly
small.\199\ Recent research indicates that emissions of methylene
chloride from multiple industrial sources have been increasing and
could have a detectible impact on the ozone layer,\200\ despite the
historical assumption of negligible ODP. For flexible PU, available
substitutes include acetone, CO2, ecomateTM, HFC-
152a, HFO-1336mzz(Z), methylal, saturated light HCs (C3-C6),\201\
trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, and water. Of the other
available alternatives for flexible PU, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoroprop-1ene contains chlorine has an ODP, which is 0.00024 to
0.00034. Estimates of its maximum potential impact on the ozone layer
indicate a statistically insignificant impact, comparable to that of
other substitutes in the same end-use that are considered to be non-
ozone-depleting.202 203
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\199\ INCHEM, 1996. International Programme on Chemical Safety.
Environmental Health Criteria 164. Methylene chloride, second
edition. World Health Organization, 1996. This document is
accessible online at http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc164.htm.
\200\ Hossaini, et al., 2015. R. Hossaini, M. P. Chipperfield,
S. A. Montzka, A. Rap, S. Dhomse, W. Feng. Efficiency of short-lived
halogens at influencing climate through depletion of stratospheric
ozone. Nature Geoscience, 2015. This document is accessible online
at http://DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2363 and is reported in ``New ozone-
destroying gases on the rise; not controlled by treaty.''.
ScienceDaily. 16 February 2015. This document is accessible online
at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150216130241.htm.
\201\ EPA has also listed the hydrocarbon blowing agent brand
Exxsol blowing agents as acceptable for flexible PU foam. However,
the manufacturer of that blowing agent has withdrawn this agent from
the market.
\202\ Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. ``Preliminary Report:
Analyses of tCFP's Potential Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.''
Department of Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana,
IL. September 26, 2011.
\203\ Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ``Atmospheric Lifetimes and
Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
trichloropropylene and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene in a three-
dimensional model.'' Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867-10874, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methylene chloride has a GWP of approximately nine. As shown in
Table 21, other acceptable alternatives have GWPs that are comparable
or lower than methylene chloride's GWP of nine except for HFC-152a,
which has a GWP of 124.
[[Page 86855]]
Table 21--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Methylene Chloride Compared to Other Foam Blowing Agents in Flexible PU
Foams \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blowing agents GWP ODP VOC Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methylene Chloride............. 9 unknown................ No................ Unacceptable.
Acetone; CO[ihel2] Ecomate; HFC- 0-124 0-0.00034.............. No................ Acceptable.
152a; Methylal; trans-1-chloro-
3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene;
Water.
AB Technology; HFO-1336mzz(Z); >1-9 0...................... Yes............... Acceptable.
Methylal; Saturated Light HCs
C3-C6 \1\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses or
additives combined with other acceptable blowing agents.
Methylene chloride does not meet the definition of VOC under CAA
regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) and is excluded from that definition
for the purpose of developing SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
With the exception of HCs, HFO-1336mzz(Z), and methylal, the other
alternatives also contain compounds that are excluded from the
definition of VOC. The manufacturer of HFO-1336mzz(Z) has petitioned
EPA to exclude HFO-1336mzz(Z) from the definition of VOC under those
regulations. As provided in our decisions listing these substitutes as
acceptable, we determined that emissions of these alternatives in this
end-use would not pose a significantly greater risk than that posed by
other available alternatives.
Methylene chloride exhibits no flash point under standard testing
conditions and thus is considered nonflammable, although it does
exhibit lower and upper flammability limits of 13 percent and 23
percent, respectively. Of the various alternatives, ecomate, HFC-152a,
HCs, and methylal are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The
flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end-use can be
adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and
fire codes.
Health effects of concern with methylene chloride include cancer,
liver, and kidney effects (longer-term exposure) and neurotoxic effects
(acute exposure), in addition to irritation to the skin, eyes, and
respiratory tract. Other alternatives for this end-use have potential
health effects such as impacts on body weight, mononuclear infiltration
of heart tissue, neurotoxic effects, and irritation to the skin, eyes,
and respiratory tract; no other alternatives in this end-use have
evidence of cancer as a health effect. Toxicity is not a significant
concern in the workplace for methylene chloride or for the other
available alternatives because they may be used for blowing flexible PU
foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits.
In the initial SNAP rulemaking, EPA listed methylene chloride as
acceptable in this end-use, citing the presence of the OSHA regulations
as sufficient to address workplace risk.
Information regarding general population risk indicated the highest
cancer risk for methylene chloride of all the alternatives for this
end-use and provided no summary information on non-cancer risks for
methylene chloride. Since that time, as part of the CAA section 112 HAP
program, EPA performed a risk analysis for the flexible polyurethane
foam production source category to determine the risk from emissions of
hazardous air pollutants, primarily methylene chloride. Based on that
risk analysis, EPA determined that although methylene chloride
emissions did not pose an unacceptable health risk within the meaning
of section 112(f) for the general population, there was a both a cancer
and a non-cancer health risk that could be reduced at low cost.
Specifically, EPA determined to ban the use of HAP blowing agents
containing methylene chloride in order to protect public health with an
ample margin of safety. 79 FR 48073; August 15, 2014. None of the other
alternative blowing agents are regulated as hazardous air pollutants
under the CAA. Based on the analysis and the conclusions from the
section 112 HAP program analysis and in light of the toxicity
information for other available substitutes, EPA has determined that
methylene chloride poses significantly greater risk than other
available substitutes in this end use. We note that we are not aware of
any use of this blowing agent in this end-use and no commenters
indicated that it was currently being used in this end-use.
ii. When will the status change?
The status of methylene chloride in flexible PU foam is changing to
unacceptable as of 30 days after this final rule is published in the
Federal Register, January 3, 2017. This blowing agent has already been
prohibited in flexible PU foam manufacturing operations for major
sources by EPA's National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) Residual Risk and Technology Review for Flexible
Polyurethane Foam Production (79 FR 48073; August 15, 2014). Moreover,
we received no comments indicating current use of methylene chloride in
this end-use. Thus, we expect that the industry has already
transitioned away from this substitute in that end-use.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
EPA received comments from the Halogenated Solvents Industry
Alliance (HSIA), a trade group representing the chlorinated solvents
industry. Comments were in reference to EPA's authority generally for
the changing the status of a substitute (responded to in section VII.B
in this document) and the significance of the risk of methylene
chloride. HSIA opposed EPA's proposed changes of status for methylene
chloride in three foam end-uses.
We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
i. SNAP Review Criteria
Comment: HSIA commented that changing the listing status of
methylene chloride on the basis that it is an animal carcinogen is
incompatible with the SNAP program principles and with all previous EPA
regulation of toxic air contaminants. The commenter stated that under
all relevant federal programs, before an agency can regulate on the
basis of carcinogenicity, it must make a finding that the substance
poses a significant risk that can be eliminated by the restriction.
Response: We disagree that this action is inconsistent with the
SNAP program principles. Under section 612 of the Act, EPA is required
to list a substitute as unacceptable where there are other
``available'' alternatives that pose less overall ``risk to human
health and the environment.'' Under sections 612 of the Act, it is not
necessary to eliminate or have zero risk in order to regulate; rather
risk is assessed based on
[[Page 86856]]
comparison to other alternatives and an alternative must be listed as
unacceptable if there are other alternatives that ``reduce the overall
risk.'' The SNAP principles reflect this statutory mandate. However, by
prohibiting the use of methylene chloride in flexible polyurethane
under this rule, we are eliminating the identified toxicity risk posed
by that substitute in this end-use where other alternatives do not pose
such a risk and where other risks are similar for both methylene
chloride and other available substitutes. As to the commenter's
statement that Concerning the commenter's statement referring to
methylene chloride as an animal carcinogen, we note that the Agency
considers methylene chloride ``likely to be carcinogenic in humans,''
based predominantly on evidence of carcinogenicity at two sites in two-
year bioassays on mice, as per U.S. EPA (2005a) Guidelines for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment.\204\ To the extent the commenter raises
issues with EPA's authority under other CAA programs, those programs
are not at issue in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\204\ Dichloromethane; CASRN 75-09-2 Integrated Risk Assessment
System Chemical Summary Document. U.S. EPA, National Center for
Environmental Assessment. Accessible online at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0070_summary.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: HSIA stated that in 1994, EPA concluded after conducting
risk screens that methylene chloride emissions from foam blowing in
compliance with existing regulatory standards were within the range of
acceptable carcinogenic risk. The instant proposal cites no piece of
hazard, exposure, or risk information that has come to light over the
past 22 years to change that assessment.
Response: We disagree that there has been no new assessment of the
risk from methylene chloride for this end-use in the past 22 years. As
noted, EPA recently performed a risk review for the flexible
polyurethane foam production source category in which EPA evaluated the
risk that remained from emissions from sources in this source category
after promulgation of the MACT standard. Based on that analysis and to
address risk, EPA concluded that it should tighten the MACT standard by
banning the use of methylene chloride and six other HAP foam blowing
agents. That same risk analysis supports EPA's action here.
Comment: HSIA commented that EPA failed to account for other
factors that may present a greater risk to human health besides
carcinogenicity, such as flammability, contribution to smog formation,
and GWP.
Response: We disagree that we did not evaluate and consider the
other SNAP review criteria is making our decision. Those criteria were
discussed in detail at 81 FR at 22875-8- in the proposed rule and are
also discussed above. As noted above, EPA determined that the risk
based on the other criteria was not significantly different.
Comment: HSIA commented that, while Table 21 characterizes the ODP
of methylene chloride as unknown, EPA has on numerous occasions
determined that methylene chloride is ``non-ozone-depleting.''
Response: As discussed in the preamble to the proposal, more recent
data indicate that methylene chloride may have a measurable impact on
the stratosphere. In addition, more recent studies using 3-dimensional
atmospheric modeling have indicated that another halogenated HC, trans-
1,2-dichloroethylene, which has two chlorine atoms like methylene
chloride, has a small but measurable ODP of approximately 0.00024 and
an atmospheric lifetime of 12.7 days.\205\ EPA has determined that the
difference in ODP for the various alternatives in this end-use,
including methylene chloride, is not significant and does not have a
bearing on the change of status decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\205\ Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ``Atmospheric Lifetimes and
Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans- 1-chloro-3,3,3-
trichloropropylene and trans-1,2- dichloroethylene in a three-
dimensional model.'' Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867-10874, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: HSIA commented that EPA's proposal ignored the distinction
between hazard and risk, and thereby overturns several decades of EPA
and other federal policy regarding the regulation of potential
carcinogens and other toxic materials.
Response: For flexible PU foam, we are removing the acceptable
listing for a substitute in order to be consistent with other federal
regulations that now prohibit use of this substitute in this end-use
based upon a risk assessment performed for the MACT standard. That risk
assessment did consider risk and not just hazard (i.e., the probability
of an adverse health effect, and not just the potential adverse health
effects that could occur, depending on exposure). We agree with the
commenter that the proposal did not quantitatively analyze carcinogenic
risk for the integral skin PU and polyolefin end-uses. Therefore, we
are not finalizing our proposal to change the listing status of
methylene chloride from acceptable to unacceptable in integral skin PU
and polyolefin foams.
Comment: HSIA commented that hazardous air pollutants under CAA
section 112, such as methylene chloride, are not addressed by the
Montreal Protocol or Title VI, and that EPA lacks statutory authority
to regulate toxic air contaminants under CAA section 612.
Response: EPA disagrees that the Agency lacks authority to regulate
hazardous air pollutants under section 612 and the commenter fails to
cite to any provision that would prohibit such regulation. Under
section 612, EPA is required to review alternatives for ozone depleting
substitutes and to list as unacceptable those that pose greater risk to
human health or the environment than other available substitutes. There
is nothing in section 612 that states or even suggests that EPA is to
review only those substitutes that are not hazardous air pollutants and
any definition of risk would include the types of risks posed by
hazardous air pollutants, such as cancer risk, neurotoxicity, and
reproductive toxicity. We note that EPA first listed methylene chloride
as a substitute for ODS under section 612 in 1994 and the issue of
EPA's authority to do so was not raised at that time, nor has it been
raised in the intervening years.
ii. Relationship to Other Rules
Comment: HSIA commented that the proposed change of status for
methylene chloride is based in part on a NESHAP finding, which is based
entirely on the CAA Sec. 112(f)(2) requirement that EPA adopt
``residual risk'' standards that ``provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health in accordance with [Sec. 112]. HSIA argued that
the SNAP rule is not based on, nor should be based on, an ``ample
margin of safety.'' This commenter also stated that the only relevant
part of the NESHAP finding to the SNAP decision is that the residual
risks to public health of seven environmental hazardous air pollutants,
including methylene chloride, was found to be acceptable.
Response: EPA recognizes that the residual risk review of the MACT
standard found the residual risks to public health of methylene and six
other hazardous air pollutants from flexible polyurethane production
facilities to be ``acceptable.'' Under section 112 of the CAA, where a
risk is unacceptable, EPA is required to regulate emissions without
consideration of cost. A determination that the risk is acceptable,
however, is not a determination that there is no risk. EPA is also
required to then determine whether the existing standards ``provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health'' or to protect against
``an
[[Page 86857]]
adverse environmental effect.'' EPA determined that it was necessary to
ban the use of methylene chloride based foam blowing agents to protect
public health with an ample margin of safety. For purposes of the SNAP
review of toxicity risks, EPA relied on that risk analysis, which
demonstrated a risk from use of methylene chloride based foam blowing
agents. As explained more fully above, EPA determined that the overall
risk posed by methylene chloride, based on the risk from toxicity, was
more significant than the risk posed by other available alternatives
for this end use.
4. Closed Cell Foam Products
a. Background
i. What are the affected end-uses?
The foam sector includes both closed cell and open cell foams.
Closed cell foams are specifically designed to retain the foam blowing
agent in the cells; in insulation foam products, the foam blowing agent
continues to perform a function in providing thermal insulation, once
the foam has already been blown. With open cell foams, the foam blowing
agent completes its function once the foam is blown; almost all of the
foam blowing agent escapes from the open cells prior to import, and any
vestigial amounts remaining do not perform a function.
Foam blowing end-uses that contain closed-cell foams include rigid
PU spray foam (all three applications described in section VI.C.1);
rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels; rigid PU marine
flotation foam; rigid PU appliance foam; rigid PU slabstock and other;
rigid PU and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; polystyrene:
extruded boardstock and billet; polystyrene: extruded sheet;
polyolefin; and phenolic insulation board and bunstock. Foam blowing
end-uses containing open cell foams include flexible PU and integral
skin PU. Open cell phenolic, and some other open cell foams also exist
within the SNAP foam blowing end-uses that include closed cell foams.
Integral skin foam may include a rigid surface with an interior
flexible core.
ii. How do other stratospheric ozone protection requirements apply to
foam products?
Several provisions of CAA Title VI and EPA's implementing
regulations are relevant to HCFC foam products. Under regulations
implementing CAA section 611, EPA requires labeling of products that
contain an ODS and those that are manufactured with an ODS. EPA
determined that open cell foams blown with an ODS must be labeled as a
product manufactured with an ODS. (58 FR 8136, 8143-8150, February 11,
1993; 79 FR 64253, 64258-64259, October 28, 2014). In contrast, closed
cell foam products blown with an ODS must be labeled as a product
containing an ODS for labeling purposes. (58 FR 8136, 8150-8151,
February 11, 1993; 79 FR 64253, 64258-64259, October 28, 2014). As of
January 1, 2015, any product containing a closed cell foam blown with
an HCFC must be labeled as a product containing an ozone-depleting
substance under the regulations at 40 CFR 82.106 implementing CAA
section 611.
Section 610 restricts sale and distribution and offers of sale and
distribution of certain products containing or manufactured with CFCs
and HCFCs.\206\ Section 610(d)(3)(A) explicitly provides an exception
for foam insulation products containing HCFCs. EPA has implemented this
restriction and the exception for HCFC foam insulation products through
its Nonessential Products Ban regulations codified at 40 CFR part 82
subpart C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\206\ Section 610 does not address products containing or
manufactured with substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 605(a) prohibits the introduction into interstate
commerce or use of any class II substance effective January 1, 2015,
unless such substance--
(1) has been used, recovered, and recycled;
(2) is used and entirely consumed (except for trace quantities) in
the production of other chemicals;
(3) is used as a refrigerant in appliances manufactured prior to
January 1, 2020; or
(4) is listed as acceptable for use as a fire suppression agent for
nonresidential applications in accordance with section 612(c).
The section 605(a) implementing regulations codified at 40 CFR part
82, subpart A restrict the use of virgin HCFCs to air conditioning,
refrigeration, and fire suppression applications, with minor
exceptions. Thus, while the Nonessential Products Ban does not apply to
HCFC insulating foams, section 605(a) and its implementing regulations
prohibit the use of HCFCs for blowing foam in the United States. The
combined effect of the Nonessential Products Ban and the section 605(a)
implementing regulations is that HCFC foam insulation products may be
imported, sold, and distributed in the United States but cannot be
manufactured in the United States.
In the preamble to a July 11, 2000, SNAP proposed rule, EPA
reviewed its authority under CAA section 610 and noted that HCFC
insulating foams were exempt from regulation under that section of the
statute. EPA stated that ``Title VI of the Act thus does not provide
EPA with the authority to prevent imports of products containing those
foams'' (65 FR 42653, 42656). EPA did not, however, base this statement
on a full examination of the various authorities under Title VI. In
taking final action on that proposal, EPA noted that while under
section 610 it could not ban the sale of HCFC foam insulation products,
section 610 ``does not address EPA's ability to regulate the transition
from use of ODS to alternatives in the manufacturing of products such
as foam.'' EPA further noted: ``Section 612 can restrict the use of a
substitute in a product regardless of whether or not that product is
considered nonessential under Section 610'' (69 FR 58275, September 30,
2004).
b. What is EPA's final decision?
As proposed, EPA is applying the unacceptability determinations in
this action for foam blowing agents to closed cell foam products and
products containing closed cell foam. In addition, EPA is applying all
listings for foam blowing agents codified in the appendices to 40 CFR
part 82 subpart G to such products. Use of closed cell foam products
(e.g., manufactured rigid PU insulation or XPS boardstock) or products
that contain closed cell foam (e.g., household and commercial
appliances, boats) manufactured with an unacceptable foam blowing agent
on or after the specified date is subject to the use prohibitions under
SNAP. This includes, but is not limited to, incorporating a closed cell
foam blown with an unacceptable blowing agent into a subsequent product
and installing a closed cell foam product or product containing closed
cell foam. Foam products or products containing foam manufactured prior
to the specified date are not subject to the use prohibition whether
manufactured in the United States or abroad.
i. How is EPA interpreting ``use'' of foam blowing agents in closed
cells foams?
Section 612 requires EPA to promulgate regulations prohibiting the
replacement of ODS with certain substitutes and to publish lists of the
substitutes prohibited for specific uses as well as those found
acceptable for those uses. EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR
82.174 state, in part: ``No person may use a substitute after the
effective date of any
[[Page 86858]]
rulemaking adding such substitute to the list of unacceptable
substitutes'' (40 CFR 82.174(d)). The SNAP regulations define ``use''
of a substitute as including, but not being limited to, ``use in a
manufacturing process or product, in consumption by the end-user, or in
intermediate uses, such as formulation or packaging for other
subsequent uses.'' (Sec. 82.172)
With respect to other sectors, EPA has treated use of a product
manufactured with or containing a substance as constituting use of the
substance where the product holds some amount of the substance, the
substance continues to perform its intended function, and the substance
is likely to be emitted in the United States either during use of the
product or at the time of its disposal. For example, an aerosol can is
manufactured to contain a substance as a propellant, and then that
propellant leaks, is released by the end user during use of the aerosol
can's contents, or is emitted at the time of disposal if it has not
already been used up. In the July 2015 rule, in changing the status of
certain substances with respect to aerosols, EPA prohibited use of
aerosol products containing those substances, while stating that
products manufactured prior to the change of status date could still be
used after that date (80 FR 42883). By analogy, we are now interpreting
``use'' of a foam blowing agent to include use of a closed cell foam
product manufactured after the specified date. For such products, the
foam blowing agent remains in the cells and continues to be used for
the purpose of insulation during the lifetime of the product.
Furthermore, emissions of the foam blowing agent occur at the time of
disposal of the closed cell foam product. Thus, emissions from a closed
cell product used in the United States can be expected to occur in the
United States regardless of whether the product was manufactured
domestically or abroad. This action ensures that products manufactured
abroad and subsequently imported will be treated the same as products
manufactured domestically. However, as noted above in section VI.C.1,
the use prohibition does not apply to use of rigid PU one-component
foam sealant cans or low pressure two-component spray foam kits that
are manufactured prior to the change of status dates for those
applications.
EPA is not treating use of an open cell foam product as
constituting use of the foam blowing agent. The foam blowing agent in
an open cell foam product does not continue to perform its intended
function during the lifetime of the product. Except for insignificant
amounts remaining in the cells, emissions of the foam blowing agent
occur at the time and place of manufacture. Therefore, we are
differentiating between closed cell and open cell foam products for
this purpose. This is consistent with the different treatment of closed
and open cell foam products under the section 611 labeling regulations.
ii. When will use of closed cell foam products with unacceptable
blowing agents be prohibited?
For changes of status finalized in this rule (section VI.C.1 and
VI.C.2), the unacceptability determination applies to use of closed
cell foam products and products that contain closed cell foam where the
products are manufactured on or after the change of status date. As
noted in the July 2015 rule with respect to MVAC and stand-alone
refrigeration equipment (80 FR 42884), it is reasonable to allow use of
products manufactured before the change of status date to avoid market
disruption, creation of stranded inventory, and perverse incentives for
releasing these substances to the environment. This applies also to
products that are manufactured outside the United States before the
change of status date and imported afterwards. Buyers should obtain
documentation from importers that the imported products were
manufactured or in inventory before the change of status date.
For alternatives that have already been listed as unacceptable with
a change of status date of January 1, 2017,\207\ or earlier--namely,
HCFC blowing agents listed as unacceptable in appendices K, M, Q, and U
to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G, and HFC blowing agents listed as
unacceptable for rigid PU and PIR boardstock, extruded polystyrene
sheet, and phenolic foams in appendix U to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G--
the unacceptability determination applies to use of closed cell foam
products and products that contain closed cell foam manufactured on or
after the date one year after the date of publication of a final rule.
This timing is intended to allow importers and international
manufacturers of such products time to adjust their manufacture and
import plans. For substitutes listed as unacceptable with a change of
status date after January 1, 2017--namely, HFC and HFC blend blowing
agents listed as unacceptable in rigid PU slabstock and other; rigid PU
appliance foam; rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels;
rigid PU marine flotation foam; rigid PU spray foam; polyolefin; and
polystyrene extruded boardstock and billet- the unacceptability
determination applies both to use of an unacceptable foam blowing agent
and to use of closed cell foam products and products that contain
closed cell foam manufactured with an unacceptable foam blowing agent
on or after the change of status date for each end-use (January 1 of
2019, 2020, or 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\207\ There will also be a change of status on January 1, 2017
for flexible PU and integral skin PU, but these are open cell foams
and are not part of this rule for closed cell foams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
EPA received several comments from individuals and organizations
with various interests in foam blowing agents. Comments were in
reference to EPA's proposed application of unacceptability
determinations of foam blowing agents to closed cell foam products and
products containing closed cell foam manufactured with unacceptable
blowing agents, to EPA's authority for the proposed new interpretation,
to the proposed change of status dates, and to questions about a
specific application. Some commenters supported EPA's proposed
application of unacceptability to products, while others opposed that
interpretation. Two commenters suggested different change of status
dates from those EPA proposed, one suggesting an earlier date and the
other suggesting a later date.
Commenters included CPI, an organization commenting on behalf of
the polyurethanes industry; Honeywell and Chemours, suppliers of
alternative foam blowing agents; Whirlpool, a manufacturer of
appliances using foam insulation; Structural Composites and Compsys,
manufacturers of a specialized composite foam product for boats and
refrigerated trailers; NMMA, an organization representing manufacturers
of boats; and environmental organizations, NRDC and IGSD.
We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
i. Substitutes and End-Uses Proposed
Comment: Honeywell supported EPA's proposal to allow the continued
use of closed cell foam and products containing closed cell foam, where
such foams were manufactured prior to the date on which the substitutes
with which they were blown become unacceptable. The commenter stated
[[Page 86859]]
that this is particularly important for refrigerated containers and
trailers that travel across international borders and are used in
service for five to ten years, and then sold at the end of their life
for use as storage, living space, or other applications. Honeywell
commented that EPA should continue to allow a refrigerated trailer that
was manufactured with an unacceptable foam blowing agent before the
unacceptability date to be resold at the end of its life, which would
come well after the change of status date.
Response: EPA agrees that allowing the use of closed cell foam
products and products containing closed cell foam that were
manufactured prior to the change of status date results in allowing
refrigerated containers and trailers to be used for their useful life
in refrigerated transport and then for reuse in other applications.
ii. Change of Status Date
Comment: Honeywell supported EPA's proposal to provide a transition
period for closed cell foams, and products that contain such foams that
were blown with a substance that is already unacceptable, such as an
HCFC. The commenter stated, however, that the proposed date of one year
after publication of the rule is longer than necessary and suggested
the compliance date should instead be within 180 days after publication
of the final rule. Honeywell suggested that a 180-day period would
provide a reasonable amount of time for transition to acceptable
solutions, since near ``drop in'' low-GWP alternatives are already
commercial for closed-cell foam applications.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter and is finalizing the
change of status date of one year after publication of a final rule, as
proposed. EPA disagrees with Honeywell that a 180-day period is
sufficient to allow importers and international manufacturers of such
products time to adjust their manufacture and import plans. This would
be giving less than half the time that EPA has given to any other
sector or end-use for a change of status where a substitute is
currently being used. EPA has heard from systems houses and end users
that alternative foam blowing agents, including olefinic foam blowing
agents, require significant time for development and are not ``drop
in'' replacements (e.g., 80 FR 42925-6, 42928, July 20, 2015). At least
one recently listed alternative foam blowing agent, HFO-1336mzz(Z), is
not expected to be commercially available until after that timeframe.
Further, the commenter has not supported their statement that 180 days
should be sufficient. Thus, we do not see that it is appropriate to
change the proposed change of status date.
Comment: Whirlpool suggested that EPA should grant the same lead-in
period for use of imported products containing unacceptable HFC blowing
agents as it granted for use of HFCs in domestic product manufacture.
This commenter stated that manufacturers had just over 53 months from
publication of the July 2015 rule to complete a transition of their
domestic manufacturing lines and products manufactured on these lines
before the January 1, 2020 change of status date (for appliance foam).
Whirlpool requested that the change of status date be set to July 1,
2021, in order to provide an equitable transition period, assuming that
this rule would be finalized in late 2016.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter and is finalizing the
change of status dates as proposed. We disagree with Whirlpool that it
is necessary or equitable for manufacturers of products outside the
United States containing closed cell foams, such as appliances, to have
until July, 2021, to continue using unacceptable HFC blowing agents for
the U.S. market. Their domestic counterparts, in comparison, must stop
using unacceptable HFC blowing agents as of January 1, 2020. EPA first
signaled its interest in regulating use of foam products in an August
6, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 46125, 46154) and did not withdraw that
proposal. Manufacturers with both domestic and foreign manufacturing
facilities have gained experience and knowledge with use of new blowing
agents, and thus we expect that future transitions will be quicker. In
addition, sufficient supplies of alternatives are anticipated to be on
the market beginning in 2017 to allow product development, which was an
important consideration when we set the change of status date for a
number of rigid PU foam end-uses, including appliance foam, in the July
2015 rule (80 FR 42925-26). Thus, we consider that the proposed January
1, 2020, change of status date for appliances containing appliance foam
blown with unacceptable alternatives still provides adequate time. For
substitutes listed as unacceptable with a change of status date after
January 1, 2017, the unacceptability determination applies to use of
closed cell foam products and products that contain closed cell foam
manufactured with an unacceptable foam blowing agent on or after the
change of status date for each end-use (January 1 of 2019, 2020, or
2021).
iii. SNAP Authority, Interpretation, and Impacts
Comment: Chemours, Honeywell, NMMA, Compsys and Structural
Composites, NRDC, and IGSD all supported EPA's proposal to prohibit the
import of closed cell foams, and appliances containing them, that have
been produced with and contain blowing agents whose status has been
changed to unacceptable. They considered this to be fairer than the
current situation, in which products containing foam blown with
unacceptable foam blowing agents may be imported and sold in the United
States while domestic manufacturers are prohibited from making and
selling an identical product. Compsys and Structural Composites and
Honeywell noted that EPA's proposal would remove the current incentive
for U.S.-based manufacturers to move production outside of the United
States in order to use less expensive substances with higher
environmental impacts in nations that do not have such stringent
requirements, thereby protecting the environment, U.S. jobs, and U.S.-
based small businesses.
In contrast, CPI opposed EPA's proposal and urged EPA to reconsider
or redefine its interpretation of use. This commenter raised concerns
about potential unintended consequences and inconsistency in the
treatment of foams produced domestically and overseas. CPI believed
this interpretation leads to the possibility of prohibiting the import
of products manufactured prior to the change of status date and thus
treating imported products inconsistently with domestically-produced
products manufactured prior to the change of status date. CPI believed
that this inconsistency suggests that EPA's proposed action is beyond
its authority under the CAA or contrary to the intent of the statute.
CPI stated that they were unaware of any precedent or authority that
would allow EPA to interpret ``use'' differently based on the location
of a manufacturer's facility, and thus opposed EPA's reinterpretation
of use for foam products. In addition, CPI elsewhere had suggested that
EPA should consider the change of status date to be the date a
manufacturer packages polyol resin blends, including the blowing agent,
into a drum, canister, or can, and believed EPA's interpretation of
``use'' for products was inconsistent with that suggestion.
Response: EPA agrees with the first set of commenters that our
proposed interpretation of ``use'' provides for more equitable
treatment of domestic and foreign manufacturing. We also
[[Page 86860]]
find, as discussed by the commenters, that this interpretation of
``use'' will have environmental and other benefits. EPA clarifies that
the use prohibition would not apply to closed cell foam products, or
products containing such foams, manufactured with unacceptable blowing
agents prior to the change of status date, whether the product was
manufactured in the United States or abroad. Thus, EPA would be
interpreting use the same way, irrespective of the location of the
manufacturer's facility. Concerning CPI's suggestion that use should be
based upon the date of manufacturing and packaging a polyol resin, see
section IV.C.1.c.ii above. We note that the definition of use in the
initial SNAP rule at 40 CFR 82.172 refers to use as ``including but not
limited to use in a manufacturing process or product, in consumption by
the end-user, or in intermediate uses, such as formulation or packaging
for other subsequent uses.''
D. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
1. Acceptable Listing of 2-BTP for Total Flooding and Streaming
a. Background
The fire suppression and explosion protection end-uses addressed in
this action are total flooding and streaming. Total flooding systems,
which historically employed halon 1301 as a fire suppression agent, are
used in both normally occupied and unoccupied areas. In the United
States, approximately 90 percent of installed total flooding systems
protect anticipated hazards from ordinary combustibles (i.e., Class A
fires), while the remaining ten percent protect against applications
involving flammable liquids and gases (i.e., Class B fires).\208\ It is
also estimated that approximately 75 percent of total flooding systems
protect electronics (e.g., computers, telecommunications, process
control areas) while the remaining 25 percent protect other
applications, primarily in civil aviation (e.g., engine nacelles/APUs,
cargo compartments, lavatory trash receptacles), military weapons
systems (e.g., combat vehicles, machinery spaces on ships, aircraft
engines and tanks), oil/gas and manufacturing industries (e.g., gas/oil
pumping, compressor stations), and maritime (e.g., machinery space,
cargo pump rooms). Streaming applications, which have historically used
halon 1211 as an extinguishing agent, include portable fire
extinguishers designed to protect against specific hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ Wickham, 2002. Status of Industry Efforts to Replace Halon
Fire Extinguishing Agents. March, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. What is EPA's final decision?
EPA is listing 2-BTP as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for
the total flooding end-use. The use condition requires that 2-BTP be
used only in engine nacelles and APUs on aircraft in total flooding
fire suppression systems. In addition, EPA is listing 2-BTP as
acceptable, subject to use conditions for the streaming end use. The
use condition requires that 2-BTP be used as a streaming agent only for
handheld extinguishers in aircraft.
i. How does 2-BTP compare to other fire suppressants for these end-uses
with respect to SNAP criteria?
(a) Total Flooding
EPA has listed a number of alternatives as acceptable for the total
flooding end-use. In the proposed rule (81 FR at 22824; April 18, 2016)
EPA provided information on the environmental and health properties of
2-BTP and the various substitutes in this end-use. Additionally, EPA's
risk assessments for 2-BTP and a technical support document that
provides the Federal Register citations concerning data on the SNAP
criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for acceptable
alternatives in the relevant end-uses are available in the docket for
this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663). In addition to halon 1301, the
current market for total flooding systems also includes HCFCs, HFCs,
inert gases, and a variety of NIK extinguishing agents (e.g., powdered
aerosols, foams, water).\209\ 2-BTP has an ODP of 0.0028, and the ODPs
of other total flooding alternatives are zero to 0.048. 2-BTP has a GWP
of 0.23-0.26. As shown in Table 22, the GWPs of other total flooding
alternatives range from zero to 3,500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\209\ ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire Suppression,
Comfort Cooling, Cold Storage, and Household Refrigeration
Industries in the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. October 2015.
\210\ Patten et al., 2012. Correction to ``OH reaction rate
constant, IR absorption spectrum, ozone depletion potentials and
global warming potentials of 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene,'' J.
Geophys. Res., 117, D22301, doi:10.1029/2012JD019051.
Table 22--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of 2-BTP Compared to Other Total Flooding and Streaming Agents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire suppressants GWP ODP VOC Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-BTP............................. \1\ 0.23-0.26 0.0028 Yes.................. Acceptable, subject
to use conditions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total flooding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FK-5-1-12mmy2 (C6 Perfluoroketone) <1 0 Yes.................. Acceptable.
CF[ihel3]I........................ 0.4 0.008 Yes.................. Acceptable.
CO[ihel2]......................... 1 0 No................... Acceptable.
HCFC Blend A\2\................... 1,546 0.048 No................... Acceptable.
HFC-227ea......................... 3,220 0 No................... Acceptable.
HFC-125........................... 3,500 0 No................... Acceptable.
Water, Inert gases, Powdered 0 0 No................... Acceptable.
aerosols A-E.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Streaming
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCFC Blend B\3\................... 77 0.00098 No................... Acceptable.
HFC-227ea......................... 3,220 0 No................... Acceptable.
HFC-236fa......................... 9,810 0 No................... Acceptable.
FK-5-1-12mmy2 (C6 Perfluoroketone) <1 0 Yes.................. Acceptable.
CF[ihel3]I........................ 0.4 0.008 Yes.................. Acceptable.
CO[ihel2]......................... 1 0 No................... Acceptable.
Water............................. 0 0 No................... Acceptable.
[[Page 86861]]
H Galden HFPEs.................... 2,790-6,230 0 No................... Acceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GWP range represents GWPs for 30[deg]N. to 60[deg]N. and 60[deg]S. to 60[deg]N. emissions scenarios for a
100-year time horizon. A tropospherically well-mixed approximation of the GWP is equal to 0.59.\210\
\2\ HCFC Blend A is a blend consisting of HCFC-123 (4.75 percent), HCFC-22 (82 percent), HCFC-124 (9.5 percent),
and D-limonene (3.75 percent).
\3\ HCFC Blend B is a proprietary blend consisting largely of HCFC-123.
In addition to ODP and GWP, EPA evaluated potential impacts of
emissions of 2-BTP on local air quality. 2-BTP meets the definition of
VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) and is not excluded
from that definition for the purpose of SIPs to attain and maintain the
NAAQS. EPA compared the annual VOC emissions from the use of 2-BTP as a
total flooding agent to other anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions
considering both worst-case and more realistic scenarios. Under either
scenario, emissions are a small fraction of a percentage (5.6 x
10-5 percent to 2.1 x 10-3 percent) of all
anthropogenic VOC emissions in the United States in
2014.211 212 Given this emission level, we determined it was
not necessary to perform an assessment of the effect of these emissions
on ambient ozone levels; any effect would be insignificant. This is
particularly true since use will be limited to aircraft and thus most
releases of 2-BTP are expected to be at altitude, not in the lower
troposphere. Other acceptable fire suppression agents currently in use
in this end-use are also VOC (e.g., C6-perfluoroketone).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\211\ ICF, 2016k. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Fire Extinguishing and Explosion Prevention Sector. Risk Screen on
Substitutes for Total Flooding Systems in Unoccupied Spaces.
Substitute: 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP).
\212\ Based on the 2014 annual total VOC emissions for the
United States (i.e., approximately 17.13x10\6\ MT) as reported in
the National Emissions Inventory (EPA, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA evaluated the risks associated with potential exposures to 2-
BTP during production operations and the filling of fire extinguishers
as well as in the case of an inadvertent discharge of the system during
maintenance activities on the fire extinguishing system. EPA's review
of the human health impacts of 2-BTP, including the summary of
available toxicity studies, is in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2015-0663).213 214
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\213\ ICF, 2016j. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Fire Extinguishing and Explosion Prevention Sector. Risk Screen on
Substitutes as a Streaming Agent in Civil Aviation Applications.
Substitute: 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP).
\214\ ICF, 2016k. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Fire Extinguishing and Explosion Prevention Sector. Risk Screen on
Substitutes for Total Flooding Systems in Unoccupied Spaces.
Substitute: 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposure to 2-BTP is not likely during installation or servicing of
2-BTP total flooding systems for engines and APUs on aircraft. These
are both considered to be unoccupiable areas, meaning personnel cannot
physically occupy these spaces, thus reducing the risk from exposure to
an inadvertent discharge. The risk of accidental activation of the fire
extinguishing system while personnel are present near the protected
space is low if proper procedures, including those of the 2-BTP system
manufacturer as well as the aircraft manufacturer, are followed.
Instructions on system installation and servicing included in manuals
for the 2-BTP systems should be followed. In the case of an inadvertent
discharge of the system during maintenance activities on the fire
extinguishing system or surrounding equipment, the cowl doors that
would be open to allow access to the area will allow personnel to
immediately egress and avoid exposure. Protective gloves and tightly
sealed goggles should be worn for installation and servicing
activities, to protect workers in any event of potential discharge of
the proposed substitute, accidental or otherwise. Filling or servicing
operations should be performed in well-ventilated areas. EPA's
evaluation indicates that the use of 2-BTP is not expected to pose a
significant toxicity risk to personnel or the general population. The
risks after exposure are common to many total flooding agents,
including those already listed as acceptable under SNAP for this same
end-use such as C6-perfluoroketone.
EPA is listing 2-BTP acceptable, subject to use conditions, as a
total flooding agent for use in engine nacelles and APUs on aircraft
because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by the
substitute is lower than or comparable to the overall risk posed by
other alternatives listed as acceptable in the same end-use.
(b) Streaming Uses
EPA has listed a number of alternatives as acceptable for the
streaming end-use. In the proposed rule (81 FR at 22824; April 18,
2016) EPA provided information on the environmental and health
properties of 2-BTP and the various substitutes in this end-use.
Additionally, EPA's risk assessments for 2-BTP and a technical support
document that provides the Federal Register citations concerning data
on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for
acceptable alternatives in the relevant end-uses are available in the
docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663). In addition to halon
1211, the current market for streaming applications also includes
HCFCs, HFCs, and a variety of other agents (e.g., dry chemical,
CO2, water).\215\ Specific alternatives used for streaming
uses include HCFC Blend B (with an ODP of roughly 0.01 and a GWP of
roughly 80), HFC-227ea (with an ODP of zero and a GWP of 3,220), and C7
Fluoroketone (with an ODP of zero and a GWP of approximately one). The
ODP, GWP, and VOC status of 2-BTP and other alternatives that are also
used as streaming agents are described in Table 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\215\ ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire Suppression,
Comfort Cooling, Cold Storage, and Household Refrigeration
Industries in the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. October 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding local air quality impacts, EPA compared the annual VOC
emissions from the use of 2-BTP as a streaming agent to other
anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions considering both worst-case and
more realistic scenarios, as described in the previous section. Other
acceptable fire suppression agents currently in use as streaming agents
are also VOC (e.g., C6-perfluoroketone, C7-fluoroketone).
EPA evaluated occupational and general population exposure at
manufacture and at end-use to ensure that the use of 2-BTP as a
streaming agent will not pose unacceptable risks to workers or the
general public as discussed in the previous section. Also
[[Page 86862]]
discussed previously, EPA has evaluated the risks associated with
potential exposures to 2-BTP during production operations and the
filling of fire extinguishers as well as in the case of an inadvertent
discharge of the fire extinguisher during maintenance activities.
The risks after exposure are common to many streaming agents,
including those already listed as acceptable under SNAP for this same
end-use, such as C6-perfluoroketone.
EPA is listing 2-BTP acceptable, subject to use conditions, as a
streaming agent on aircraft because the overall environmental and human
health risk posed by the substitute is lower than or comparable to the
overall risk posed by other alternatives listed as acceptable in the
same end-use.
ii. What further information is EPA providing in the acceptability
listing for 2-BTP?
In the ``Further Information'' column of the regulatory listings
for total flooding agents, EPA is providing the following information:
This fire suppressant has a relatively low GWP of 0.23-
0.26 and a short atmospheric lifetime of approximately seven days.
This agent is subject to requirements contained in a TSCA
section 5(e) Consent Order and any subsequent TSCA section 5(a)(2)
SNUR.
For establishments manufacturing, installing, and
servicing engine nacelles and auxiliary power units on aircraft using
this agent:
(1) This agent should be used in accordance with the safety
guidelines in the latest edition of the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 2001 Standard for Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing
Systems;
(2) In the case that 2-BTP is inhaled, person(s) should be
immediately removed and exposed to fresh air; if breathing is
difficult, person(s) should seek medical attention;
(3) Eye wash and quick drench facilities should be available. In
case of ocular exposure, person(s) should immediately flush the eyes,
including under the eyelids, with fresh water and move to a non-
contaminated area.
(4) Exposed person(s) should remove all contaminated clothing and
footwear to avoid irritation, and medical attention should be sought if
irritation develops or persists;
(5) Although unlikely, in case of ingestion of 2-BTP, the person(s)
should consult a physician immediately;
(6) Manufacturing space should be equipped with specialized
engineering controls and well ventilated with a local exhaust system
and low-lying source ventilation to effectively mitigate potential
occupational exposure; regular testing and monitoring of the workplace
atmosphere should be conducted;
(7) Employees responsible for chemical processing should wear the
appropriate PPE, such as protective gloves, tightly sealed goggles,
protective work clothing, and suitable respiratory protection in case
of accidental release or insufficient ventilation;
(8) All spills should be cleaned up immediately in accordance with
good industrial hygiene practices;
(9) Training for safe handling procedures should be provided to all
employees that would be likely to handle containers of the agent or
extinguishing units filled with the agent;
(10) Safety features that are typical of total flooding systems
such as pre-discharge alarms, time delays, and system abort switches
should be provided, as directed by applicable OSHA regulations and NFPA
standards; use of this agent should also conform to relevant OSHA
requirements, including 29 CFR 1910, subpart L, sections 1910.160 and
1910.162.
In the ``Further Information'' column of the regulatory listing for
the streaming agent end use, EPA is providing the following
information:
This fire suppressant has a relatively low GWP of 0.23-
0.26 and a short atmospheric lifetime of approximately seven days.
This agent is subject to requirements contained in a Toxic
Substance Control Act (TSCA) section 5(e) Consent Order and any
subsequent TSCA section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rule (SNUR).
For establishments manufacturing, installing and
maintaining handheld extinguishers using this agent:
(1) Use of this agent should be used in accordance with the latest
edition of NFPA Standard 10 for Portable Fire Extinguishers;
(2) In the case that 2-BTP is inhaled, person(s) should be
immediately removed and exposed to fresh air; if breathing is
difficult, person(s) should seek medical attention;
(3) Eye wash and quick drench facilities should be available. In
case of ocular exposure, person(s) should immediately flush the eyes,
including under the eyelids, with fresh water and move to a non-
contaminated area.
(4) Exposed person(s) should remove all contaminated clothing and
footwear to avoid irritation, and medical attention should be sought if
irritation develops or persists;
(5) Although unlikely, in case of ingestion of 2-BTP, the person(s)
should consult a physician immediately;
(6) Manufacturing space should be equipped with specialized
engineering controls and well ventilated with a local exhaust system
and low-lying source ventilation to effectively mitigate potential
occupational exposure; regular testing and monitoring of the workplace
atmosphere should be conducted;
(7) Employees responsible for chemical processing should wear the
appropriate PPE, such as protective gloves, tightly sealed goggles,
protective work clothing, and suitable respiratory protection in case
of accidental release or insufficient ventilation;
(8) All spills should be cleaned up immediately in accordance with
good industrial hygiene practices;
(9) Training for safe handling procedures should be provided to all
employees that would be likely to handle containers of the agent or
extinguishing units filled with the agent; and
(10) 2-BTP use as a streaming fire extinguishing agent in handheld
extinguishers in aircraft should be in accordance with UL 711, Rating
and Testing of Fire Extinguishers, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) Minimum Performance Standard for Hand-Held Extinguishers (DOT/
FAA/AR-01/37), with regard to the size and number of extinguishers
depending on the size of aircraft, and FAA Stratification and
Localization of Halon 1211 Discharged in Occupied Aircraft Compartments
(DOT/FAA/TC-14/50).
iii. When will the listing apply?
EPA is establishing a listing date as of January 3, 2017, the same
as the effective date of this regulation, to allow for the safe use of
this substitute at the earliest opportunity.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
EPA received several comments from organizations with various
interests in the fire protection industry on the proposed listing of 2-
BTP as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as a total flooding and
streaming agent in certain aircraft applications. Comments were in
reference to EPA's approach to the end-use categories for fire
suppression, an expedited listing for 2-BTP based on international
halon replacement deadline for handheld extinguishers on new aircraft,
conditions for use including minimum volumes for aircraft compartments
for safe handheld extinguisher use and labeling of extinguishers, and
broadening the acceptable applications for 2-BTP. All commenters
supported the proposed
[[Page 86863]]
listing decision, however, several commenters requested that EPA
consider a listing date of no later than August 2016 for 2-BTP in order
to meet an international target date of the end of 2016 for all
aircraft entering service to use handheld extinguishers that do not use
halon. Several commenters suggested the reference to aviation-specific
guidance rather than UL standard as more comprehensive analysis of safe
agent levels for handheld extinguishers used onboard aircraft.
Commenters included the International Coordinating Council of
Aerospace Industries Associations (ICCAIA) representing Aerospace
Industries Associations of the United States, Europe, Canada, Brazil,
Russia, and Japan; the Halon Alternatives Research Corporation, Inc.
(HARC), a trade association; NAM; NEDA/CAP; Boeing; Airbus also
representing the aircraft manufacturers Bombardier, Dassault Aviation,
and Embraer; and P3Group.
We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
i. Substitutes and End-Uses Proposed
Comment: Several commenters expressed support for EPA's proposed
acceptability listing of 2-BTP; these included Airbus, Boeing, ICCAIA,
NAM, NEDA/CAP, and P3Group. Airbus noted the ``complexity of fighting
fires in aircraft cabins and cockpits requires fire-fighting agents and
equipment which also minimize health impacts on aircraft crews and
occupants while ensuring continued safe flight and landing.'' Airbus
also cited the ``need for . . . EPA approval of 2-BTP as a pre-
requisite to allow commercialization in the leading US civil aviation
market. Others including Boeing, ICCAIA, NAM, and NEDA/CAP noted the
importance of this acceptability listing to meeting the ICAO Annex 6
deadline of December 31, 2016, for halon replacement in handheld
extinguishers for all new production aircraft, and requested EPA to
consider an expedited listing for 2-BTP. Airbus and HARC both urged EPA
to continue review of other potential applications of 2-BTP and broaden
its acceptability listings in other uses which would support the long-
term availability of the agent on the market. HARC expressed concern
that the restriction to only aircraft use impacts the agent's
commercial viability as an aircraft halon replacement.
Response: EPA appreciates the interest and support offered by the
commenters in the acceptability listing of 2-BTP. EPA is aware of the
ICAO requirement to replace halons on handheld extinguishers on newly
produced aircraft entering service after the end of this year. EPA has
worked expeditiously to issue a final rule as quickly as possible
noting that the comment period closed June 16, 2016. Regarding comments
urging EPA to consider use of 2-BTP in other fire protection
applications, as stated in the proposed rule, EPA is reviewing
additional potential fire suppression applications for 2-BTP as
identified by the submitter.
ii. Listing Date
Comment: ICCAIA urged a final acceptability listing of 2-BTP by
August 2016 in order to meet an international deadline for halon
replacement in handheld extinguishers for all aircraft placed into
service on or after December 31, 2016. That deadline was incorporated
by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in 2011 into
the revised Chicago Convention Standards and Recommended Practices
(SARPs) for Annex 6, Operation of Aircraft, which affects already
certified aircraft, and Annex 8, Airworthiness of Aircraft, which
affects new aircraft types, to include deadlines for halon replacement
in various applications on aircraft including in handheld
extinguishers. Considering the additional design, reviews, and
certifications required following EPA's acceptability listing for 2-
BTP, ICCAIA requested that EPA also consider the option of issuing a
separate final rule for 2-BTP to meet this August timeline. Other
commenters in support of ICCAIA's request for expedited listing for 2-
BTP included Airbus, Boeing, NEDA/CAP, and NAM. Airbus, Boeing, and NAM
cited the adoption of halon replacement deadlines for civil aviation
into the ICAO SARPs; in 2011, ICAO amended its Annex 6, Operation of
Aircraft.
Response: EPA appreciates the significant interest in the
acceptability listing of 2-BTP to meet the ICAO requirement to replace
halons on handheld extinguishers on aircraft. EPA has worked
expeditiously to issue a final rule as quickly as possible noting that
the comment period closed June 16, 2016. The commenters did not provide
sufficient information to explain how an August 2016 acceptability
listing fits into the design, specification, review, and certification
process for new production aircraft and how it would have specifically
affected this timeline. It is also worth noting that while the United
States strongly supported related actions taken at ICAO on halons
including the amendments to Annexes 6 and 8, following the final
amendment of Annexes 6 and 8, the United States filed a difference to
these new SARPs. As a Contracting State to the Chicago Convention, the
United States is required to either comply with or file differences to
the Standards contained in the ICAO Annexes; differences filed by
member States are not considered permanent, but rather States are meant
to continuously review the status of their differences and inform ICAO
if and when a difference is no longer necessary.
iii. Use Conditions
Comment: ICCAIA, Airbus, P3Group, and Boeing referred to discussion
in the preamble regarding EPA's evaluation of potential exposure risk
at end-use, specifically to 2-BTP discharged from handheld
extinguishers onboard aircraft. The NPRM made reference to the UL 2129
standard, Halocarbon Clean Agent Fire Extinguishers, which prohibits
discharge in a confined space exceeding the cardiotoxic LOAEL for any
fire suppressant. EPA stated that ``per UL 2129, labels for 2-BTP
extinguishers will contain the statement, `Do not use in confined
spaces less than 896 cubic feet per extinguisher.' '' P3Group noted
that the UL 2129 value of 896 ft\3\ minimum confined space volume was
based on the LOAEL for the extinguishing agent, and the extinguisher
containing 3.75 lbs. of 2-BTP. Airbus noted that implementing the 896
cubic feet compartment size limit as a strict requirement would exclude
2-BTP handheld extinguishers from any smaller aircraft or even from use
in large transport aircraft cockpits, service or crew rest compartments
if considered, in terms of fire-fighting, as individual compartments.
All commenters noted that the industry utilizes FAA guidance for
determining appropriate minimum volumes relevant to aircraft
compartments as this guidance provides more comprehensive analysis of
acceptable agent levels under aircraft operating conditions. Airbus
suggested text for proposed use conditions for 2-BTP including required
labeling per UL 2129, and a listing of the minimum space volume in
order to discharge other sizes of extinguishers on aircraft. Boeing
commented that they disagreed with the Airbus proposed use conditions
for 2-BTP citing that these requirements for aircraft are specified by
the FAA guidance which the industry intends to follow.
[[Page 86864]]
Response: EPA appreciates the clarification of the UL 2129 standard
and the information on the relevant FAA guidance that is intended to be
used by the industry to determine appropriate minimum volumes for
aircraft handheld extinguishers. EPA is revising the additional
information on 2-BTP use as a streaming fire extinguishing agent in
handheld extinguishers in aircraft to indicate that use should be in
accordance with UL 711, Rating and Testing of Fire Extinguishers, the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Minimum Performance Standard for
Hand-Held Extinguishers (DOT/FAA/AR-01/37), with regard to the size and
number of extinguishers depending on the size of aircraft, and FAA
Stratification and Localization of Halon 1211 Discharged in Occupied
Aircraft Compartments (DOT/FAA/TC-14/50).
2. Change of Listing Status for Certain Perfluorocarbons for Total
Flooding
While EPA proposed and requested comments on listing the PFCs
(C4F10 and C3F8) as
unacceptable in fire suppression total flooding uses, EPA is deferring
final action at this time. EPA plans to continue assessing the merits
of taking action in this sector more broadly, based on additional
information provided during the comment period on the use of
alternatives in this end use. EPA requested advance comments on other
alternatives, specifically SF6 and HFC-125 in total flooding and HFC-
227ea in both total flooding and streaming applications, to improve our
understanding. We received several comments in support of the proposed
action on PFCs and several commenters requested that EPA eliminate or
limit the use of additional high-GWP HFCs. Other commenters requested
that EPA take no action at this time with regard to the other
alternatives for which EPA sought advance comments, citing current use
in challenging applications such as aviation and the need to ensure
their availability for these uses in the future. These comments
provided us with additional but limited information on uses of
SF6, HFC-23, HFC-125, HFC-227ea, HFC-134a, and HFC-236fa,
confirming the specialized, niche applications for some of these
agents.
3. Removal of Use Conditions for Powdered Aerosol D
a. Background
Powdered Aerosol D is a pyrotechnic particulate aerosol and
explosion suppressant that also is marketed under the trade names of
Aero-K[supreg] and Stat-X[supreg]. This fire suppressant is supplied to
users as a solid housed in a double-walled hermetically-sealed steel
container. When the unit is triggered by heat (300 [deg]C), the product
is pyrotechnically activated to produce gases and aerosol particles
from a mixture of chemicals. EPA listed Powdered Aerosol D as
acceptable subject to use conditions as a total flooding agent (71 FR
56359; September 7, 2006). The use conditions required that Powdered
Aerosol D be used only in areas that are not normally occupied, because
the Agency did not have sufficient information at that time supporting
its safe use in areas that are normally occupied. Based on a review of
additional information from the submitter to support the safe use of
Powdered Aerosol D in normally occupied spaces, EPA subsequently
determined that Powdered Aerosol D is also acceptable for use in total
flooding systems for normally occupied spaces (79 FR 62863; October 21,
2014). The listing provides that Powdered Aerosol D is acceptable for
total flooding uses, which includes both unoccupied and occupied
spaces. In the October 2014 listing action, EPA noted that in a
subsequent rulemaking, the Agency would remove the previous listing of
acceptable subject to use conditions.
b. What is EPA's final decision?
As proposed, EPA is removing the previous listing in appendix O to
subpart G of 40 CFR part 82 for Powdered Aerosol D as acceptable
subject to use conditions as a total flooding agent (71 FR 56359;
September 7, 2006). This has been superseded by the listing of October
21, 2014 (79 FR 62863) listing Powdered Aerosol D as acceptable for
total flooding uses, which includes both unoccupied and occupied
spaces.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
Comment: Chemours stated that it opposed the removal of the use
restrictions for Powdered Aerosol D based on the fatalities from the
recent incident in a bank vault in Thailand after the inadvertent
discharge of a powdered aerosol system. Chemours noted that the
industry still needed to learn about the appropriate use of this
technology.
Response: EPA is aware of the incident at the Thai bank and
understands the investigation continues. We note that the substitute
involved was not Powdered Aerosol D. Regarding the listing of Powdered
Aerosol D under the SNAP program, a decision to not modify the
acceptable subject to use conditions, as advocated by the commenter,
will not achieve the result they are seeking. As noted, Powdered
Aerosol D is listed as acceptable for all total flooding uses. If the
commenter believes that there is evidence to support that Powdered
Aerosol D cannot be used safely in some total flooding uses, they
should submit that information to EPA and EPA could consider it to
determine whether it should initiate rulemaking to change the
acceptable listing.
VII. How is EPA responding to other public comments?
EPA received additional comments on topics not addressed in other
sections of this document. These comments address a host of issues,
including EPA's CAA authority to change the status of alternatives;
perceived inconsistencies with the SNAP program's ``guiding
principles;'' perceived inconsistency with other actions; and
interactions with other rules. Additionally, some commenters requested
status changes for end-uses or alternatives that were not included in
the proposed rule.
We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
A. General Comments
1. Proposed Status Listing Changes
Comment: Several commenters, including the Alliance, Clayton, EIA,
NRDC, IGSD, Honeywell, NASA, Dow, and CARB generally supported EPA's
actions related to the proposed status changes. While these commenters
expressed their support for the SNAP program, the Alliance emphasized
the importance of an amendment to the Montreal Protocol for a gradual
phase-down approach to HFCs and urged caution when changing listing
status of substitutes under the SNAP framework. The Alliance believe
that a gradual phasedown approach is important in order to allow for
effective technology development and introduction, to allow for the
building codes and safety standards process to align with the newly
available low-GWP technologies and applications, and to ensure energy
efficiency performance is not diminished. Honeywell commented that the
proposed listing changes would lead to significant emission reductions,
setting an example for other countries around the world to follow.
Clayton noted that EPA was extremely thorough in considering challenges
posed by the proposal and engaging with
[[Page 86865]]
stakeholders. NASA noted that they take regulatory compliance seriously
and have committed significant time and resources to implementing
environmentally acceptable materials in their facilities and programs.
Dow stressed that any new technologies should be built upon success
with attainable timelines that allow the industry to innovate, develop,
and commercialize alternative technologies for our stakeholders.
Response: EPA thanks these commenters for supporting the proposed
listing changes. As noted elsewhere in this document, EPA views this
final action as complementary to the United States' support for
adopting an amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase down production
and consumption of HFCs.
Comment: Chemours and Honeywell supported EPA's efforts to reduce
GHG emissions associated with the use of HFCs in the production of
insulating foams and other foam products by listing high-GWP foam
blowing agents as unacceptable and approving technically appropriate
lower-GWP alternatives as sufficient quantities of those lower GWP
solutions become commercially available.
Response: EPA appreciates the commenters' support for changing the
status of high- GWP foam blowing agents.
Comment: NEDA/CAP, an organization representing manufacturers of a
variety of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment among others,
commented that its members have recently made substantial capital
investments replacing IPR and commercial building ACs, warehouse
chillers, and other equipment that utilized ODS refrigerants that have
been phased out because acceptable non-ODS refrigerants were available
for these uses. NEDA/CAP's members are concerned that there are almost
no acceptable, commercially available alternatives for the refrigerants
proposed for a status change and the proposed rule would reduce demand
for non-ODS refrigerants for new equipment. NEDA/CAP believe it is
``unfair and unreasonable'' for EPA to propose to change the status of
certain HFCs from acceptable to unacceptable in new equipment without
simultaneously listing acceptable, commercially available alternatives.
For these reasons, NEDA/CAP recommended that EPA evaluate the actual
availability of alternatives, not their theoretical availability, in
its examination of alternatives under CAA section 612. Specifically,
NEDA/CAP recommended that EPA evaluate the continued availability of
acceptable alternatives for existing equipment (e.g., IPR, and
commercial comfort and industrial cooling equipment) that may be
affected by the proposed rule.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that there are almost no
available alternatives for the substitutes for which EPA proposed a
status change. As noted in the NPRM and section VI.A.5-9 of the
preamble to the final rule, EPA has listed a number of alternatives as
acceptable in new equipment in residential and light commercial AC and
heat pumps, cold storage warehouses, and centrifugal and positive
displacement chillers for commercial comfort AC. CO2,
propane, isobutane, R-441A, ammonia, HFO-1234ze(E), trans-1-chloro-
3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, and not-in-kind technologies such as
Stirling cycle, water/lithium bromide absorption, dessicant cooling, or
evaporative cooling, are acceptable in new equipment for one or more of
the end-uses for which EPA proposed a change in status. The commenter
also did not provide information as to why they believe these
alternatives would not be viable in new equipment. Moreover, EPA does
not agree that the change of status for certain refrigerants in
specific uses would result in a corresponding reduction in demand for
non-ozone-depleting refrigerants in new equipment. The overall global
demand for refrigeration and air conditioning equipment has expanded
while ODS are being phased out and EPA anticipates this expansion will
continue. There will be continued use of other non-ozone-depleting
alternatives not subject to this action in new equipment.
Comment: NEDA/CAP commented that EPA should address in the
rulemaking (1) EPA's analysis of the impact of the proposed status
changes on the refrigerant supply base for existing affected
refrigeration and cooling equipment; (2) whether the supply base for
this existing equipment will remain viable for the expected life of
recently replaced equipment; (3) what the economic impacts are for
businesses related to the inevitable drop in demand for existing
refrigerants; (4) whether alternative refrigerants other than propane
will be available and what the conditions for their use will be; (5)
the impact of the proposal on the production of current acceptable HFCs
and propylene and indicate what the alternatives available are for
retrofit of existing equipment if existing chemical producers cease
manufacturing these compounds as a result of the proposed rule.
Response: EPA has provided information in the docket to this
rulemaking and in the preamble to the July 2015 rule concerning changes
in the production of both fluorinated and non-fluorinated alternatives
to ODS. EPA has no information to suggest there will be a shortage in
refrigerant supply for existing equipment.
This action does not require retrofitting existing equipment. EPA
is confident there will be adequate supply to service existing
equipment either based on continued production or based on recovery and
reuse of existing supplies of the refrigerants undergoing a change of
status. EPA bases this judgment on our historical experience. For
example, CFC chillers can still be serviced even though we have had no
production or import of newly produced CFCs since 1996. Similarly,
halons continued to be used even though we ceased production and import
of newly produced halons in 1994. HCFC-22 was phased out of production
for new equipment as of 2010, but is still being produced and used for
existing equipment.
EPA's action does not ban production of any HFC and as noted above,
some of the HFCs will be blended with HFOs to develop new refrigerants.
While there may be a shift between chemical or refrigerant producers,
it is not clear that there will be a loss for these companies and
demand may increase in other global markets. It is possible that the
price of refrigerants undergoing a status change will increase if
supplies decrease relative to demand. End users with existing equipment
may take steps to reduce the impact of price changes on the open market
such as recovering and recycling their refrigerant, as many
supermarkets currently do with HCFC-22.
As noted throughout this rule, we anticipate many refrigerants will
be available and not just propane. Propane is only acceptable for a
limited number of refrigeration and AC end-uses, including household
refrigerators and freezers, and is not currently listed as acceptable
for chillers, cold storage warehouses, or retail food refrigeration--
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment. EPA has listed a
number of HFO and HFO/HFC refrigerants as acceptable with no use
conditions for use in each of the refrigeration and AC end-uses
undergoing a change of status in this rule (e.g., R-450A and R-513A for
all these end-uses; HFO-1336mzz(Z), HCFO-1233zd(E), HFO-1234ze(E) and
R-514A for centrifugal chiller). In addition, CO2 and
ammonia are acceptable refrigerants in retail food
[[Page 86866]]
refrigeration--refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment
and ammonia is acceptable in cold storage warehouses.
Chemical producers may continue to produce the HFCs undergoing a
change of status for uses that are acceptable including for servicing
of existing equipment and for end-uses that are not subject to a change
of status. In the case of propylene, that refrigerant has only been
listed as acceptable as a refrigerant in IPR, and EPA has not proposed
to change that status. Nothing in this action calls for retrofitting.
However, we note that EPA has published lists of acceptable
refrigerants for new equipment and retrofits, and these are available
at https://www.epa.gov/snap/refrigeration-and-air-conditioning.
2. Proposed Status Change Dates
Comment: The Alliance appreciated that EPA considered the DOE
energy conservation standards for the rulemaking, but urged the Agency
to better coordinate the proposed status change dates with the ongoing
DOE energy conservation rulemaking schedules.
Response: EPA appreciates this comment. The Agency and DOE have
increased our dialogue to better understand the timing that each is
taking under our separate authorities.
Comment: Arkema, NAFEM, and UTC requested that EPA delay the change
of status dates to provide adequate time for product research and
development, product testing, certification, and time for the approved
alternatives to become widely available on the marketplace. Arkema
noted that the proposed rule seems to acknowledge these difficulties
only for uses involving either the federal government or the
aeronautics industry, giving extra time for military, space, and
aeronautics applications to transition from HFCs in foam blowing and in
chillers. Arkema also stated that if the rule is finalized as proposed,
EPA should allow all users to claim an exemption based on the
unavailability of feasible alternatives or explain the standard (e.g.,
availability of alternatives, cost, environmental benefits, etc.) it is
trying to satisfy in setting the change of status dates. NAFEM
requested an extension of at least 10 years for the proposed status
changes to allow sufficient time for safe product development and
testing, while Arkema suggested specific dates for specific substitutes
and end-uses, ranging from 2021 for 407A-F in new chillers,
refrigerated food processing and dispensing, and cold storage
warehouses to 2025 for most applications of R-134a and R-410A. UTC
stated that EPA should not implement the change of status for HFC-134a
before 2025, which would allow time for system redesign, testing, and
to change state and local codes in cases where the refrigerants are
flammable. UTC believes that any change of status dates earlier than
January 1, 2025, would effectively lead to a ban on the sale of air
cooled chillers in many states and force customers to use existing
units or to switch to lower efficiency packaged products and VRF
systems that are still allowed to use R-410A. While EPA and large parts
of the industry are committed to a transition away from HFC
refrigerants, there is simply no forcing mechanism at the state and
local level that would lead to near-immediate adoption of the necessary
code changes.
Response: EPA looked at each change of status independently and has
provided a rationale for the specific date for each end-use affected by
this final rule. EPA does not agree that any specific minimal number of
years should be required for a change of status and notes that there
may be instances where immediate action is justified. With regards to
NAFEM's comments supporting an extension, it is not clear if NAFEM is
requesting additional time for an end-use covered in this action or
whether the request concerns the July 2015 rule, which is beyond the
scope of this action. EPA disagrees with Arkema's comments regarding
the availability of alternatives. EPA has listed as acceptable
alternatives that pose lower overall risk to human health and the
environment than the substitutes we are listing as unacceptable, which
supports a transition away from the substitutes that we have concluded
provide a greater risk to human health and the environment. The
commenter did not provide information as to why these alternatives
would not be viable in the end-uses addressed in this action.
Comment: NAFEMF suggested that EPA provide manufacturers an
opportunity to qualify for additional status change extensions under
SNAP's grandfathering provisions. They noted that EPA has historically
allowed manufacturers that transitioned to a substitute deemed
acceptable by the Agency to continue using the previously acceptable
substitute until the current supply was used up, even if that occurred
after the rule's compliance date.
Response: While EPA is not applying ``grandfathering'' in this
rulemaking, we have established status change dates for different
sectors and end-uses that reflect the date by which we expect
alternatives that pose lower overall risk to human health and the
environment will be available, both for existing and new users of
certain substitutes. In considering when alternatives will be available
for these other end-uses, we have considered the technical challenges
that the end users are facing with the transition. Under both the
approach used in this rule and the grandfathering approach, we consider
whether there is a basis to establish the change of status later than
the effective date of the rulemaking and thus the approaches result in
a similar outcome.
Comment: Johnson Controls commented that there is speculation that
EPA chose the change of status dates in this rule to meet obligations
proposed in the North American amendment proposal to the Montreal
Protocol.
Response: The change of status dates in this rule were arrived at
after careful consideration of the availability of other substitutes in
each end-use. These decisions were informed by extensive consultation
with stakeholders throughout the rulemaking process. While the United
States is seeking an amendment to the Montreal Protocol, it is not
clear what control measures, if any, might be adopted. The changes in
status here relate to use in the United States of alternatives that are
safer overall for human health and the environment.
Comment: Arkema provided a list of steps needed for ``product line
development'' including ``researching options, risk assessment,
analyzing existing manufacturing capabilities, working with component
suppliers, building test units, testing beta units, updating
manufacturing processes (including employee training), building pre-
production units, field testing, completing the customer approval
process, phasing in production, disposing of trapped inventory, and
training installation and maintenance personnel'' and ensuring
``products conform to local building codes.'' For new cold storage
warehouses and for refrigerated food processing and dispensing
equipment, Arkema suggested a 2021 transition date for R-407A, R-407B,
R-407C, R-407D, R-407E, and R-407F, claiming that ``[t]his decision
should mirror previous supermarket decisions for new and retrofit
applications.'' For HFC-134a, they proposed a 2025 status change date
and as their ``[r]ationale'' only stated ``[s]upply, suitability of
alternatives.''
Response: The commenter is mistaken as to EPA's previous action for
the supermarket systems end-use category within the retail food
refrigeration end-use. In SNAP Rule 20 (80 FR 42870; July
[[Page 86867]]
20, 2015), EPA changed the status of only one of the identified
refrigerants (R-407B) for this end use and established a January 1,
2017 status change date for new equipment.
For the reasons provided in section VI.A.6 and in our proposal, we
have determined that January 1, 2023 is a reasonable but expeditious
date for the change of status for new cold storage warehouses. For new
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment, the recommended
2021 date for the R-407 series refrigerants matched our proposal and
for the reasons provided in section VI.A.7 and our proposal we have
finalized that change of status date.
The commenter did not otherwise provide any support for why a
bifurcated 2021 and 2025 change of status date was sufficient and
needed to address the technical challenges for either the cold storage
warehouse end-use or the refrigerated food processing and dispensing
equipment end-use category. For the 2025 date, the commenter provided
no justification for why the supply or suitability of existing
alternatives was not sufficient to support the proposed January 1,
2023, status change date for cold storage warehouses but would be to
support a January 1, 2025, date. The commenter did not provide any
evidence that supply of alternatives was lacking to justify their
proposed 2025 status change date for HFC-134a in both end-uses. EPA had
already determined that not to be true in a previous rulemaking (80 FR
42904; July 20, 2015). Further, the commenter did not indicate why the
supply for HFC-134a alternatives in either end-use would not be
available until 2025 yet the supply of alternatives for the R-407
series refrigerants would be available by 2021, or why the set of
alternatives would be different.
B. Authority
1. General Authority
Comment: EIA supported EPA's authority to regulate substances
within a comparative risk framework. EIA commented that EPA's SNAP
program was created to assure the health and environmental safety of
alternatives for ODS that were being phased out, which is achieved
through EPA's comparative review process. EIA also indicated that the
proposed rule is an important step towards implementing the President's
CAP.
Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support of the rule.
Comment: Arkema, AHAM, and Mexichem expressed the opinion that the
proposed rule is outside the scope of EPA's regulatory authority.
Similar to their comments submitted in response to the NPRM for the
July 2015 rule, the commenters stated that the purpose of the original
SNAP program was to evaluate substitutes for ODS, and that now using
this same framework to evaluate non-ODS against other non-ODS on the
basis of GWP, for example, violates the authority granted under CAA
section 612. They argued that these new compounds are not substitutes
for ODS, and thus are not real ``substitutes'' in the context of the
original SNAP framework. Arkema emphasized its support for an HFC
amendment to the Montreal Protocol, but asserted that EPA is proposing
to ``replace non-ODS with new non-ODS chemicals based on [GWP],'' which
goes against the mandate of CAA section 612 to ``replace'' ODS. AHAM
stated that CAA Title VI was not intended to ``provide EPA broad,
general and roving authority to regulate refrigerants, foams and
chemicals in whatever circumstances it deems desirable if they are
unrelated to ozone depletion.'' Likewise, Mexichem asserted that the
repeated references to class I and class II substances in Title VI
demonstrate that, in enacting CAA section 612, Congress was concerned
with phasing out ODS, and that there is ``no mention in section 612 (or
its legislative history) that Congress ever intended for this law to be
used to regulate second-generation substances on the basis of [GWP].''
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters that it lacks the
authority to regulate the continuing replacement of ODS with the
substitutes whose listing status is addressed in this action. In this
rulemaking, EPA considered whether such replacement should continue to
occur given the expanded suite of other alternatives to ODS in the
relevant end-uses and our evolving understanding of risks to the
environment and public health. There is no question that the
substitutes subject to a change in status in this action (e.g., HFC-
134a) directly replaced ODS in the relevant sectors. See section
VII.A.2 of the preamble to the July 2015 rule for additional discussion
of non-ODS alternatives.
Comment: AHAM stated that this proposal violates Executive Orders
12866 (9-30-93), 13563 (1-18-2011), and 13610 (5-10-12) requiring that
agencies consider the cumulative effects of regulations, including
cumulative burden. AHAM commented that given the new energy efficiency
standards placed on the appliance industry, being forced to also comply
with the timeline and additional restrictions proposed in this
rulemaking would be unnecessarily burdensome on affected entities. They
especially emphasized the minimal difference in emissions saved by
prematurely transitioning the industry to these substitutes.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the
proposed rule violates Executive Order 13563, given that there is
currently no DOE standard that results in cumulative regulatory burden
with this rule. Further, we expect that with a change of status date of
January 1, 2021, for household refrigerators and freezers, companies
would be able to coordinate compliance with an energy conservation
standard with a compliance date in 2020. Thus, we believe that in fact,
the potential cumulative impacts of the two sets of regulations are
reasonable. See also the discussion in section VI.A.8.ii on the change
of status dates for household refrigerators and freezers.
2. GWP Considerations
Comment: Mexichem commented that EPA focuses the analysis of HFC-
134a on comparative GWP instead of conducting a comprehensive analysis
that considers all of the agency's criteria--atmospheric effects,
exposure assessments, toxicity data, flammability, and other
environmental impacts, such as ecotoxicity and local air quality
impacts--as well as a full alternatives analysis of performance,
availability, hazard, exposure, and cost of the alternatives. Arkema
also commented that EPA relies on the differences in GWP to justify the
proposed status changes, but fails to explain why those differences
result in a larger risk for certain HFCs in each end-use. For example,
Arkema stated that EPA does not explain the rationale for proposing to
change the status from acceptable to unacceptable for some high-GWP
substitutes, such as R-407A with a GWP of 2,107, but not R-407F with a
GWP of 1,824, for cold storage warehouses.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters that it relies solely
on GWP in the evaluation of the alternatives under the SNAP program. In
all cases, EPA considers the intersection between the specific
alternative and the particular end-use and the availability of
substitutes for those particular end-uses. When reviewing a substitute,
EPA compares the risk posed by that substitute to the risks posed by
other alternatives and determines whether that specific substitute
under review poses significantly more risk than other alternatives for
the same use. In our analysis of overall risk, we evaluate the criteria
at 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7). . For particular substances, EPA found
significant potential differences in risk with respect to one or more
specific criteria, such as flammability, toxicity,
[[Page 86868]]
or local air quality concerns, while otherwise posing comparable levels
of risk to those of other alternatives in specific end-uses. Regarding
GWP, that is one of several criteria EPA considers in the overall
evaluation of the alternatives under the SNAP program. There are a
number of examples in this rulemaking where we determined not to change
the status of HFC-134a, for example, because the GWP of other
alternatives is a concern for a specific use. For particular
substances, such as R-407A, EPA found significant potential differences
in risk with respect to one or more specific criteria, such as GWP,
while otherwise posing comparable levels of risk to those of other
alternatives in specific end-uses. EPA also notes that several
decisions included in this action are based on significant potential
differences with respect to other factors including flammability, and
local air quality. For example, we are listing propylene and R-443A as
unacceptable in centrifugal chillers, positive displacement chillers,
cold storage warehouses, and residential and light commercial AC and
heat pumps in particular because of concerns about local air quality.
We are listing all refrigerants identified as flammability Class 3 in
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013 and all refrigerants meeting the criteria
for flammability Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013 as
unacceptable for use in retrofit unitary split AC systems and heat
pumps in the residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat
pumps end-use.
Concerning differences in GWP values and how EPA decided to change
the status of certain alternatives while other alternatives remained
acceptable, EPA did not establish bright-line cutoffs but rather
considered which substitutes are available on an end-use by end-use
basis. For the example of refrigerants in the cold storage warehouse
end-use that Arkema cites, we considered that R-407F has the lowest GWP
of the refrigerant blends that are both widely commercially available
and can be used for those situations and types of equipment where HCFC-
22 is used. R-407A has a higher GWP and otherwise is comparable to R-
407F, and thus results in higher overall risk to human health and the
environment.
See also section VII.A.3 of the preamble to the July 2015 rule and
section 6.3.3 of the Response to Comments for the NPRM for that rule
for additional information on GWP considerations under the SNAP
program.
Comment: Arkema commented that EPA makes GWP the sole criterion for
decisions about atmospheric effects, instead of basing it on the
``total [GWP] of the substitute and the indirect contributions to
global warming caused by the production or use of the substitute (e.g.,
changes in energy efficiency), and environmental release data,
including available information on any pollution controls used or that
could be used in association with the substitute.''
Response: EPA disagrees that GWP was the only criterion considered
in determining whether to change the status of a substitute. Further
information and explanation on use of GWP as a metric is provided in
section VII.A.3 of the preamble to the July 2015 rule and in the
following response. Considerations of atmospheric effects and related
health and environmental impacts have always been a part of SNAP's
comparative review process, and the provision of GWP-related
information is required by the SNAP regulations (see 40 CFR 82.178 and
82.180). The issue of EPA's authority to consider GWP in its SNAP
listing decisions was raised in the initial rule establishing the SNAP
program. In the preamble to the final 1994 SNAP rule, EPA stated: ``The
Agency believes that the Congressional mandate to evaluate substitutes
based on reducing overall risk to human health and the environment
authorizes use of global warming as one of the SNAP evaluation
criteria. Public comment failed to identify any definition of overall
risk that warranted excluding global warming'' (59 FR 13044, March 18,
1994). Consistent with that understanding, the 1994 SNAP rule
specifically included ``atmospheric effects and related health and
environmental impacts'' as evaluation criteria the Agency uses in
undertaking comparative risk assessments (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994;
40 CFR 82.180(a)(7)(i)). That rule also established the requirement
that anyone submitting a notice of intent to introduce a substitute
into interstate commerce provide the substitute's GWP (see 40 CFR
82.178(a)(6)). Accordingly, we have considered the relative GWP of
alternatives in many SNAP listing decisions. EPA did not propose to
revise its regulations to abandon consideration of GWP in this rule.
In response to comments that EPA failed to assess and account for
indirect climate impacts, we note that we do not have a practice in the
SNAP program of including indirect climate impacts in the overall risk
analysis. EPA initially contemplated such considerations in the initial
SNAP rule, but our experience has been that it is impractical to
perform a detailed analysis of indirect global warming impacts
associated with a particular substitute. For example, the inherent
energy efficiency of the substitute is not the same as the energy
efficiency of equipment using that substitute. To analyze energy
efficiency and other indirect climate impacts would require EPA to
identify not only every type of equipment but also each model, identify
or predict the amount of each available substitute that might be used
in each type of equipment, make assumptions about how the equipment
would be operated, assess what type of electricity was used to both
manufacture the substance and power the equipment or manufacturing
process, and so on. See the July 2015 rule, 80 FR at 42921 and section
6.4.2 of the response to comments document for that rule. We do,
however, consider issues such as technical needs for energy efficiency
(e.g., to meet DOE standards) in determining whether alternatives are
``available,'' and have followed that practice in this rulemaking. We
believe that there is a sufficient range of acceptable alternatives
that end users will be able to maintain energy efficiency levels. We
also note that federal energy conservation standards will continue to
ensure that equipment regulated by this rule will not increase its
indirect climate impacts.
Comment: Honeywell commented that even greater emissions reductions
could be projected by using more up-to-date GWP values. Honeywell
commented that the use of out-of-date GWP values in such an important
rule can cause confusion, especially among those trying to evaluate and
compare low-GWP technologies. Instead of GWP values from the IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), Honeywell suggested that EPA consider
adopting the IPCC AR5 GWP values in the future.
Response: EPA used the GWP values in the IPCC AR4 in the NPRM and
continues to use these in this final rulemaking to maintain consistency
with other rules and facets of the SNAP program and with other U.S.
domestic programs (e.g., EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting program,
codified at 40 CFR part 98). Using consistent GWPs allows for more
efficient operation of U.S. climate programs and facilitates
integration with other public and private sector programs on
international, national, state, and local levels. It also reduces the
burden on stakeholders of keeping track of separate GWPs when
interacting with these programs. Use of the AR4 GWPs will also ensure
compatibility with the Climate Action Report and other reporting
requirements under the United Nations Framework Convention
[[Page 86869]]
on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries, including the United States,
that submit GHG inventories under the UNFCCC have decided to use AR4
GWPs for the GHGs that have AR4 GWPs, beginning with the inventories
submitted in 2015.\216\ Adoption of AR5 GWPs while other EPA and
international programs are using AR4 GWPs likely would cause
stakeholder confusion, create an ongoing need to explain the
distinction in GWPs in subsequent actions, and complicate decision-
making. Also, use of AR4 GWPs ensures that the SNAP program uses widely
relied on, published, peer-reviewed GWP data. EPA may consider adoption
of AR5 GWPs or other GWP values in the future. In any event, use of AR5
GWPs would not result in a change in EPA's conclusions about the
comparative risk posed by the substitutes addressed in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\216\ The IPCC publishes Scientific Assessment Reports,
including updated and expanded sets of GWPs, approximately every six
years. The countries that submit annual GHG inventories under the
UNFCCC update the GWPs that they use for those inventories less
frequently. For example, the GWPs from the IPCC Second Assessment
Report have been used for UNFCCC reporting for over a decade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: CARB recommended establishing specific numerical limits
for GWP of acceptable substitutes in certain end-uses. They recommended
prohibiting all refrigerants with a GWP greater than 150 in cold
storage warehouses, refrigerated food processing and dispensing
equipment and household refrigerators and freezers. For chillers, CARB
recommended prohibiting all refrigerants with a GWP greater than 750.
Response: EPA has not set ``bright line'' cut offs based on GWP or
the other SNAP criteria, for reasons explained in numerous actions,
including section IV.B of the SNAP Proposed Rule 20 (79 FR 46135;
August 6, 2014), sections IV.B and V.C.6.(a) of the corresponding final
Rule 20 (80 FR 42920; July 20, 2015), section I.A of the proposed rule
(81 FR 22812-22813; April 18, 2016), and section I.A of this final
rule. As noted in those actions, the structure of the SNAP program,
which is based on a comparative framework of available substitutes for
a specific end-use at the time a decision is being made, does not
support the use of such bright lines.
3. SNAP Review Criteria and Guiding Principles
Comment: Arkema commented that the proposed rule fails to follow
EPA's policies in the guiding principles, fails to consider all
relevant information as defined by regulation, and fails to apply the
regulatory criteria for SNAP evaluation when determining if a
substitute poses more risk than other alternatives for the same end-
use. Arkema stated that EPA's policy has been to restrict a SNAP
substitute only if it is significantly worse than the alternatives;
however, the proposed rule ``relies on differences in [GWP] to justify
reclassification.'' Arkema further commented that, according to 40 CFR
82.178(a)(6), EPA is to consider information concerning GWP, including
both the total GWP of the substitute and the indirect contributions to
global warming caused by the production or use of the substitute, and
environmental release data, including available information on any
pollution controls used or that could be used in association with the
substitute. Arkema believes EPA fails to follow these principles and
instead, makes GWP the sole criterion for decisions about atmospheric
effects. Finally, Arkema commented that the proposed rule states ``EPA
is not setting a risk threshold for any specific SNAP criterion, such
that the only acceptable substitutes pose risk below a specified level
of risk.'' Arkema believes this statement violates EPA's policy to
regulate only significant risk in a specific end-use because it asserts
that the Agency ``can ban a substance to reduce any risk, regardless of
the magnitude of the risk.''
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that the proposed rule
violates the Agency's regulations or guiding principles. See the
preamble to the July 2015 rule at 80 FR 42940-42. We consider the
proposed and final rules to be consistent with the SNAP guiding
principles:
1. First guiding principle: Evaluate substitutes within a
comparative risk framework. As suggested by the first guiding
principle, in all of the actions that EPA proposed and is today
finalizing, EPA evaluated the risk of substitutes compared to available
or potentially available alternatives. In that effort, a range of risk
factors are well described in this action. The factors that EPA
considers are stated at 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7).
2. Second guiding principle: Do not require that substitutes be
risk free to be found acceptable. EPA has not required substitutes to
be risk free. We acknowledge in the proposed and final rules that both
the substitutes changing status and the other available alternatives
have risks. In this rule, as in past SNAP rules, we have considered
whether there are alternatives that are available or potentially
available that pose a lower overall risk to human health and the
environment in specific end-uses and end-use categories.
3. Third guiding principle: Restrict those substitutes that are
significantly worse. EPA has based our decisions on whether substitutes
have significantly greater risk than other available substitutes for
the same uses. For example, we did not propose and are not finalizing
today changes in status where there is only a marginal difference in
risk between two alternatives available or potentially available in the
same end-use. As described in the preambles to the proposed and final
rules, the Agency carefully considered the substances addressed in this
action on the basis of the SNAP criteria, and concluded that other
alternatives presented a degree of reduced overall risk sufficient to
warrant the actions being taken in this rulemaking. In response to the
comment that the NPRM compares GWPs without explaining the significance
of the differences for any effect on climate, EPA did not estimate
differences in temperature change or other physical climate metrics due
to the impacts of the rule. EPA has not used these metrics in the past
as measures of climate impact for other SNAP decisions. See section
II.G and III on the use of GWP as a metric for climate impact and the
significance of the rule for climate.
4. Fourth guiding principle: Evaluate risks by use. EPA evaluated
substitutes for specific uses and reached different conclusions for the
same substitute in different uses, depending on the specific risks and
other available or potentially available alternatives in the relevant
uses. For example, we are listing propane as acceptable, subject to use
conditions in new self-contained commercial ice machines, new water
coolers, and new very low temperature refrigeration equipment, while
listing propane and all other ASHRAE flammability Class 3 refrigerants
as unacceptable for retrofitting existing unitary split systems within
residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps. No action was taken
to ban any one HFC or other alternative across all end-uses.
Additionally, as noted by the commenter, we considered the potential
risks of alternatives used for servicing of MVAC or commercial
refrigeration apart from new equipment or from retrofits of existing
equipment. See section 6.3.6 of the Response to Comments for the NPRM
for the July 2015 rule.
5. Fifth guiding principle: Provide the regulated community with
information as soon as possible. EPA provided the regulated community
with information as soon as possible by holding a series of workshops
and public meetings
[[Page 86870]]
concerning this action and other regulatory issues relevant to various
industrial sectors over the course of more than a year before we issued
our proposal. See section 6.3.6 of the Response to Comments for the
NPRM for the July 2015 rule.
6. Sixth guiding principle: Do not endorse products manufactured by
specific companies. Our change of status decisions reflect the
availability of multiple alternatives for each end-use. Regarding
endorsements, see section V.B.6.a of the preamble to the July 2015 rule
at 80 FR 42896.
7. Seventh guiding principle: Defer to other environmental
regulations when warranted. We note that this reads ``Defer to other
environmental regulations when warranted'' (emphasis added). Other
regulations may not ensure that substitutes that pose significantly
greater risk are prohibited where safer alternatives are available
because those regulations do not address all or address sufficiently
the risk posed. EPA has considered the potential impacts of other
environmental, health, and safety regulations. EPA carefully considered
these and other existing regulations under other programs when
reviewing substitutes. For example, we considered the presence of OSHA
regulations in addressing flammability risk in factories where foam is
blown. EPA did not propose and is not finalizing a change in how this
principle is applied. EPA continues to consider other environmental,
health and safety regulations and notes these regulations where
appropriate in our decisions. We also considered the existing MACT
standard that prohibits the use of methylene chloride in flexible PU
foam production for major sources, including relying on the risk
analysis performed for EPA's recent risk review of the MACT. See
sections VI.A.2 and VI.C.4 regarding EPA's consideration of other
stratospheric ozone regulations.
Concerning consideration of all relevant information as defined by
regulation, we note that it is within the discretion of the Agency to
determine which information is relevant out of the total set of
information in EPA's possession. The specific information that must be
provided to EPA for review under the SNAP regulations at 40 CFR 82.178
informs, but does not govern, EPA's decisional criteria for review of
substitutes under 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7).
Concerning Arkema's quotation from the proposed rule, it states
that we do not use the same ``bright line'' risk threshold for all
substances. This is consistent with EPA's guiding principles, where we
consider comparative risk of the available substitutes within an end-
use. From a scientific point of view, it would be inappropriate, and
potentially not protective, for EPA to use the same concentration in
ppm to determine flammability risks or toxic concentrations for
different substitutes, rather than considering the LFL or exposure
limit for the specific substitute.
Comment: Arkema commented that the military, NASA, and the
aeronautics industry would have special exceptions for certain chiller
and spray-foam applications for which there appears to be little
supporting technical detail in the record, but that at least for
chillers are based on the relative significance of the associated
emissions. Arkema asked what the effect on the atmosphere would be if
the entire private sector had the benefits of the proposed narrowed use
limits for military marine vessels, human-rated spacecraft, and related
support equipment.
Response: We expect that the rest of the private sector would not
meet the requirements for a narrowed use limit because substitutes that
are acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, may only be used where
reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives
are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements.
Multiple alternatives with lower GWPs are available for chillers and
equipment manufacturers are already implementing them;
217 218 thus, other alternatives are technically feasible.
See also sections VI.A.5.i and VI.A.6.i of this rule for a discussion
of available alternatives. This is different from the situation for
military marine vessels and human-rated spacecraft and related support
equipment which have many unique characteristics that make it more
difficult and time-consuming to evaluate and implement alternatives;
see the preamble to the NPRM at 81 FR 22844, 22848 (April 18, 2016). In
addition, the time periods for qualification of products to meet
specifications for the military or for space flight and aeronautics-
related applications are significant. For example, in the case of
foams, one aerospace company stated that it would take more than two
years to develop, test and qualify a new alternative, and it will take
at least another five years ``to manufacture flight-representative foam
samples, followed by ground and flight testing,'' and then additional
time to retool their facilities to manufacture the foam with an
alternative blowing agent.\219\ NASA began development of spray
polyurethane foams using HFC-245fa in 2007 and only now in 2016 expects
to complete qualification.\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\217\ Press release, ``Ingersoll Rand Innovates HVAC Portfolio
Using Next Generation, Low Global Warming Refrigerant, R-452B'',
June 16, 2016.
\218\ Press release, ``Trane Announces Significant Centrifugal
Chiller Line Expansion and Services for the United States and
Canada.'' July 13, 2016.
\219\ The Boeing Company. Comments on Proposed Rule to Change
the Status of Certain Substitutes under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program. October, 2014.
\220\ Spray Foam Magazine, 2016. ``SPF and SLS Help NASA Explore
Deep Space'' September/October issue, 2016. This document is
accessible at: http://sprayfoammagazine.com/spf-sls-help-nasa-explore-deep-space/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA did not base the narrowed use limits for centrifugal and
positive displacement compressor chillers for military marine vessels
or for human-rated spacecraft and related support equipment
applications on the relative significance of the associated emissions;
rather, for informational purposes, we indicated that emissions were
not expected to be significant. EPA's decisions are based on the
comparative risk of various alternatives considering the SNAP criteria,
not based on achieving a specific climate benefit. EPA provided
information concerning the estimated climate benefits associated with
the proposed and final rule. EPA did not calculate the benefits or
atmospheric impacts from every possible scenario.
Comment: AHRI, the Alliance, HARC and NEDA/CAP all urged
consistency in EPA's stance on and implementation of the SNAP program.
AHRI and HARC encouraged EPA to adhere closely to the principles of the
Agency's position at the Montreal Protocol and the initial 1994 SNAP
framework. The Alliance requested (1) that EPA clarify how the proposal
is consistent with a global phase-down approach to HFCs, (2) that EPA
articulate how the SNAP program would be used in the context of
implementing an HFC amendment to the Montreal Protocol, and (3) that
for any future rulemakings for a change of SNAP listing status, EPA
publish a clear and predictable evaluation process by which risk
factors are compared in the comparative risk framework to make SNAP
change of status decisions with transparency on how the factors will be
weighted. NEDA/CAP expressed concern about the greater frequency of new
rules and listings and the ``rolling and complex schedule'' of change
of status dates, which could complicate industry's ability to operate
the installed base of existing equipment using refrigerants proposed to
undergo a change of status in new equipment. NEDA/CAP suggested that
EPA provide a ``master schedule'' for the review and
[[Page 86871]]
listing of substitutes, given the fact that ``EPA's increasingly
`piecemeal' new approach to SNAP revisions creates other business
planning problems and potentially significant equipment compatibility
issues for existing refrigerant, chiller and cooling equipment.''
Response: EPA considers this final rule to be consistent with the
framework in the initial SNAP rule, as explained in section II of the
NPRM at 81 FR 22816-9 and in section II of this preamble. This rule
concerns specific uses of certain alternatives to ODS, including some
HFCs, while the North American Proposal to amend the Montreal Protocol
to add a global phase-down of HFCs concerns HFC production and
consumption generally without reference to specific uses. Reductions in
use of certain HFCs in specific end uses due to changes of status under
the SNAP program are expected to result in decreased production of
those HFCs, which would contribute to the United States' ability to
implement reductions in production and consumption of HFCs under a
global phase-down of HFCs along the lines of the North American
Proposal.
With regard to specific quantification of reductions in overall
risk to human health and the environment, in the 1994 rulemaking, we
considered and rejected comments suggesting that we develop an index to
rank all substitutes based on risk. In the preamble to the rule, we
specifically noted that ``a strict quantitative index would not allow
for sufficient flexibility in making appropriate risk management
decisions'' (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994). See July 2015 SNAP rule at
80 FR 42940. Concerning NEDA/CAP's comment about the frequency of
recent rulemakings and listings, EPA notes that we have the authority
to change the status of a previously listed alternative and mentioned
this as a possibility in the initial SNAP rulemaking. See the preamble
to the July 2015 rule at 80 FR 42939-40. Further, the CAP has guided
EPA in our decision to issue more frequent listings as well as
rulemakings including changes of status. We also note that some of our
recent decisions mentioned by NEDA/CAP have provided additional
alternatives for both new and retrofits of existing equipment, which
would have no impact on the production of other alternatives or on
existing equipment manufactured with other alternatives. Concerning
NEDA/CAP's comment about the potential impact of the rule on existing
equipment, see the discussion in section VII.A.1.
Comment: AHAM commented that EPA has no justification for changing
the listing status of compounds of which the toxicity, GWP, efficiency
and other criteria of evaluation remain unchanged.
Response: EPA disagrees. The suite of available or potentially
available alternatives changes over time and the availability of those
alternatives enables a broader review of comparative risk under section
612(c). Further, our understanding of the impact that HFCs have on
climate has evolved and become much deeper over the years. See the
preamble to the July 2015 rule at 80 FR 42935-6.
Comment: Arguing that we should not change the status of R-407A and
R-407B for cold storage warehouse, and should find R-448A and R-449A
acceptable for that end-use as well as for refrigerated food processing
and dispensing equipment, AHRI stated that the ``direct refrigerant
emissions in these end uses represent a small percentage of the overall
life cycle climate performance'' and that overall greenhouse gas
emissions will increase if a less efficient product were used.
Response: EPA interprets this comment to be based on the SNAP
review criteria of ``atmospheric effects,'' which is discussed above in
section II.E.1. We have noted that part of our review of the overall
risk to human health and the environment that substitutes pose includes
the GWP of a particular substitute, and the GWPs of R-407A and R-407B
are higher than those of other alternatives in the cold storage
warehouse end-use. Our conclusion as discussed in section VI.A.6.b.i
above was that these refrigerants pose overall greater risk than other
alternatives. With respect to R-448A and R-449A in both end-uses, we
noted in sections VI.A.6.c.i and VI.A.7.b.ii above that EPA is
currently evaluating those refrigerants for these end-uses but has not
yet issued either a proposed decision or a Notice of Acceptability for
these refrigerants in these end-uses.
The reader is referred to sections VII.B.2 above and VII.D.3. As
discussed in response to other comments in section VII.D.3 below,
energy efficiency is not a specific criterion under SNAP, and indirect
GHG emissions may vary based on energy efficiency of the appliance. As
discussed in response to comment in section VII.B.2 above, EPA
initially contemplated considering indirect climate impacts as part of
our overall risk analysis in the initial SNAP rule, but our experience
has been that it is impractical to perform a detailed analysis of
indirect global warming impacts associated with a particular
substitute.
C. Cost and Economic Impacts
EPA received comments from Arkema, NAFEM, Structural Composites and
Compsys, AHAM, and UTC in which commenters provided data on the cost
and economic impacts of the proposed rule. These comments are
summarized in the response to comments sections for the end-uses
addressed in this final rule. We summarize and respond to the more
general cost comments in this section.
1. Costs of Rule
Comment: EPA received comments suggesting that EPA provide more
time for the changes in status in order to avoid undue burden on the
U.S. economy. UTC commented that if this rule is finalized as proposed,
industries and companies utilizing many of the refrigerants and
propellants affected by this rule will need to invest substantial
resources in order to promote compliance with the intended transition
over the next decade. AHAM stated that under EPA's proposed change of
status dates, the costs would be significantly higher during the
transition to an alternative refrigerant as compared to a date three
years later, which would allow companies adequate time to structure
costs and decrease risk over multiple years and at almost half the
cost. AHRI noted that accelerating the process for changing multiple
product platforms by even a single year can significantly impact
manufacturers' costs and resources burden. Arkema commented that no
SNAP rule should impose unreasonable burdens on the U.S. economy.
Arkema recommended that EPA allow more time for transitions to avoid
that outcome.
Response: EPA understands that there are challenges associated with
transitioning substitutes, including costs to manufacturers in
redesigning equipment and making changes to manufacturing facilities.
As an initial matter, and as discussed more fully in section VII.A.3,
under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7),
consideration of cost is limited to cost of the substitute under
review, and that consideration does not include the cost of transition
when a substitute is found unacceptable.
The transition timelines in this final rule are based on
information concerning the availability of alternatives. While EPA does
not consider the cost of transition in its analysis, EPA recognizes
that later dates allow industry time to plan and to spread out capital
costs over longer time
[[Page 86872]]
periods. We have selected the change of status dates, both as proposed
and as finalized, considering technical factors, such as time required
for research and development, time required for testing to meet
industry and regulatory standards, time to adjust their manufacturing
processes to safely accommodate the use of other substitutes, and
supply of alternatives.
Comment: NAFEM commented that if the proposed changes are
finalized, the rule will limit manufacturer productivity, threaten less
profitable but important niche product lines that currently meet
marketplace needs, and shift significant costs to end users of
commercial refrigeration equipment. NAFEM further commented that costs
and impacts for niche product lines, safety concerns, and evaluation,
research, redesign, testing, implementation and training should be
included in EPA's revised analyses. Structural Composites and Compsys
comments that costs will dramatically increase if alternatives fail and
several rounds of trials are required.
Response: Although EPA did not consider the costs of transitioning
to other alternatives in making the listing decisions in this
rulemaking, for informational purposes, we did prepare a cost analysis
and a small business impacts analysis for this rule for businesses that
are directly regulated. EPA recognizes that transitioning to other
alternatives is likely to require capital costs and investments in
research, updated equipment, and their related financial impacts.
However, EPA's cost analysis did not evaluate the share of costs likely
to be borne by consumers, since it is not clear what proportion of cost
impacts may be passed on to consumers, and further, such economic
analyses typically look at costs to the regulated community rather than
indirect impacts on consumers. NAFEM did not provide specific cost or
cost impact information for niche users or specific information for
profit losses that would have allowed us to analyze the impacts for
niche product lines. In the cases where commenters provided specific,
detailed cost information, we used that information to revise the cost
assumptions in our updated cost analysis for this final rule. For
additional information on economic analysis conducted for this rule,
see the supporting document ``Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to
the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and
Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression.'' \221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\221\ ICF, 2016a. Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the
Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and
Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. EPA's Cost Analysis and Small Business Impacts Screening Analysis
Comment: EPA received comments indicating that small businesses
bear a disproportionate share of the regulatory burden. NAFEM and
Structural Composites and Compsys stated that the proposed rule was
overly burdensome to small businesses. NAFEM comments that if this rule
is finalized as proposed, the available supply of equipment models will
decrease because manufacturers will not be able to sell existing
supply, will not have a portfolio of products ready to sell that comply
with the new rule, and will have to pause the current development
process for new projects already in the planning stage, further
burdening small businesses. AHAM commented that the EPA's estimates for
one time investments and annualized costs for facility conversion were
``grossly'' understated and EPA does not capture the ``full financial
impact to manufacturers.''
Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. We prepared a
preliminary small business screening analysis during the development of
the proposed rule. We have updated our small business screening
analysis using the change of status decisions and dates in the final
rule and using detailed cost information provided by commenters.\222\
In the analyses, EPA recognized that some small businesses may
experience significant costs, but concluded that the number of small
businesses that would experience significant costs was not substantial.
A Small Business Advocacy Panel is convened when a proposed rulemaking
is expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities, or ``SISNOSE.'' EPA's preliminary and final screening
analyses concluded that this rulemaking would not pose a SISNOSE:
Accordingly, we did not convene a Small Business Advocacy Panel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\222\ ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives
used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire
Suppression. ICF International. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More broadly, for purposes of E.O. 12866, we performed an analysis
of the costs of the proposed rule on all-sized businesses and estimated
the total annualized upfront compliance costs to range from $59.2-$71.3
million, using a 7% discount rate, and $58.8-$70.6 million, using a 3%
discount rate.\223\ Total annualized compliance costs across affected
small businesses are estimated at approximately $11.8 [hyphen]$14.4
million at a 7% discount rate, or $11.5[hyphen]$14.0 million at a 3%
discount rate.\224\ We updated both analyses based upon the regulatory
options and change of status dates in the final rule. The changes in
the final rule--especially with respect to compliance dates--do not
change the cost impacts on businesses. The commenters did not point to
any specific aspects of that analysis that they believe are deficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\223\ ICF, 2016a. Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the
Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and
Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression. ICF International.
September, 2016.
\224\ ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High[hyphen]GWP
Alternatives used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams,
and Fire Suppression. ICF International. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the screening analysis for purposes of determining whether
there was a SISNOSE and the analysis for purposes of E.O. 12866 were
conducted based on the best market and cost information available to
the Agency.
EPA also disagrees with the comment regarding the inability to sell
existing supply as the status changes in the rule relate to new
manufacturing and do not limit the sale of existing supply.
Comment: Arkema commented that EPA underestimated the costs of the
NPRM. Arkema believes EPA's cost estimates are unduly optimistic given
all that must be done to redesign equipment. Arkema further commented
on three areas of economic analysis that they state need to be
addressed. First, Arkema stated that EPA does not include the ``wasted
costs'' incurred by those manufacturers that have actually changed
designs of their equipment to meet DOE standards, based on the
continued availability of existing SNAP substitutes, but that now may
need to change their designs again. Second, Arkema suggested that EPA
should account for ``economic effects'' on U.S. plants that produce
HFC-134a and the other HFCs and HFC blends whose listing the Agency
proposed to change. Third, Arkema suggested that the economic analyses
should disclose how EPA expects prices and availability to change once
it eliminates competing products, including stimulation of short-term
demand for the HFCs and HFC blends whose listing the Agency proposed to
change, longer term increases in prices for the HFCs and HFC blends,
and increased demand for next-generation fluorinated products.
[[Page 86873]]
Response: See response above and see also section VII.B.1 of the
preamble to the July 2015 rule.
Comment: Structural Composites and Compsys generally agreed with
the economic impact of transitioning to an alternative, as outlined in
EPA's ``Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Changes to
the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and
Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression.''
Response: EPA appreciates this comment.
Comment: AHAM noted the anticipated development costs fluctuate
depending on the transition deadline. According to data collected by
AHAM, EPA's proposed date of 2021 for new household refrigerants has
the highest transition cost per company, while the 2024 deadline
proposed by industry allows companies adequate time to structure costs
over multiple years at nearly half the cost.
Response: The cost of transition to other alternatives is not a
consideration under the SNAP review criteria. See sections VI and VII.C
for additional information on considerations of cost under the SNAP
program. With regard to AHAM's analysis, it is not clear what years
AHAM considered. For example, we could not determine if AHAM considered
dates earlier than 2021 or limited their evaluation to 2021 and later
dates.
D. Environmental Impacts of Status Changes
1. General Comments
Comment: UTC commented that EPA should avoid utilizing specific GWP
limits in this or subsequent rulemakings.
Response: EPA agrees with this commenter, and notes that no SNAP
action has established a maximum GWP above which a substitute would be
unacceptable. EPA recognizes that different end-uses have different
technical demands and available alternatives, and so has always sought
to determine which substitutes are safer overall in the intersection of
each substitute and end-use.
Comment: NRDC and EIA expressed their support for the rule,
encouraged similar actions be taken in other sectors and end-uses, and
stated that promotion of alternatives with lower GWPs than those that
are still acceptable is necessary.
Response: We appreciate the support of these commenters and their
concurrence in the importance of the benefits of this rule. Regarding
requests for finding unacceptable substitutes with GWPs in the range of
600 to 1,400, the agency must consider the availability of other
alternatives that are safer overall in each end use. We encourage the
development of such alternatives, and as technologies continue to
evolve, the agency intends to continue to evaluate present and new
alternatives.
Comment: Hudson encouraged EPA not to approve substitutes for
retrofit purposes unless they have a lower GWP and are more energy
efficient than the current chemical in that equipment.
Response: This action does not approve substitutes for retrofit
purposes.
2. EPA's Climate Benefits Analysis
Comment: AHAM, FPA, Johnson Controls, NEDA/CAP, Flexible Packaging
Association, and Sub Zero Group stated that the environmental benefits
of this action are small when compared with the total of the United
States' GHG emissions or in comparison with the benefits of other EPA
rules.
Response: EPA disagrees with the notion that the environmental
benefits of this rule are ``miniscule,'' as one commenter said, or that
the benefits to human health and the environment are too small to make
this action worthwhile. While the Agency agrees that some other
sectors, such as electricity generation, currently emit more GHGs than
the sectors affected by this rule, the estimated benefits of this rule
are significant. To place the benefits in perspective, the 10-11
MMTCO2eq of prevented emissions in 2030 are equivalent to the total
energy use of over one million homes, or equivalent to taking well over
two million cars off the road.\225\ Further, the problem of climate
change is of the type that is the result of many small acts of
pollution rather than one giant spill or other polluting event. It is
the sum of all the small releases of gases that leads to the problem,
and to claim that individual sources of emissions should not be reduced
because their contributions, taken alone, are not as large as those of
others would make control of the problem impossible. In fact, due to
the high GWPs of many of the gases affected by this rule, reducing
emission of HFCs is widely considered low-hanging fruit in terms of the
efficiency of approaches to reduce GHG emissions.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\225\ EPA's Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. Accessible
at www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.
\226\ UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate
and the Ozone Layer, A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This
document is accessible at: www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/pdf/HFC_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: UTC commented that the environmental analysis underlying
this rule is flawed, and that benefits should be calculated based on a
projection of state-by-state code adoption.
Response: EPA disagrees with this commenter. In our consultation
with stakeholders, we have frequently heard that patchworks of local
regulations often make matters more difficult for businesses. This
action will change the status of certain substitutes in certain end-
uses uniformly across the country. Hence our approach of calculating
benefits assuming similar adoption rates nationally is appropriate. It
is true that some localities may implement regulations that nudge or
force businesses to transition faster than the transition dates in this
rule, just as some businesses may make the decision to transition more
quickly, but that simply means that the cumulative benefits estimated
are conservative in this respect. Benefits in given years after the
transition dates would not be affected by such early transitions.
Comment: NAFEM requested that EPA conduct a study to determine the
effect on the environment of this action using refrigerant escape
estimates rather than overall use of refrigerants in various end-uses.
Response: EPA does consider the rates at which substitutes leak or
are otherwise emitted in its estimation of environmental benefits. The
Agency's Vintaging Model accounts for emissions from use, servicing,
and disposal of equipment and materials as each year's worth, or
``vintage,'' of that equipment goes through its life cycle. This model,
and the estimates of leak rates within it, is peer-reviewed and
regularly updated.
3. Energy Efficiency
Comment: Hudson and UTC both claim that the energy efficiency
implications of changes in refrigerant should be considered, and Hudson
specifically suggests that finding alternatives acceptable for retrofit
uses can lead to losses in efficiency.
Response: The SNAP regulations for review of substitutes include
both a list of ``information required to be submitted'' (section
82.178) and ``criteria for review'' of SNAP submissions (section
82.180). The list of required information includes global warming
impacts and mentions changes in energy efficiency as an example of
indirect contributions to global warming. The criteria for review do
not mention energy efficiency. While EPA uses all information submitted
to inform its general understanding of the substitute, the end-use, and
the sector, the Agency does not use all the
[[Page 86874]]
information as part of its comparative assessment to support listing
decisions. As EPA previously stated, ``[w]e note that we do not have a
practice in the SNAP program of including energy efficiency in the
overall risk analysis. We do, however, consider issues such as
technical needs for energy efficiency (e.g., to meet DOE standards) in
determining whether alternatives are `available' '' (80 FR 42921; July
20, 2015).
The Agency agrees with the commenters that energy efficiency can
have significant impacts on the GHG emissions. However, we disagree
that this action will have unintended detrimental effects on energy
efficiency. As described in the July 2015 rule (80 FR 42902), the
energy efficiency actually achieved will depend on both the refrigerant
used and the design and settings of the equipment. It is impractical
for EPA to evaluate all possible equipment design and refrigerant
combinations. As part of its consideration of whether available
alternatives exist in particular end-uses, SNAP considers as part of
its evaluation whether use of potential alternatives is feasible. For
example, if use of a particular alternative made it impossible for end
users to comply with DOE energy conservation standards, that chemical
would not be considered a truly available substitute, and this would be
considered in decisions on the status of other alternatives in that
end-use. In fact, many substitutes that remain acceptable can lead to
better energy efficiency in that end-use than the alternatives that are
having their status changed in this rule.
Comment: For new cold storage warehouses, Daikin recommended that
R-410A remain acceptable in direct expansion systems ``in order to
maintain the energy efficiency and safety of Cold Storage Warehouses.''
They provided an explanation of why R-410A is more energy efficient
than R-404A. Arguing that we should not change the status of R-407A and
R-407B, and should find R-448A and R-449A acceptable, for both cold
storage warehouses and for refrigerated food processing and dispensing
equipment, AHRI stated without identifying any specific substitutes
that ``[s]ome of the SNAP listed low-GWP refrigerants in this
application will result in less efficient products.''
Response: See responses above. For new cold storage warehouses, we
noted that some equipment could be subject to DOE energy conservation
standards, and have considered this in determining a reasonable yet
expeditious change of status date. For new refrigerated food processing
and dispensing equipment, as an equipment manufacturer indicated, there
are not applicable DOE energy conservation standards.
E. Interactions With Other Rules
Comment: CPI and BASF stated that there needs to be an alignment
between EPA and the Canadian regulatory framework for HFC emissions.
Both organizations encouraged EPA to work with Environment and Climate
Change Canada (ECCC) to align regulatory controls under development to
limit HFC emissions from foam products that impact similar end-uses.
The commenters stated that a consistent approach would reduce confusion
in the marketplace and facilitate compliance with any use restrictions.
Response: The regulatory frameworks and decisions of the U.S. and
other countries may vary due to differences in the statutes on which
the regulations are based as well as public input and other factors.
While EPA agrees that certain countries, such as Canada, look to the
work already done in the United States and some similarities may
result, each country's regulations are based on its domestic statutes
and regulatory processes. ECCC proposals to date have considered EPA's
rules,\227\ and EPA appreciates the value of consistency where
practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\227\ See the ECCC's permitting and reporting requirements for
HFCs, which take effect in February 2017. Canada Gazette, June 2016.
Ozone-depleting Substances and Halocarbon Alternatives Regulations.
Available at: http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2016/2016-06-29/html/sor-dors137-eng.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Other Suggestions or Requests
Comment: Zero Zone recommended that EPA add R-448A and R-449A to
the list of acceptable alternatives for stand-alone equipment. NAFEM
commented that there are no acceptable alternatives for R-404A, other
than propane, and recommended that EPA add R-448A and R-449A to the
list of acceptable alternatives for medium temperature stand-alone
equipment. NAFEM stated that ``R-448A and 449A have lower GWPs and
deliver fewer emissions than 404A, and in most cases, these
refrigerants can be used as a drop in replacement for 404A.'' NAFEM
commented that the same public health arguments that the EPA cited in
deeming R-450A and similar refrigerants as acceptable for medium
temperature stand-alone (retail food refrigeration) equipment should
also apply to R-448A and R-449A. NAFEM noted that EPA performed
assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of R-450A in
docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118. NAFEM indicated that it would be
burdensome for manufacturers using R-404A for medium temperature
applications to transition to R-450A, for example, given that R-450A
``was designed to replace R-134A and has significantly different
performance characteristics when compared to R-404A.'' NAFEM stated
that R-450A is a low pressure gas compared to the R-404A, which is a
medium-pressure gas, and cited technical challenges with transitioning
to R-450A would require redesign of current systems and regulatory
testing. These factors, NAFEM stated, would reduce productivity of the
equipment, increase manufacturing costs, and threaten market supply of
medium temperature equipment. Conversely, NAFEM believe the use of R-
448A and R-449A would only require valve adjustments in current system
design, reduce GWP by \2/3\, and would require about 10 percent effort
for manufacturers to implement when compared to R-450A. In support of
their argument for the acceptable listing of R-448A and R-449A for
medium temperature equipment, NAFEM also stated that stand-alone
equipment has lower leak rates and refrigerant charge than remote
systems.
Response: These comments go beyond the scope of the current
rulemaking as they concern end-uses and/or substitutes not addressed in
this action. EPA appreciates receiving this information and will
consider the comments as it evaluates possible future actions.
Comment: While CARB supported EPA's efforts to change the status of
certain high-GWP alternatives for use in several end-uses, the agency
encouraged EPA to list additional high-GWP refrigerants as unacceptable
in the refrigeration and AC sector and work with refrigerant safety
standards committees, such as ASHRAE and UL, to accelerate the
transition to lower-GWP refrigerants. CARB also stated that the
proposed rule is a valuable early action item that will assist in
developing additional HFC reduction measures in their SLCP Reduction
Strategy that they plan to finalize in the fall of 2016.
Response: EPA appreciates receiving this information and will
consider the comments as it evaluates possible future actions. EPA is
committed to its engagement with stakeholders in the refrigerants
industry, including ASHRAE and UL. For example, EPA staff are currently
members of ASHRAE, and participate in relevant subcommittees, such as
ASHRAE Standing Standard Project Committees 15 and 15.2, some of the
leading safety
[[Page 86875]]
standards for refrigerants in the United States, and EPA staff
regularly attend industry conferences intended for the refrigerants
industry.
Comment: The Alliance requested that EPA disclose the timeline for
finalizing the Agency's proposal to amend the section 608 refrigerant
management regulations (80 FR 69458; November 9, 2015). The Alliance
indicated that its members are supportive of the proposal, but are
concerned that the Agency has not finalized the rule, given that the
public comment period closed on December 9, 2015. They also noted that
they submitted a petition on January 31, 2015, requesting the proposed
rule. The Alliance believe that ``promoting effective refrigerant
management practices, including recovery, reclamation and reuse, is an
important immediate element of reducing the GHG footprint associated
with the use of HFCs and will allow production to be focused primarily
for use in new equipment.''
Response: EPA agrees with the Alliance that the 608 rule will
strengthen refrigerant management practices and reduce emissions of ODS
and gases with high GWPs. For information on the final 608 rule, see
the docket for the rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0453).
Comment: HSIA encouraged EPA to postpone the publication of the
rule until relevant cases still pending, which challenged the July 2015
rule, have been settled.
Response: EPA disagrees. We are finalizing this rule in a timely
fashion in response to public comments to provide information to the
regulated community, some of whom have requested expedited
finalization.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://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 a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. It raises
novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket. EPA prepared analyses of the potential costs
and benefits associated with this action. These are available in docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663 under the titles, ``Climate Benefits of the SNAP
Program Status Change Rule'' and ``Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes
to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression.''
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
requirements contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0226. This 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. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small
businesses. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, EPA evaluated small businesses as defined by the Small
Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. The
Agency has determined that about 90 small businesses could be subject
to the rulemaking, and roughly 76 percent of the small businesses
subject to this rulemaking would be expected to experience compliance
costs of less than one percent of annual sales revenue. Details of this
analysis are presented in the document entitled, ``Economic Impact
Screening Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of
High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Motor
Vehicle Air Conditioners, Foams, and Fire Suppression.'' \228\ EPA
evaluated the potential costs to small businesses associated with the
rule. EPA estimates that the total annualized compliance costs for all
small businesses would be approximately $11.8 to $14.4 million at a
seven percent discount rate, or $11.5 to $14.0 million at a three
percent discount rate.\229\ This action allows equipment manufacturers
the additional options of using propane, HFO-1234yf, and 2-BTP in the
specified end-uses but does not mandate such use. Because these
substitutes are not yet being used in the United States for the end-
uses (with the exception of limited test-marketing), no change in
business practice would be required to meet the use conditions,
resulting in no adverse impact compared to the absence of this rule.
Provisions that allow venting of HC refrigerants in the uses of propane
addressed by this rule would reduce regulatory burden. We have
therefore concluded that this action would relieve regulatory burden
for all small entities that choose to use propane as a refrigerant in
the end-uses in this listing. The use conditions of this rule apply to
manufacturers of commercial ice machines, water coolers, and very low
temperature refrigeration equipment that choose to use propane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\228\ ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives
used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire
Suppression. September, 2016.
\229\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirements of this rule with respect to HFCs would impact
small businesses that manufacture food processing and dispensing
equipment, household refrigerators and freezers, cold storage
refrigeration systems, and polyurethane foams; operators of cold
storage refrigeration systems, including refrigerated warehouses,
wholesalers, and food manufacturers; and manufacture and use cold
storage warehouses, and small businesses that import products
containing closed cell phenolic, polyisocyanurate, polyolefin, PU, and
polystyrene foams manufactured with HFC or HCFC foam blowing agents.
The prohibition of methylene chloride as a foam blowing agent is not
anticipated to impact small businesses because this substance is not
expected to be used currently as a blowing agent. This rule's
provisions do not create enforceable requirements for refrigeration and
AC technicians, but they would indirectly affect technicians servicing
motor vehicle AC systems, certain types of retail food refrigeration
equipment, cold storage warehouses, and commercial AC equipment where
the technician, rather than the refrigeration or AC equipment owner,
purchases servicing equipment for different refrigerants. EPA expects
these indirect impacts on technicians are minimal, because the
transitions to different refrigerants required by this rule are already
occurring due to corporate social responsibility initiatives (e.g.,
Consumer Goods Forum pledge concerning HFC refrigerants), and because
many of the still-acceptable alternatives are already used for these
refrigeration or AC equipment types. Further, most acceptable HFC
refrigerant blends can be recovered and serviced using equipment that
service technicians already own. In some uses, there is no significant
impact of the rule because the substitutes prohibited are not widely
used (e.g., use of perfluorocarbons for fire suppression,
[[Page 86876]]
use of methylene chloride as a foam blowing agent in various types of
foam). A significant portion of the businesses regulated under this
rule are not small businesses (e.g., commercial AC manufacturers). We
have therefore concluded that this action will not have a significant
impact on a significant number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The 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. EPA is
aware that the California Air Resources Board has proposed regulation
of a number of the substitutes and end-uses in this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 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, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. 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 Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
This rule restricts the use of certain substitutes that have greater
overall risks for human health and the environment, primarily due to
their high GWP. The reduction in GHG emissions would provide climate
benefits for all people, including benefits for children and future
generations. The risk screens are in the docket for this
rulemaking.230 231 232 233 234
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\230\ ICF, 2016c. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program:
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Water Coolers Substitute: Propane (R-290).
\231\ ICF, 2016d. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program:
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Substitute: Propane (R-290)
and Ethane (R-170).
\232\ ICF, 2016e. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program:
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Commercial Ice Machines Substitute: Propane (R-290).
\233\ ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps.
Substitute: R-443A.
\234\ ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Chillers and Cold Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R-
1270).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations 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. For the end-uses that are related to
energy effects such as refrigeration and AC, a number of alternatives
are available to replace those refrigerants that are listed as
unacceptable in this action; many of the alternatives are as energy
efficient or more energy efficient than the substitutes being listed as
unacceptable. Thus, we have concluded that this rule is not likely to
have any adverse energy effects.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. EPA is using standards
from UL in the use conditions for propane and standards from SAE for
HFO-1234yf. Additionally, EPA is incorporating by reference a standard
from SAE that EPA already requires in a use condition for HFC-152a in
MVAC. These use conditions will ensure that these new substitutes for
very low temperature refrigeration equipment, commercial ice machines,
and water coolers, do not present significantly greater risk to human
health or the environment than other alternatives.
EPA is incorporating by reference portions of current editions of
the UL Standard 399, ``Standard for Drinking-Water Coolers''; UL
Standard 471, ``Standard for Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers'';
and UL Standard 563, ``Standard for Ice Makers'', which includes
requirements for the safe use of refrigerants. Specifically, these
standards are:
1. Supplement SB to UL Standard 399: Requirements for Drinking
Water Coolers Employing A Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating
System (7th Edition, August 22, 2008). This document establishes
requirements for self-contained drinking water coolers, including those
supplying cold and/or hot water and those employing flammable
refrigerants. The standard is available at http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=399, and 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://ulstandards.ul.com/ or
www.comm-2000.com. The cost of UL 399 is $798 for an electronic copy
and $998 for 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
this standard 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 standard being incorporated by reference is reasonably
available.
2. Supplement SB to UL Standard 471: Requirements for Refrigerators
and Freezers Employing A Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating
System (10th Edition, November 24, 2010). This document establishes
requirements for commercial refrigerators and freezers that employ a
refrigerant that has been identified as having flammable
characteristics. The standard is available at http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=471&edition=10&doctype=ulstd, and 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://ulstandards.ul.com/ or www.comm-2000.com. The cost of
UL 471 is $716 for an electronic copy and $897 for hardcopy. UL also
offers a subscription service to the SCCL that allows unlimited access
to their standards and related documents. The cost of obtaining this
standard 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
[[Page 86877]]
standard being incorporated by reference is reasonably available.
3. Supplement SA to UL Standard 563: Requirements for Ice Makers
Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigeration System (8th
Edition, July 31, 2009). This document establishes requirements for
automatic ice makers, including unitary and remote ice makers. The
standard is available at http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=563&edition=8&doctype=ulstd, and 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://ulstandards.ul.com/ or www.comm-2000.com. The cost of UL 563 is $716
for an electronic copy and $897 for hardcopy. UL also offers a
subscription service to the SCCL that allows unlimited access to their
standards and related documents. The cost of obtaining this standard 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 standard being
incorporated by reference is reasonably available.
EPA is also incorporating by reference the list of refrigerants
that ASHRAE designates as flammability Class 3 according to ASHRAE
Standard 34-2013, Designation and Safety Classification of
Refrigerants, in the unacceptability listing for certain highly
flammable refrigerants for use in existing residential and light
commercial split AC systems. This standard is available at https://
www.ashrae.org/resources--publications/bookstore/standards-15--34 and
may be purchased by mail at: 6300 Interfirst Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
48108; by telephone: 1-800-527-4723 in the U.S. or Canada; Internet
address: http://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/ashrae_standards.html?ashrae_auth_token=. The cost of ASHRAE Standard
34-2013 is $107 for an electronic or hardcopy. The cost of obtaining
this standard 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 ASHRAE standard being incorporated by reference is reasonably
available.
In addition, EPA is using standards from SAE in the use conditions
for HFO-1234yf. These standards are:
1. SAE J639: Safety Standards for Motor Vehicle Refrigerant Vapor
Compression Systems (revised December 19, 2011). This document
establishes safety standards for HFO-1234yf MVAC systems that include
unique fittings; a warning label indicating the refrigerant's identity
and that it is a flammable refrigerant; and requirements for
engineering design strategies that include a high-pressure compressor
cutoff switch and pressure relief devices. This standard is available
at http://standards.sae.org/j639_201112/.
2. SAE J1739 (adopted 2009): Potential Failure Mode and Effects
Analysis in Design (Design FMEA) and Potential Failure Mode and Effects
Analysis in Manufacturing and Assembly Processes (Process FMEA) and
Effects Analysis for Machinery (Machinery FMEA) (revised January 1,
2009). This standard describes potential FMEA in design and potential
FMEA in manufacturing and assembly processes. It requires manufacturers
of MVAC systems and vehicles to conduct a FMEA and assists users in the
identification and mitigation of risk by providing appropriate terms,
requirements, ranking charts, and worksheets. This standard is
available at http://standards.sae.org/j1739_200901/.
3. SAE J2844 (Revised October 2011): R-1234yf (HFO-1234yf) New
Refrigerant Purity and Container Requirements For Use in Mobile Air-
Conditioning Systems (revised October 2011). This standard sets purity
standards and describes container requirements, including fittings for
refrigerant cylinders. For connections with refrigerant containers for
use in professional servicing, use fittings must be consistent with SAE
J2844 (revised October 2011). This standard is available at http://standards.sae.org/j2844_201110/.
These standards may be purchased by mail at: SAE Customer Service,
400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001; by telephone: 1-877-
606-7323 in the United States or 724-776-4970 outside the United States
or in Canada. The cost of SAE J639, SAE J1739, and SAE 2844 is $74 each
for an electronic or hardcopy. The cost of obtaining these standards is
not a significant financial burden for manufacturers of MVAC systems
and purchase is not required for those selling, installing and
servicing the systems. Therefore, EPA concludes that the use of SAE
J639, SAE J1739, and SAE J2844 are reasonably available.
In addition, in today's rule, we are incorporating by reference a
standard that EPA already requires in a use condition for HFC-152a in
MVAC:
4. SAE J2773: Standard for Refrigerant Risk Analysis for Mobile Air
Conditioning Systems (revised February 4, 2011). This standard
describes methods to understand the risks associated with MVAC systems
in all aspects of a vehicle's lifecycle including design, production,
assembly, operation and end of life. This standard is available at
http://standards.sae.org/j2773_201102/ and may be purchased by mail at:
SAE Customer Service, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-
0001; by telephone: 1-877-606-7323 in the United States or 724-776-4970
outside the United States or in Canada. The cost of SAE J2773 is $74
for an electronic or hardcopy. The cost of obtaining this standard is
not a significant financial burden for manufacturers of MVAC systems
and purchase is not required for those selling, installing and
servicing the systems. Therefore, EPA concludes that the use of SAE
J2773 is reasonably available.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
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. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
the comparisons of toxicity for the various substitutes, as well as
risk screens for the substitutes that are listed as acceptable, subject
to use conditions, or are newly listed as
unacceptable.235 236 237 238 239 The risk screens are in the
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\235\ ICF, 2016c. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program:
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Water Coolers Substitute: Propane (R-290).
\236\ ICF, 2016d. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program:
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Substitute: Propane (R-290)
and Ethane (R-170).
\237\ ICF, 2016e. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program:
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Commercial Ice Machines Substitute: Propane (R-290).
\238\ ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps.
Substitute: R-443A.
\239\ ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Chillers and Cold Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R-
1270).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the
[[Page 86878]]
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
IX. References
Abt Associates, 2016. Review of propylene acute toxicity for R-443A
risk screen. Prepared for EPA. July 6, 2016.
A.S. Trust & Holdings, 2014. Response to Incompleteness Letter from
A.S. Trust & Holdings to EPA--Sent March 7, 2014
AHRI, 2012. ``Test Report #1: System Drop-in Test of R-410A
Alternative Fluid (ARM-32a, ARM-70a, DR-5, HPR1D, L-41a, L-41b, and
R-32) in a 5-RT Air Cooled Water Chiller (Cooling Mode).'' November
26, 2012. This document is accessible at http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/RESEARCH/AREP_Final_Reports/AHRI%20Low-GWP%20AREP-Rpt-001.pdf.
AHRI, 2014. Guideline N-2014 for Assignment of Refrigerant Container
Colors. This document is accessible online at http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/Guidelines/AHRI_Guideline_N_2014.pdf.
AHRI, 2016. ``AHRI, ASHRAE, DOE Partner to Fund Flammable
Refrigerant Research.'' June 2, 2016. This document is accessible at
http://www.ahrinet.org/News-Events/News-and-Shipping-Releases.aspx?A=1170.
AIRAH, 2013. Australian Institute of Refrigeration, Air Conditioning
and Heating. Safety Guide: Flammable Refrigerants. 2013. This
document is accessible at: http://www.unep.fr/ozonaction/information/mmcfiles/7681-e-FlammableRefrigerantsGuideAIRAH.pdf.
Airgas, 2015. Safety Data Sheet for Propylene.
Akerman, 2013. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change: Summaries of
Recent Scientific and Papers. 2013.
ANSI/International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration (IIAR)
Standard 2-2008 (Addendum B)--American National Standard for
Equipment, Design, & Installation of Closed Circuit Ammonia
Mechanical Refrigerating Systems
ASHRAE, 2013a. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013: Designation and Safety
Classification of Refrigerants.
ASHRAE, 2013b. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15-2013: Safety Standard for
Refrigeration Systems.
ASHRAE, 2014. 2014 Handbook--Refrigeration. The American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-conditioning Engineers, Inc.
Atlanta, Georgia, USA. ISBN 978-1-936504-71-8; ISSN 1930-7195.
Berg, M., S.R. Muller, J. Muhlemann, A. Wiedmer, and R.P.
Schwarzenbach: Concentrations and mass fluxes of chloroacetic acids
and trifluoroacetic acid in rain and natural waters in Switzerland.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 34, 2675-2683, 2000.
Blupura, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for R-290 in Water Coolers.
October, 2015.
Carrier, 2016. ``Carrier China Showcases latest Innovations at China
Refrigeration Expo.'' April 7, 2016. This document is accessible at
http://www.carrier.com/carrier/en/us/news/news-article/carrier_china_showcases_latest_innovations_at_china_refrigeration_expo.aspx.
Clayton Corporation, 2014. Re: Proposed SNAP Program Status Change
Rule Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198, comment submitted by
Clayton Corporation. October 20, 2014. Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0198-0133.
Clayton Corporation, 2015. Clayton Corporation Meeting with EPA
Stratospheric Protection Division, December 8, 2015.
Climaveneta, 2015. ``Against Global Warming with the NEW TECS2 HFO
Chillers.'' January 12, 2015. This document is accessible at http://www.climaveneta.com/EN/Media/Press-Releases/112.html.
Cooling Post, 2014. Trane first with 1233zd chiller, June 30, 2014.
This document is accessible at www.coolingpost.com/world-news/trane-first-with-1233zd-chiller/.
Cooling Post, 2015. ``Blue Box offers R1234ze chiller option.''
April 29, 2015. This document is accessible at http://www.coolingpost.com/world-news/blue-box-offers-r1234ze-chiller-option/.
Cooling Post, 2015. ``Chemours to build HFO-1336mzz plant,''
November 17, 2015. This document is accessible online at: http://www.coolingpost.com/world-news/chemours-to-build-hfo-1336mzz-plant/.
DOE, 2014. Building Energy Codes Program. Energy Efficiency
Standards for Federal Buildings. Available at: https://www.energycodes.gov/regulations/federal-building-standards. Last
updated February 13, 2014.
Doniger and Yurek, 2016. Doniger, David (NRDC) and Stephen Yurek
(AHRI), February 1, 2016. AHRI/NRDC Letter Regarding Chiller Actions
Under SNAP. Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663-0013.
DuPont, 2014. Re: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of
Listing Status for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program. Submitted by Michael Parr and Mack
McFarland, DuPont. October 17, 2014. Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0198-0077.
Ecomall, 2015. Greenfreeze: A Revolution in Domestic Refrigeration.
Accessible at: http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/greenfreeze.htm.
Engie Refrigeration, 2016. ``Quantum: Series and features of the
energy-efficient chiller series.'' This document is accessible at
https://www.engie-refrigeration.de/export/sites/cofelyrefrigeration/content/documents/ENG/Produkte/Quantum/ENG_Quantum_Folder.pdf.
EIA, 2015. Petition requesting EPA to modify the status under the
Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, of certain high-GWP
chemicals in various end-uses. Submitted October 6, 2015.
EPA, 2009a. Technical Support Document for Endangerment and Cause or
Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the
Clean Air Act. December, 2009. This document is accessible at:
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf.
EPA, 2009b. Risk Assessment: PMN 07-0601. Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0036.
EPA, 2013. Finding of Violation, issued to Enviro-Safe Refrigerants,
Inc. June, 2013. This document is accessible at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/mailfov_envirosafe_06112013.pdf.
EPA, 2015. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Rulemaking for
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--Phase 2. EPA-420-D-15-900. June
2015. Available at http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420d15900.pdf.
EPA, 2016a. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule.
March, 2016.
EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered in the
Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing Modifications
for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New Alternatives
Policy Program. September, 2016.
EPA, 2016c. A ``Cool'' Way to Combat Climate Change under the
Montreal Protocol. July 20, 2016. Available online at https://blog.epa.gov/blog/2016/07/a-cool-way-to-combat-climate-change/.
Eppendorf, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for R-170 and R-290 in Very
Low Temperature Refrigeration. May, 2015.
EU, 2014. Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and
repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006. Available online at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.150.01.0195.01.ENG.
FAA, 2002. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Minimum Performance
Standard for Hand-Held Extinguishers. This document is accessible
at: http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/01-37.pdf.
FAA, 2016. FAA Stratification and Localization of Halon 1211
Discharged in Occupied Aircraft Compartments (DOT/FAA/TC-14/50).
This document is accessible at: https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/TC-14-50.pdf.
Fomo, 2014. Comment Re: Proposed SNAP Program Status Change Rule
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198, submitted by Dr. Thomas
Fishback, Vice President, Research and Development, Fomo Products,
Inc. October 16, 2014. Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0139.
Fomo, 2015. ``The Use of Solstice[supreg] Gas Blowing Agent (GBA) in
Low-Pressure Spray Polyurethane Foam Applications,'' Cline, Mojee
and Bogdan, Mary, October, 2015. Polyurethane Industry Conference
2015.
FTOC, 2011. 2010 Report of the Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical
Options
[[Page 86879]]
Committee. This document is accessible at: http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/FTOC/FTOC-2010-Assessment-Report.pdf.
Geoclima, 2014. Geoclima Brochure. This document is accessible at
http://www.benndorf-hildebrand.eu/sites/default/files/fabrikate/pdf/geoclima_broschure.pdf.
Gradient, 2013. Additional Risk Assessment of Alternative
Refrigerant R-1234yf. Prepared by Gradient for SAE International
Cooperative Research Program 1234-4. July 24, 2013. The Executive
Summary of this document is accessible at: http://www.sae.org/standardsdev/tsb/cooperative/executivesummary.pdf.
Honeywell, 2014. Comments on Proposed Rule: Protection of
Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain
Substitutes under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
(Docket no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014- 0198). October 20, 2014. Docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0170.
Honeywell, 2016. Comments on Proposed Rule: Protection of
Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain
Substitutes under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
(Docket no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663). Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-
0663-0086.
Hossaini, et al., 2015. R. Hossaini, M. P. Chipperfield, S. A.
Montzka, A. Rap, S. Dhomse, W. Feng. Efficiency of short-lived
halogens at influencing climate through depletion of stratospheric
ozone. Nature Geoscience, February 16, 2015. This document is
accessible online at http://DOI:10.1038/ngeo2363.
HVACNews, 2016. ``Opteon Refrigerants Increasingly Selected by
Leading Global OEMs.'' January 25, 2016. http://hvacnews.com/2016/01/25/opteon-refrigerants-increasingly-selected-by-leading-global-oems/.
ICCT, 2015. International Council on Clean Transportation:
Regulatory Considerations for Advancing Commercial Pickup and Van
Efficiency Technology in the United States. Available online at:
http://www.theicct.org/us-commercial-pickups-vans-efficiency-technology.
ICF, 2008. Air-Conditioning Refrigerant Charge Size to Passenger
Compartment Volume Ratio Analysis. Confidential Memorandum Prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008.
ICF, 2009a. Revised Final Draft Assessment of the Potential Impacts
of HFO-1234yf and the Associated Production of TFA on Aquatic
Communities and Local Air Quality.
ICF, 2009b. Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC-12 in Motor Vehicle
Air Conditioning: Substitute: HFO-1234yf. This document is
accessible at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0664-0038.
ICF, 2010a. Summary of HFO-1234yf Emissions Assumptions.
ICF, 2010b. Summary of Updates to the Vintaging Model that Impacted
HFO-1234yf Emissions Estimates.
ICF, 2010c. Revised Assessment of the Potential Impacts of HFO-
1234yf and the Associated Production of TFA on Aquatic Communities,
Soil and Plants, and Local Air Quality.
ICF, 2010d. Sensitivity Analysis CMAQ results on projected maximum
TFA rainwater concentrations and maximum 8-hr ozone concentrations.
ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon
Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014.
ICF, 2014b. Risk Screen on Substitutes for HCFC-22 in Residential
and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps; Substitute:
Propane (R-290).
ICF, 2014c. Risk Screen on Substitutes for HCFC-22 in Residential
and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps; Substitute: R-
441A.
ICF, 2015. Market Characterization of the U.S. Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioning Industry, U.S. Foams Industry, U.S. Aerosols Industry,
and U.S. Commercial Refrigeration Industry. July, 2015.
ICF, 2016a. Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing
Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression. September, 2016.
ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory
Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression.
September, 2016.
ICF, 2016c. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program:
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Water Coolers Substitute: Propane (R-290).
ICF, 2016d. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program:
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Substitute: Propane (R-290)
and Ethane (R-170).
ICF, 2016e. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program:
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Commercial Ice Machines Substitute: Propane (R-290).
ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps.
Substitute: R-443A.
ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Chillers and Cold Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R-
1270)
ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire Suppression, Comfort
Cooling, Cold Storage, Refrigerated Food Processing and Dispensing
Equipment, and Household Refrigeration Industries in the United
States. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
February, 2016.
ICF, 2016i. Technical Support Document for Acceptability Listing of
HFO-1234yf for Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning in Limited Heavy-Duty
Applications.
ICF, 2016j. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. Fire
Extinguishing and Explosion Prevention Sector. Risk Screen on
Substitutes as a Streaming Agent in Civil Aviation Applications.
Substitute: 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP).
ICF, 2016k. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. Fire
Extinguishing and Explosion Prevention Sector. Risk Screen on
Substitutes for Total Flooding Systems in Unoccupied Spaces.
Substitute: 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP).
ICF, 2016l. Additional Follow-on Assessment of the Potential Impact
of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations.
September, 2016.
ICF, 2016m. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Chillers Substitute: HFO-
1336mzz(Z)/trans-1,2-dichloroethylene blend (74.7/25.3)
(OpteonTM XP30).
INCHEM, 1996. International Programme on Chemical Safety.
Environmental Health Criteria 164. Methylene chloride, second
edition. World Health Organization, 1996. This document is
accessible online at: http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc164.htm.
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.
IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables [Prather, M.,
G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J.-F. Lamarque, H. Liao and
P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker,
T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A.
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
This document is accessible at: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/.
IPCC/TEAP, 2005. Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and
the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and
Perfluorocarbons. Cambridge Univ Press, New York. This document is
accessible at: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/sroc_full.pdf.
JARN, 2015a. First Carrier AquaForce Chillers using HFO-1234ze, July
30, 2015. This document is accessible at: http://www.ejarn.com/news.aspx?ID=35619.
JARN, 2015b. Trane Exhibits First Air-cooled Chiller with Climate-
friendly Refrigerant
[[Page 86880]]
DR-55, September 21, 2015. This document is accessible at:
www.ejarn.com/news.aspx?ID=36282.
Johnson Controls, 2016. ``Johnson Controls Advances Environmental
Sustainability with Chiller Platforms Compatible with Low GWP
Refrigerants.'' January 20, 2016. http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/media-center/news/press-releases/2016/01/20/advanced-environmental-sustainability-with-chiller-platforms-compatible-with-low-gwp-refrigerants.
Kazil et al., 2014. Deposition and rainwater concentrations of
trifluoroacetic acid in the United States from the use of HFO-
1234yf. JGR-Atmospheres, 2014.
Luecken et al., 2009. Ozone and TFA impacts in North America from
degradation of 2, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf), a
potential greenhouse gas replacement. Environmental Science &
Technology 2009. The document is accessible at: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Waterland/publication/40481734_Ozone_and_TFA_impacts_in_North_America_from_degradation_of_2333-Tetrafluoropropene_(HFO-
1234yf)_a_potential_greenhouse_gas_replacement/links/
00b7d514ca9595bf5e000000.pdf.
Kontomaris et. al., 2010. ``A Non-Flammable, Reduced GWP, HFC-134a
Replacement in Centrifugal Chillers: DR-11.'' This document is
accessible at http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2021&context=iracc.
Manitowoc, 2015. SNAP Information Notice, September, 2013. EPA SNAP
Submittal--Revision to Extend R-290 Use to Commercial Ice Machines,
Manitowoc Ice, Inc. October, 2015.
Manitowoc, 2016. ``Icecore Remote Refrigeration Units.'' This
document is accessible at http://www.manitowocbeverage.com/asset/?id=bkbkf®ions=us&prefLang=en.
McDonald's 2004. ``Cool: The world's first HFC-free McDonald's
restaurant.'' This document is accessible at http://www.unep.fr/ozonaction/information/mmcfiles/4256-e-mcdonalds.pdf.
MHI, 2015. ``MHI Develops `ETI-Z Series' of Next-generation
Centrifugal Chiller--Adopt New Non-ozone-depleting Refrigeration to
Minimize Greenhouse Gas Emissions.'' June 10, 2015. This document is
accessible at www.mhi-global.com/news/story/1506101900.html.
Mitsubishi, 2012. ``Deployment to New Series of `eco Turbo chiller
ETI series.''' This document is accessible at http://www.mhi.co.jp/technology/review/pdf/491/491058.pdf.
Montzka, 2012. HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations, Emissions and
Impacts. ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012. This document is accessible
at: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/papers/montzka/2012_pubs/Montzka_ASHRAE_2012.pdf.
NRDC/IGSD, 2015. Petition for Change of Status of HFCs under Clean
Air Act Section 612 (Significant New Alternatives Policy). Submitted
October 6, 2015.
ORNL, 2015. ORNL's JUMP Challenge: JUMP in to Advance Tech
Innovation! Presented by Brian Fricke, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory. November 17, 2015.
Pandian et al., 1998. ``Correcting Errors in the Nationwide Data
Base of Residential Air Exchange Rates.'' Journal of Exposure
Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, Vol. 8, No. 4, 577-585,
1998.
Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ``Atmospheric Lifetimes and Ozone
Depletion Potentials of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trichloropropylene and
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional model.'' Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 10, 10867-10874, 2010.
Patten et al., 2012. Correction to ``OH reaction rate constant, IR
absorption spectrum, ozone depletion potentials and global warming
potentials of 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene,'' J. Geophys. Res.,
117, D22301, doi:10.1029/2012JD019051.
RAC, 2012. ``Klima-Therm discusses world's first HFO chiller for
Waitrose.'' January 10, 2012. This document is accessible online at
http://www.racplus.com/features/klima-therm-discusses-worlds-first-hfo-chiller-for-waitrose/8624689.article.
RAC, 2016. ``Carrier opts for HFO 1234ze refrigerants for global
chiller range.'' February 26, 2016. This document is accessible at
http://www.racplus.com/news/carrier-opts-for-hfo-1234ze-refrigerants-for-global-chiller-range/10003440.article?blocktitle=News&contentID=15773.
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. Available online at
http://www.ciesin.org/docs/011-552/011-552.html.
RC Group, 2016. ``Unico Turbo Air Cooled Liquid Chiller.'' This
document is accessible at http://www.rcgroup.it/EN/Prodotti/?idP=1563.
RTOC, 2015. 2014 Report of the Refrigeration, Air-Conditioning and
Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee. This document is accessible
at: http://ozone.unep.org/sites/ozone/files/documents/RTOC-Assessment-Report-2014.pdf.
SAE, 2013. SAE International Cooperative Research Project CRP1234-4
on R-1234yf Safety, Finishes Work and Presents Conclusions. This
document is accessible at: http://www.sae.org/servlets/pressRoom?OBJECT_TYPE=PressReleases&PAGE=showRelease&RELEASE_ID=2146.
Sleasman, K. and Biggs, M., 2015. Lessons learned from the Federal
Partners Workgroup on Spray Polyurethane Foam (SPF), presented at
the Center for the Polyurethanes Industry Technical Conference,
October, 2015.
SMARDT, 2016. ``Revolutionary Energy Savings for the Built
Environment'', ``Trendsetting Technologies for Centrifugal
Chillers.'' These documents are available at http://climatecontrolme.com/2013/12/trendsetting-technologies-for-centrifugal-chillers/and http://www.smardt.com/docs/SMARDT%20BROCHURE%20ENGLISH%20JAN%202016.pdf.
Star Refrigeration, 2012. ``Star's Three-Way Development Test for R-
1234ze(E).'' July 2012. This document is accessible at http://www.star-ref.co.uk/star/images/stories/pdf/Case%20Study%20No%2082%20-%20Refrigerant%20R-1234ze.pdf.
TEAP, 2013. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel,
Volume 2: Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report, Additional Information
on Alternatives to ODS. September, 2013. This document is accessible
at: http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/TEAP_Reports/TEAP_TaskForce%20XXIV-7-September2013.pdf.
TEAP, 2015. 2014 Assessment Report of the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel. This document is accessible at: http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/oewg/oewg-36/presession/Background%20Documents%20are%20available%20in%20English%20only/TEAP_Assessment_report_2014.pdf.
TEAP/HTOC, 2015. 2014 Report of the Halons Technical Options
Committee (Vol. 1). This document is accessible at: http://ozone.unep.org/en/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/HTOC/HTOC%202014%20Assessment%20Report.pdf.
The NEWS, 2014. ``Airedale Chiller with Low-GWP HFO Refrigerant to
Cool New John Lewis Store.'' June 9, 2014. This document is
accessible at http://www.achrnews.com/articles/126828-airedale-chiller-with-low-gwp-hfo-refrigerant-to-cool-new-john-lewis-store.
Trane, 2016. ``Trane Announces Significant Centrifugal Chiller Line
Expansion and Services for the United States and Canada.'' June 15,
2016. This document is accessible at http://www.trane.com/commercial/north-america/us/en/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/centrifugal-chiller-line-expansion.html.
The White House, 2013. President's Climate Action Plan. This
document is accessible at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf.
The White House, 2015. Fact Sheet: Obama Administration and Private-
Sector Leaders Announce Ambitious Commitments and Robust Progress to
Address Potent Greenhouse Gases, October 15, 2015. Accessible at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/15/fact-sheet-obama-administration-and-private-sector-leaders-announce.
Trane, 2015. Trane[supreg] Sintesis\TM\ Air-cooled Chillers. This
document is accessible at: http://www.trane.com/content/dam/Trane/Commercial/global/products-systems/equipment/chillers/air-cooled/TRANE_Sintesis_Brochure.pdf.
UL, 2004. Standard 711--Rating and Testing of Fire Extinguishers.
This document is accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=711_7.
UL, 2005. Standard 2129--Halocarbon Clean Agent Fire Extinguishers.
This document
[[Page 86881]]
is accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=2129_2.
UL, 2008. Standard 399--Standard for Drinking-Water Coolers. 7th
edition. Supplement SB: Requirements for Room Air Conditioners
Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System.
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. August 22, 2008.A summary of this
document is accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=399_7.
UL, 2009. Standard 563--Standard for Ice Makers. 8th edition.
Supplement SA: Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers Employing
a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc. July 31, 2009.A summary of this document is
accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=563.
UL, 2010. Standard 471--Standard for 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.A summary of this document is accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=471_10.
UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the
Ozone Layer, A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This document
is accessible at: www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/pdf/HFC_report.pdf.
UNEP, 2013. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel,
Volume 2: Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report, Additional Information
on Alternatives to ODS. September, 2013.
UTC, 2016. Comments on Proposed Rule: Protection of Stratospheric
Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes under the
Significant New Alternatives Policy Program (Docket no. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0663). Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663-0069.
Velders, G. J. M., D. W. Fahey, J. S. Daniel, M. McFarland, S. O.
Andersen (2015). ``Future atmospheric abundances and climate
forcings from scenarios of global and regional hydrofluorocarbon
(HFC) emissions.'' Atmospheric Environment 123: 200-209.
Velders, G. J. M., D. W. Fahey, J. S. Daniel, M. McFarland, S. O.
Andersen (2009). ``The large contribution of projected HFC emissions
to future climate forcing.'' Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences USA 106: 10949-10954.
Wallington, T. J., J. J. Orlando and G. S. Tyndall, O. J. Nielsen:
Comment on ``Airborne Trifluoroacetic Acid and Its Fraction from the
Degradation of HFC-134a in Beijing, China'', Environ. Sci. Technol.,
48, 9948-9948, DOI: 10.1021/es502485w, 2014.
Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. ``Preliminary Report: Analyses
of tCFP's Potential Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.'' Department of
Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. September
26, 2011.
Wickham, 2002. Status of Industry Efforts to Replace Halon Fire
Extinguishing Agents. March, 2002.
Wu, J., J. Martin, Z. Zhai, K. Lu, L. Li, X. Fang, H. Jin, J. Hu,
and J. Zhang. Airborne trifluoroacetic acid and its fraction from
the degradation of HFC-134a in Beijing, China. Environ. Sci.
Technol., 10.1021/es4050264, 2014.
Zhai Z., J. Wu, X. Hu, L. Li, L. Guo, B. Zhang, J. Hu, and J. Zhang:
A 17-fold increase of trifluoroacetic acid in landscape waters of
Beijing, China during the last decade, Chemosphere, 129, 110-117,
2015.
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: September 26, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part
82 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 revising the introductory text to paragraph
(a)(1) and paragraph (a)(1)(viii) to read as follows:
Sec. 82.154 Prohibitions.
(a) * * * (1) No person maintaining, servicing, repairing, or
disposing of an appliance or industrial process refrigeration may
knowingly vent or otherwise release into the environment any
refrigerant from such appliances. Notwithstanding any other provision
of this subpart, the following substitutes in the following end-uses
are exempt from this prohibition and from the requirements of this
subpart:
* * * * *
(viii) Propane (R-290) in retail food refrigerators and freezers
(stand-alone units only); household refrigerators, freezers, and
combination refrigerators and freezers; self-contained room air
conditioners for residential and light commercial air-conditioning and
heat pumps; vending machines; and effective January 3, 2017, self-
contained commercial ice machines, very low temperature refrigeration
equipment, and water coolers;
* * * * *
Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
0
3. In appendix B to subpart G of part 82, the table titled
``Refrigerants--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions'' is amended by:
0
a. Revising the fifth entry;
0
b. Adding three entries at the end; and
0
c. Revising the NOTE following footnote 3.
The revisions and additions to read as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 82--Substitutes Subject to Use
Restrictions and Unacceptable Substitutes
[[Page 86882]]
Refrigerants--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
CFC-12 Automobile Motor R-152a as a Acceptable Engineering Additional training
Vehicle Air Conditioning (New substitute for subject to use strategies and/or for service
equipment only). CFC-12. conditions. devices shall be technicians
incorporated into recommended.
the system such that Manufacturers should
foreseeable leaks conduct and keep on
into the passenger file failure mode
compartment do not and Effect Analysis
result in R-152a (FMEA) on the MVAC
concentrations of as stated in SAE
3.7% v/v or above in J1739.
any part of the free
space1inside the
passenger
compartment for more
than 15 seconds when
the car ignition is
on.
Manufacturers must
adhere to all the
safety requirements
listed in the
Society of
Automotive Engineers
(SAE) Standard J639
(adopted 2011),
including unique
fittings and a
flammable
refrigerant warning
label as well as SAE
Standard J2773
(adopted February
2011).
* * * * * * *
Motor vehicle air conditioning HFO-1234yf...... Acceptable As of January 3, Additional training
(newly manufactured medium- subject to use 2017:. for service
duty passenger vehicles). conditions. (1) HFO-1234yf MVAC technicians
systems must adhere recommended.
to all of the safety HFO-1234yf is also
requirements of SAE known as 2,3,3,3-
J639 (adopted 2011), tetrafluoro-prop-1-
including ene (CAS. Reg. No.
requirements for a 754-12-1).
flammable
refrigerant warning
label, high-pressure
compressor cutoff
switch and pressure
relief devices, and
unique fittings. For
connections with
refrigerant
containers for use
in professional
servicing, use
fittings must be
consistent with SAE
J2844 (revised
October 2011).
(2) Manufacturers
must conduct Failure
Mode and Effect
Analysis (FMEA) as
provided in SAE
J1739 (adopted
2009). Manufacturers
must keep the FMEA
on file for at least
three years from the
date of creation.
Motor vehicle air conditioning HFO-1234yf...... Acceptable As of January 3, Additional training
(newly manufactured heavy- subject to use 2017:. for service
duty pickup trucks). conditions. (1) HFO-1234yf MVAC technicians
systems must adhere recommended.
to all of the safety HFO-1234yf is also
requirements of SAE known as 2,3,3,3-
J639 (adopted 2011), tetrafluoro-prop-1-
including ene (CAS No 754-12-
requirements for a 1).
flammable
refrigerant warning
label, high-pressure
compressor cutoff
switch and pressure
relief devices, and
unique fittings. For
connections with
refrigerant
containers for use
in professional
servicing, use
fittings must be
consistent with SAE
J2844 (revised
October 2011).
(2) Manufacturers
must conduct Failure
Mode and Effect
Analysis (FMEA) as
provided in SAE
J1739 (adopted
2009). Manufacturers
must keep the FMEA
on file for at least
three years from the
date of creation.
Motor vehicle air conditioning HFO-1234yf...... Acceptable As of January 3, Additional training
(newly manufactured complete subject to use 2017:. for service
heavy-duty vans only). conditions. (1) HFO-1234yf MVAC technicians
systems must adhere recommended.
to all of the safety HFO-1234yf is also
requirements of SAE known as 2,3,3,3-
J639 (adopted 2011), tetrafluoro-prop-1-
including ene (CAS No 754-12-
requirements for a 1).
flammable HFO-1234yf is
refrigerant warning acceptable for
label, high-pressure complete heavy-duty
compressor cutoff vans. Complete heavy-
switch and pressure duty vans are not
relief devices, and altered by a
unique fittings. For secondary or
connections with tertiary
refrigerant manufacturer.
containers for use
in professional
servicing, use
fittings must be
consistent with SAE
J2844 (revised
October 2011).
(2) Manufacturers
must conduct Failure
Mode and Effect
Analysis (FMEA) as
provided in SAE
J1739 (adopted
2009). Manufacturers
must keep the FMEA
on file for at least
three years from the
date of creation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 86883]]
* * * * *
Note 1: The Director of the Federal Register approves the
incorporation by reference of the material under ``Conditions'' in
the table ``REFRIGERANTS--ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS'' (5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51). You may obtain a copy from SAE
Customer Service, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001
USA; email: [email protected]; Telephone: 1-877-606-7323 (U.S.
and Canada only) or 1-724-776-4970 (outside the U.S. and Canada);
Internet address: http://store.sae.org/dlabout.htm. You may inspect
a copy at U.S. EPA's Air 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 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.
* * * * *
0
4. Appendix K to subpart G of part 82 is revised to read as follows:
Appendix K to Subpart G of Part 82--Substitutes Subject to Use
Restrictions and Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in the July 22, 2002,
Final Rule Effective August 21, 2002
Foam Blowing--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacements for HCFC-141b in the HCFC-22, HCFC-142b and Unacceptable Closed Alternatives exist with
following rigid polyurethane/ blends thereof. cell foam products and lower or zero-ODP.
polyisocyanurate applications:. products containing
--Boardstock......................... closed cell foams
--Appliance.......................... manufactured with
--Spray.............................. these substitutes on
or before December 1,
2017 may be used after
that date.
All foam end-uses.................... HCFC-124............... Unacceptable Closed Alternatives exist with
cell foam products and lower or zero-ODP.
products containing
closed cell foams
manufactured with this
substitute on or
before December 1,
2017 may be used after
that date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
5. Appendix M to subpart G of part 82 is revised to read as follows:
Appendix M to Subpart G--Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in the
September 30, 2004 Final Rule, Effective November 29, 2004
Foam Blowing--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All foam end-uses: HCFC-141b.............. Unacceptable Closed Alternatives exist with
--rigid polyurethane and cell foam products and lower or zero-ODP.
polyisocyanurate laminated products containing
boardstock closed cell foams
--rigid polyurethane appliance manufactured with this
--rigid polyurethane spray and substitute on or
commercial refrigeration, and before December 1,
sandwich panels 2017 may be used after
that date.
--rigid polyurethane slabstock
and other foams
--polystyrene extruded insulation
boardstock and billet.
--phenolic insulation board and
bunstock.
--flexible polyurethane..........
--polystyrene extruded sheet.....
--Except for: \1\................
--space vehicle..................
--nuclear........................
--defense........................
--research and development for
foreign customers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Exemptions for specific applications are identified in the list of acceptable substitutes, which is
available on the SNAP Web site at: https://www.epa.gov/snap/foam-blowing-agents.
0
6. Appendix O to subpart G of part 82 is amended by revising the table
titled ``Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection Sector-Total
Flooding Substitutes-Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions'' to read as
follows:
Appendix O to Subpart G of Part 82--Substitutes Listed in the September
27, 2006 Final Rule, Effective November 27, 2006
[[Page 86884]]
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection Sector--Total Flooding Substitutes--Acceptable Subject to Use
Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Conditions Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total flooding................ Gelled Acceptable Use of whichever Use of this agent
Halocarbon/Dry subject to use hydrofluorocarbon should be in
Chemical conditions. gas (HFC-125, HFC- accordance with the
Suspension 227ea, or HFC-236fa) safety guidelines in
(Envirogel) is employed in the the latest edition
with sodium formulation must be of the NFPA 2001
bicarbonate in accordance with Standard for Clean
additive. all requirements for Agent Fire
acceptability (i.e., Extinguishing
narrowed use limits) Systems, for
of that HFC under whichever
EPA's SNAP program. hydrofluorocarbon
gas is employed, and
the latest edition
of the NFPA 2010
standard for Aerosol
Extinguishing
Systems.
Sodium bicarbonate
release in all
settings should be
targeted so that
increased blood pH
level would not
adversely affect
exposed individuals.
Users should provide
special training,
including the
potential hazards
associated with the
use of the HFC agent
and sodium
bicarbonate, to
individuals required
to be in
environments
protected by
Envirogel with
sodium bicarbonate
additive
extinguishing
systems.
Each extinguisher
should be clearly
labeled with the
potential hazards
from use and safe
handling procedures.
See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4,
5.
Total flooding................ Powdered Aerosol Acceptable For use only in Use of this agent
E subject to use normally unoccupied should be in
(FirePro[supreg conditions. areas. accordance with the
]). safety guidelines in
the latest edition
of the NFPA 2010
standard for Aerosol
Extinguishing
Systems.
For establishments
manufacturing the
agent or filling,
installing, or
servicing containers
or systems to be
used in total
flooding
applications, EPA
recommends the
following:
--adequate
ventilation should
be in place to
reduce airborne
exposure to
constituents of
agent;
--an eye wash
fountain and quick
drench facility
should be close to
the production area;
--training for safe
handling procedures
should be provided
to all employees
that would be likely
to handle containers
of the agent or
extinguishing units
filled with the
agent;
--workers responsible
for clean up should
allow for maximum
settling of all
particulates before
reentering area and
wear appropriate
protective
equipment; and
--all spills should
be cleaned up
immediately in
accordance with good
industrial hygiene
practices.
See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4,
5.
Total flooding................ Phosphorous Acceptable For use only in For establishments
Tribromide subject to use aircraft engine manufacturing the
(PBr3). conditions. nacelles. agent or filling,
installing, or
servicing containers
or systems, EPA
recommends the
following:
--adequate
ventilation should
be in place and/or
positive pressure,
self-contained
breathing apparatus
(SCBA) should be
worn;
--training for
safe handling
procedures should
be provided to
all employees
that would be
likely to handle
containers of the
agent or
extinguishing
units filled with
the agent; and
--all spills
should be cleaned
up immediately in
accordance with
good industrial
hygiene
practices.
See additional
comments 1, 2, 3,
4, 5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional comments:
1--Should conform to relevant OSHA requirements, including 29 CFR 1910, Subpart L, Sections 1910.160 and
1910.162.
2--Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) should be available in the event personnel should reenter the
area.
3--Discharge testing should be strictly limited to that which is essential to meet safety or performance
requirements.
4--The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and
recycled for later use or destroyed.
5--EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal protective
equipment (e.g., respiratory protection), fire protection, hazard communication, worker training or any other
occupational safety and health standard with respect to halon substitutes.
[[Page 86885]]
0
7. Appendix Q to subpart G of part 82 is revised to read as follows:
Appendix Q to Subpart G of Part 82--Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in
the March 28, 2007 Final Rule, Effective May 29, 2007
Foam Blowing Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Rigid polyurethane commercial HCFC-22, HCFC-142b as Unacceptable \1\........... Alternatives exist
refrigeration. substitutes for HCFC- Closed cell foam products with lower or zero-
--Rigid polyurethane sandwich 141b. and products containing ODP.
panels. closed cell foams
--Rigid polyurethane slabstock and manufactured with these
other foams. substitutes on or before
December 1, 2017 may be
used after that date.
--Rigid polyurethane and HCFC-22, HCFC-142b as Unacceptable \2\........... Alternatives exist
polyisocyanurate laminated substitutes for CFCs. Closed cell foam products with lower or zero-
boardstock. and products containing ODP.
--Rigid polyurethane appliance..... closed cell foams
--Rigid polyurethane spray and manufactured with these
commercial refrigeration, and substitutes on or before
sandwich panels. December 1, 2017 may be
--Rigid polyurethane slabstock and used after that date.
other foams.
--Polystyrene extruded insulation
boardstock and billet.
--Phenolic insulation board and
bunstock.
--Flexible polyurethane............
--Polystyrene extruded sheet.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as of November 4, 2005 other than in marine applications, the
unacceptability determination is effective on March 1, 2008; for existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as of
November 4, 2005 in marine applications, including marine flotation foam, the unacceptability determination is
effective on September 1, 2009. For an existing user of HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b that currently operates in only
one facility that it does not own, and is scheduled to transition to a non-ODS, flammable alternative to
coincide with a move to a new facility and installation of new process equipment that cannot be completed by
March 1, 2008, the unacceptability determination is effective January 1, 2010.
\2\ For existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in polystyrene extruded insulation boardstock and billet and the
other foam end-uses, as of November 4, 2005, the unacceptability determination is effective on January 1,
2010.
0
8. Appendix U to subpart G of part 82 is amended by revising the tables
titled ``Foam Blowing Agents--Substitutes Acceptable Subject to
Narrowed Use Limits'' and ``Unacceptable Substitutes'' to read as
follows:
Appendix U to Subpart G of Part 82--Unacceptable Substitutes and
Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions Listed in the July 20, 2015
Final Rule, Effective August 19, 2015
* * * * *
Foam Blowing Agents--Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Narrowed use limits Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigid Polyurethane: Appliance. HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Acceptable from Users are required to
245fa, HFC- Subject to January 1, 2020, document and retain
365mfc and Narrowed Use until January 1, the results of their
blends thereof; Limits. 2022, in military technical
Formacel TI, applications and investigation of
and Formacel Z- until January 1, alternatives for the
6. 2025, in space- and purpose of
aeronautics-related demonstrating
applications where compliance.
reasonable efforts Information should
have been made to include descriptions
ascertain that other of:
alternatives are not Process or
technically feasible product in which the
due to performance substitute is
or safety needed;
requirements. Substitutes
Closed cell foam examined and
products and rejected;
products containing Reason for
closed cell foams rejection of other
manufactured with alternatives, e.g.,
these substitutes on performance,
or before January 1, technical or safety
2022, for military standards; and/or
applications or on Anticipated
and before January date other
1, 2025, in space- substitutes will be
and aeronautics- available and
related projected time for
applications, may be switching.
used after those
dates.
Rigid Polyurethane: Commercial HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Acceptable from Users are required to
Refrigeration and Sandwich 245fa, HFC- Subject to January 1, 2020, document and retain
Panels. 365mfc, and Narrowed Use until January 1, the results of their
blends thereof; Limits. 2022, in military technical
Formacel TI, applications and investigation of
and Formacel Z- until January 1, alternatives for the
6. 2025, in space- and purpose of
aeronautics-related demonstrating
applications where compliance.
reasonable efforts Information should
have been made to include descriptions
ascertain that other of:
alternatives are not Process or
technically feasible product in which the
due to performance substitute is
or safety needed;
requirements. Substitutes
Closed cell foam examined and
products and rejected;
products containing Reason for
closed cell foams rejection of other
manufactured with alternatives, e.g.,
these substitutes on performance,
or before January 1, technical or safety
2022, for military standards; and/or
applications or on Anticipated
and before January date other
1, 2025, in space- substitutes will be
and aeronautics- available and
related projected time for
applications, may be switching.
used after those
dates.
[[Page 86886]]
Flexible Polyurethane......... HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Acceptable from Users are required to
245fa, HFC- Subject to January 1, 2017, document and retain
365mfc, and Narrowed Use until January 1, the results of their
blends thereof. Limits. 2022, in military technical
applications and investigation of
until January 1, alternatives for the
2025, in space- and purpose of
aeronautics-related demonstrating
applications where compliance.
reasonable efforts Information should
have been made to include descriptions
ascertain that other of:
alternatives are not Process or
technically feasible product in which the
due to performance substitute is
or safety needed;
requirements. Substitutes
examined and
rejected;
Reason for
rejection of other
alternatives, e.g.,
performance,
technical or safety
standards; and/or
Anticipated
date other
substitutes will be
available and
projected time for
switching.
Rigid Polyurethane: Slabstock HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Acceptable from Users are required to
and Other. 245fa, HFC- Subject to January 1, 2019, document and retain
365mfc and Narrowed Use until January 1, the results of their
blends thereof; Limits. 2022, in military technical
Formacel TI, applications and investigation of
and Formacel Z- until January 1, alternatives for the
6. 2025, in space- and purpose of
aeronautics-related demonstrating
applications where compliance.
reasonable efforts Information should
have been made to include descriptions
ascertain that other of:
alternatives are not Process or
technically feasible product in which the
due to performance substitute is
or safety needed;
requirements. Substitutes
Closed cell foam examined and
products and rejected;
products containing Reason for
closed cell foams rejection of other
manufactured with alternatives, e.g.,
these substitutes on performance,
or before January 1, technical or safety
2022, for military standards; and/or
applications or on Anticipated
and before January date other
1, 2025, in space- substitutes will be
and aeronautics- available and
related projected time for
applications, may be switching.
used after those
dates.
Rigid Polyurethane and HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Acceptable from Users are required to
Polyisocyanurate Laminated 245fa, HFC- Subject to January 1, 2017, document and retain
Boardstock. 365mfc and Narrowed Use until January 1, the results of their
blends thereof. Limits. 2022, in military technical
applications and investigation of
until January 1, alternatives for the
2025, in space- and purpose of
aeronautics-related demonstrating
applications where compliance.
reasonable efforts Information should
have been made to include descriptions
ascertain that other of:
alternatives are not Process or
technically feasible product in which the
due to performance substitute is
or safety needed;
requirements. Substitutes
Closed cell foam examined and
products and rejected;
products containing Reason for
closed cell foams rejection of other
manufactured with alternatives, e.g.,
these substitutes on performance,
or before January 1, technical or safety
2022, for military standards; and/or
applications or on Anticipated
and before January date other
1, 2025, in space- substitutes will be
and aeronautics- available and
related projected time for
applications, may be switching.
used after those
dates.
Rigid Polyurethane: Marine HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Acceptable from Users are required to
Flotation Foam. 245fa, HFC- Subject to January 1, 2020, document and retain
365mfc and Narrowed Use until January 1, the results of their
blends thereof; Limits. 2022, in military technical
Formacel TI, applications and investigation of
and Formacel Z- until January 1, alternatives for the
6. 2025, in space- and purpose of
aeronautics-related demonstrating
applications where compliance.
reasonable efforts Information should
have been made to include descriptions
ascertain that other of:
alternatives are not Process or
technically feasible product in which the
due to performance substitute is
or safety needed;
requirements. Substitutes
Closed cell foam examined and
products and rejected;
products containing Reason for
closed cell foams rejection of other
manufactured with alternatives, e.g.,
these substitutes on performance,
or before January 1, technical or safety
2022, for military standards; and/or
applications or on Anticipated
and before January date other
1, 2025, in space- substitutes will be
and aeronautics- available and
related projected time for
applications, may be switching.
used after those
dates.
Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet... HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Acceptable from Users are required to
245fa, HFC- Subject to January 1, 2017, document and retain
365mfc, and Narrowed Use until January 1, the results of their
blends thereof; Limits. 2022, in military technical
Formacel TI, applications and investigation of
and Formacel Z- until January 1, alternatives for the
6. 2025, in space- and purpose of
aeronautics-related demonstrating
applications where compliance.
reasonable efforts Information should
have been made to include descriptions
ascertain that other of:
alternatives are not Process or
technically feasible product in which the
due to performance substitute is
or safety needed;
requirements. Substitutes
Closed cell foam examined and
products and rejected;
products containing Reason for
closed cell foams rejection of other
manufactured with alternatives, e.g.,
these substitutes on performance,
or before January 1, technical or safety
2022, for military standards; and/or
applications or on Anticipated
and before January date other
1, 2025, in space- substitutes will be
and aeronautics- available and
related projected time for
applications, may be switching.
used after those
dates.
[[Page 86887]]
Polystyrene: Extruded HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Acceptable from Users are required to
Boardstock and Billet. 245fa, HFC- Subject to January 1, 2021, document and retain
365mfc, and Narrowed Use until January 1, the results of their
blends thereof; Limits. 2022, in military technical
Formacel TI, applications and investigation of
Formacel B, and until January 1, alternatives for the
Formacel Z-6. 2025, in space- and purpose of
aeronautics-related demonstrating
applications where compliance.
reasonable efforts Information should
have been made to include descriptions
ascertain that other of:
alternatives are not Process or
technically feasible product in which the
due to performance substitute is
or safety needed;
requirements. Substitutes
Closed cell foam examined and
products and rejected;
products containing Reason for
closed cell foams rejection of other
manufactured with alternatives, e.g.,
these substitutes on performance,
or before January 1, technical or safety
2022, for military standards; and/or
applications or on Anticipated
and before January date other
1, 2025, in space- substitutes will be
and aeronautics- available and
related projected time for
applications, may be switching.
used after those
dates.
Integral Skin Polyurethane.... HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Acceptable from Users are required to
245fa, HFC- Subject to January 1, 2017, document and retain
365mfc, and Narrowed Use until January 1, the results of their
blends thereof; Limits. 2022, in military technical
Formacel TI, applications and investigation of
and Formacel Z- until January 1, alternatives for the
6. 2025, in space- and purpose of
aeronautics-related demonstrating
applications where compliance.
reasonable efforts Information should
have been made to include descriptions
ascertain that other of:
alternatives are not Process or
technically feasible product in which the
due to performance substitute is
or safety needed;
requirements. Substitutes
examined and
rejected;
Reason for
rejection of other
alternatives, e.g.,
performance,
technical or safety
standards; and/or
Anticipated
date other
substitutes will be
available and
projected time for
switching.
Polyolefin.................... HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Acceptable from Users are required to
245fa, HFC- Subject to January 1, 2020, document and retain
365mfc, and Narrowed Use until January 1, the results of their
blends thereof; Limits. 2022, in military technical
Formacel TI, applications and investigation of
and Formacel Z- until January 1, alternatives for the
6. 2025, in space- and purpose of
aeronautics-related demonstrating
applications where compliance.
reasonable efforts Information should
have been made to include descriptions
ascertain that other of:
alternatives are not Process or
technically feasible product in which the
due to performance substitute is
or safety needed;
requirements. Substitutes
Closed cell foam examined and
products and rejected;
products containing Reason for
closed cell foams rejection of other
manufactured with alternatives, e.g.,
these substitutes on performance,
or before January 1, technical or safety
2022, for military standards; and/or
applications or on Anticipated
and before January date other
1, 2025, in space- substitutes will be
and aeronautics- available and
related projected time for
applications, may be switching.
used after those
dates.
Phenolic Insulation Board and HFC-143a, HFC- Acceptable Acceptable from Users are required to
Bunstock. 134a, HFC- Subject to January 1, 2017, document and retain
245fa, HFC- Narrowed Use until January 1, the results of their
365mfc, and Limits. 2022, in military technical
blends thereof. applications and investigation of
until January 1, alternatives for the
2025, in space- and purpose of
aeronautics-related demonstrating
applications where compliance.
reasonable efforts Information should
have been made to include descriptions
ascertain that other of:
alternatives are not Process or
technically feasible product in which the
due to performance substitute is
or safety needed;
requirements. Substitutes
Closed cell foam examined and
products and rejected;
products containing Reason for
closed cell foams rejection of other
manufactured with alternatives, e.g.,
these substitutes on performance,
or before January 1, technical or safety
2022, for military standards; and/or
applications or on Anticipated
and before January date other
1, 2025, in space- substitutes will be
and aeronautics- available and
related projected time for
applications, may be switching.
used after those
dates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Foam Blowing End-uses............ HCFC-141b and blends Unacceptable effective HCFC-141b has an ozone
thereof. September 18, 2015. depletion potential of
Closed cell foam 0.11 under the
products and products Montreal Protocol. EPA
containing closed cell previously found HCFC-
foams manufactured 141b unacceptable in
with these substitutes all foam blowing end-
on or before December uses (appendix M to
1, 2017 may be used subpart G of 40 CFR
after that date. part 82). HCFC-141b
has an ozone depletion
potential (ODP) of
0.11.
All Foam Blowing end-uses............ HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and Unacceptable effective Use or introduction
blends thereof. September 18, 2015. into interstate
Closed cell foam commerce of virgin
products and products HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b
containing closed cell for foam blowing is
foams manufactured prohibited after
with these substitutes January 1, 2010 under
on or before December EPA's regulations at
1, 2017 may be used 40 CFR part 82 subpart
after that date. A unless used,
recovered, and
recycled. These
compounds have ODPs of
0.055 and 0.065,
respectively.
[[Page 86888]]
Flexible Polyurethane................ HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing
HFC-365mfc, and blends January 1, 2017, agents have global
thereof. except where allowed warming potentials
under a narrowed use (GWPs) ranging from
limit. 725 to 1,430. Other
substitutes will be
available for this end-
use with lower overall
risk to human health
and the environment by
the status change
date.
Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet.......... HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing
HFC-365mfc, and blends January 1, 2017, agents have GWPs
thereof; Formacel TI, except where allowed ranging from higher
and Formacel Z-6. under a narrowed use than 370 to
limit. approximately 1,500.
Closed cell foam Other substitutes will
products and products be available for this
containing closed cell end-use with lower
foams manufactured overall risk to human
with these substitutes health and the
on or before December environment by the
1, 2017 may be used status change date.
after that date.
Phenolic Insulation Board and HFC-143a, HFC-134a, HFC- Unacceptable as of These foam blowing
Bunstock. 245fa, HFC-365mfc, and January 1, 2017, agents have GWPs
blends thereof. except where allowed ranging from 725 to
under a narrowed use 4,470. Other
limit. substitutes will be
Closed cell foam available for this end-
products and products use with lower overall
containing closed cell risk to human health
foams manufactured and the environment by
with these substitutes the status change
on or before December date.
1, 2017 may be used
after that date.
Integral Skin Polyurethane........... HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing
HFC-365mfc, and blends January 1, 2017, agents have GWPs
thereof; Formacel TI, except where allowed ranging from higher
and Formacel Z-6. under a narrowed use than 370 to
limit. approximately 1,500.
Other substitutes will
be available for this
end-use with lower
overall risk to human
health and the
environment by the
status change date.
Rigid Polyurethane: Slabstock and HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing
Other. HFC-365mfc and blends January 1, 2019, agents have GWPs
thereof; Formacel TI, except where allowed ranging from higher
and Formacel Z-6. under a narrowed use than 370 to
limit. approximately 1,500.
Closed cell foam Other substitutes will
products and products be available for this
containing closed cell end-use with lower
foams manufactured overall risk to human
with these substitutes health and the
on or before January environment by the
1, 2019, may be used status change date.
after that date.
Rigid Polyurethane and HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing
Polyisocyanurate Laminated HFC-365mfc and blends January 1, 2017, agents have GWPs
Boardstock. thereof. except where allowed ranging from 725 to
under a narrowed use 1,430. Other
limit. substitutes will be
Closed cell foam available for this end-
products and products use with lower overall
containing closed cell risk to human health
foams manufactured and the environment by
with these substitutes the status change
on or before December date.
1, 2017 may be used
after that date.
Rigid Polyurethane: Marine Flotation HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing
Foam. HFC-365mfc and blends January 1, 2020 except agents have GWPs
thereof; Formacel TI, where allowed under a ranging from higher
and Formacel Z-6. narrowed use limit. than 370 to
Closed cell foam approximately 1,500.
products and products Other substitutes will
containing closed cell be available for this
foams manufactured end-use with lower
with these substitutes overall risk to human
on or before January health and the
1, 2020, may be used environment by the
after that date. status change date.
Rigid Polyurethane: Commercial HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing
Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels. HFC-365mfc, and blends January 1, 2020 except agents have GWPs
thereof; Formacel TI, where allowed under a ranging from higher
and Formacel Z-6. narrowed use limit. than 370 to
Closed cell foam approximately 1,500.
products and products Other substitutes will
containing closed cell be available for this
foams manufactured end-use with lower
with these substitutes overall risk to human
on or before January health and the
1, 2020, may be used environment by the
after that date. status change date.
Rigid Polyurethane: Appliance........ HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing
HFC-365mfc and blends January 1, 2020, agents have GWPs
thereof; Formacel TI, except where allowed ranging from higher
and Formacel Z-6. under a narrowed use than 370 to
limit. approximately 1,500.
Closed cell foam Other substitutes will
products and products be available for this
containing closed cell end-use with lower
foams manufactured overall risk to human
with these substitutes health and the
on or before January environment by the
1, 2020, may be used status change date.
after that date.
Polystyrene: Extruded Boardstock and HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing
Billet. HFC-365mfc, and blends January 1, 2021, agents have GWPs
thereof; Formacel TI, except where allowed ranging from higher
Formacel B, and under a narrowed use than 140 to
Formacel Z-6. limit. approximately 1,500.
Closed cell foam Other substitutes will
products and products be available for this
containing closed cell end-use with lower
foams manufactured overall risk to human
with these substitutes health and the
on or before January environment by the
1, 2021, may be used status change date.
after that date.
[[Page 86889]]
Polyolefin........................... HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing
HFC-365mfc, and blends January 1, 2020, agents have GWPs
thereof; Formacel TI, except where allowed ranging from higher
and Formacel Z-6. under a narrowed use than 370 to
limit. approximately 1,500.
Closed cell foam Other substitutes will
products and products be available for this
containing closed cell end-use with lower
foams manufactured overall risk to human
with these substitutes health and the
on or before January environment by the
1, 2020, may be used status change date.
after that date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
9. Add appendix V to subpart G of part 82 to read as follows:
Appendix V to Subpart G of Part 82--Substitutes Subject to Use
Restrictions and Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in the December 1,
2016 Final Rule
Refrigerants--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial ice machines Propane (R-290) Acceptable, As of January 3, 2017: Applicable OSHA
(self-contained) (new only). subject to use This refrigerant may be requirements at 29
conditions. used only in new CFR part 1910 must
equipment designed be followed,
specifically and clearly including those at
identified for the 29 CFR 1910.106
refrigerant--i.e., this (flammable and
refrigerant may not be combustible
used as a conversion or liquids), 1910.110
``retrofit'' refrigerant (storage and
for existing equipment. handling of
This refrigerant may be liquefied petroleum
used only in self- gases), 1910.157
contained commercial ice (portable fire
machines that meet all extinguishers), and
requirements listed in 1910.1000 (toxic
Supplement SA to UL and hazardous
563.\1\ \2\ \5\ In cases substances).
where this rule includes Proper ventilation
requirements more should be
stringent than those in maintained at all
UL 563, the equipment times during the
must meet the manufacture and
requirements of the final storage of
rule in place of the equipment
requirements in the UL containing
Standard. hydrocarbon
The charge size must not refrigerants
exceed 150g (5.29 oz) in through adherence
each refrigerant circuit to good
of a commercial ice manufacturing
machine. practices as per 29
As provided in clauses CFR 1910.106. If
SA6.1.1 and SA6.1.2 of UL refrigerant levels
563, the following in the air
markings must be attached surrounding the
at the locations provided equipment rise
and must be permanent:. above one-fourth of
(a) ``DANGER--Risk of Fire the lower
or Explosion. Flammable flammability limit,
Refrigerant Used. Do Not the space should be
Use Mechanical Devices To evacuated and re-
Defrost Refrigerator. Do entry should occur
Not Puncture Refrigerant only after the
Tubing.'' This marking space has been
must be provided on or properly
near any evaporators that ventilated.
can be contacted by the Technicians and
consumer. equipment
(b) ``DANGER--Risk of Fire manufacturers
or Explosion. Flammable should wear
Refrigerant Used. To Be appropriate
Repaired Only By Trained personal protective
Service Personnel. Do Not equipment,
Puncture Refrigerant including chemical
Tubing.'' This marking goggles and
must be located near the protective gloves,
machine compartment. when handling
(c) ``CAUTION--Risk of propane. Special
Fire or Explosion. care should be
Flammable Refrigerant taken to avoid
Used. Consult Repair contact with the
Manual/Owner's Guide skin since propane,
Before Attempting To like many
Service This Product. All refrigerants, can
Safety Precautions Must cause freeze burns
be Followed.'' This on the skin.
marking must be located A Class B dry powder
near the machine type fire
compartment. extinguisher should
(d) ``CAUTION--Risk of be kept nearby.
Fire or Explosion. Technicians should
Dispose of Properly In only use spark-
Accordance With Federal proof tools when
Or Local Regulations. working on
Flammable Refrigerant equipment with
Used.'' This marking must propane.
be provided on the Any recovery
exterior of the equipment used
refrigeration equipment. should be designed
(e) ``CAUTION--Risk of for flammable
Fire or Explosion Due To refrigerants.
Puncture Of Refrigerant Any refrigerant
Tubing; Follow Handling releases should be
Instructions Carefully. in a well-
Flammable Refrigerant ventilated area,
Used.'' This marking must such as outside of
be provided near all a building.
exposed refrigerant Only technicians
tubing. specifically
All of these markings must trained in handling
be in letters no less flammable
than 6.4 mm (\1/4\ inch) refrigerants should
high. service equipment
The equipment must have containing propane.
red Pantone Matching Technicians should
System (PMS) #185 marked gain an
pipes, hoses, or other understanding of
devices through which the minimizing the risk
refrigerant passes, to of fire and the
indicate the use of a steps to use
flammable refrigerant. flammable
This color must be refrigerants
applied at all service safely.
ports and other parts of Room occupants
the system where service should evacuate the
puncturing or other space immediately
actions creating an following the
opening from the accidental release
refrigerant circuit to of this
the atmosphere might be refrigerant.
expected and must extend If a service port is
a minimum of one (1) inch added then,
in both directions from commercial ice
such locations. machines or
equipment using
propane should have
service aperture
fittings that
differ from
fittings used in
equipment or
containers using
non-flammable
refrigerant.
``Differ'' means
that either the
diameter differs by
at least \1/16\
inch or the thread
direction is
reversed (i.e.,
right-handed vs.
left-handed). These
different fittings
should be
permanently affixed
to the unit at the
point of service
and maintained
until the end-of-
life of the unit,
and should not be
accessed with an
adaptor.
[[Page 86890]]
Very low temperature Propane (R-290) Acceptable, As of January 3, 2017: Applicable OSHA
refrigeration equipment subject to use This refrigerant may be requirements at 29
(new only). conditions. used only in new CFR part 1910 must
equipment designed be followed,
specifically and clearly including those at
identified for the 29 CFR 1910.94
refrigerant--i.e., this (ventilation) and
refrigerant may not be 1910.106 (flammable
used as a conversion or and combustible
``retrofit'' refrigerant liquids), 1910.110
for existing equipment. (storage and
This refrigerant may only handling of
be used in equipment that liquefied petroleum
meets all requirements in gases), 1910.157
Supplement SB to UL (portable fire
471.\1\ \2\ \4\ In cases extinguishers), and
where the final rule 1910.1000 (toxic
includes requirements and hazardous
more stringent than those substances).
of UL 471, the appliance Proper ventilation
must meet the should be
requirements of the final maintained at all
rule in place of the times during the
requirements in the UL manufacture and
Standard. storage of
The charge size for the equipment
equipment must not exceed containing
150 grams (5.29 ounces) hydrocarbon
in each refrigerant refrigerants
circuit of the very low through adherence
temperature refrigeration to good
equipment. manufacturing
As provided in clauses practices as per 29
SB6.1.2 to SB6.1.5 of UL CFR 1910.106. If
471, the following refrigerant levels
markings must be attached in the air
at the locations provided surrounding the
and must be permanent:. equipment rise
(a) ``DANGER--Risk of Fire above one-fourth of
or Explosion. Flammable the lower
Refrigerant Used. Do Not flammability limit,
Use Mechanical Devices To the space should be
Defrost Refrigerator. Do evacuated and re-
Not Puncture Refrigerant entry should occur
Tubing.'' This marking only after the
must be provided on or space has been
near any evaporators that properly
can be contacted by the ventilated.
consumer. Technicians and
(b) ``DANGER--Risk of Fire equipment
or Explosion. Flammable manufacturers
Refrigerant Used. To Be should wear
Repaired Only By Trained appropriate
Service Personnel. Do Not personal protective
Puncture Refrigerant equipment,
Tubing.'' This marking including chemical
must be located near the goggles and
machine compartment. protective gloves,
(c) ``CAUTION--Risk of when handling
Fire or Explosion. propane. Special
Flammable Refrigerant care should be
Used. Consult Repair taken to avoid
Manual/Owner's Guide contact with the
Before Attempting To skin since propane,
Service This Product. All like many
Safety Precautions Must refrigerants, can
be Followed.'' This cause freeze burns
marking must be located on the skin.
near the machine A Class B dry powder
compartment. type fire
(d) ``CAUTION--Risk of extinguisher should
Fire or Explosion. be kept nearby.
Dispose of Properly In Technicians should
Accordance With Federal only use spark-
Or Local Regulations. proof tools when
Flammable Refrigerant working on
Used.'' This marking must equipment with
be provided on the flammable
exterior of the refrigerants.
refrigeration equipment. Any recovery
(e) ``CAUTION--Risk of equipment used
Fire or Explosion Due To should be designed
Puncture Of Refrigerant for flammable
Tubing; Follow Handling refrigerants.
Instructions Carefully. Any refrigerant
Flammable Refrigerant releases should be
Used.'' This marking must in a well-
be provided near all ventilated area,
exposed refrigerant such as outside of
tubing. a building.
All of these markings must Only technicians
be in letters no less specifically
than 6.4 mm (1/4 inch) trained in handling
high. flammable
The equipment must have refrigerants should
red PMS #185 marked service equipment
pipes, hoses, or other containing propane.
devices through which the Technicians should
refrigerant passes, to gain an
indicate the use of a understanding of
flammable refrigerant. minimizing the risk
This color must be of fire and the
applied at all service steps to use
ports and other parts of flammable
the system where service refrigerants
puncturing or other safely.
actions creating an Room occupants
opening from the should evacuate the
refrigerant circuit to space immediately
the atmosphere might be following the
expected and must extend accidental release
a minimum of one (1) inch of this
in both directions from refrigerant.
such locations. If a service port is
added, then very
low temperature
equipment using
propane should have
service aperture
fittings that
differ from
fittings used in
equipment or
containers using
non-flammable
refrigerant.
``Differ'' means
that either the
diameter differs by
at least \1/16\
inch or the thread
direction is
reversed (i.e.,
right-handed vs.
left-handed). These
different fittings
should be
permanently affixed
to the unit at the
point of service
and maintained
until the end-of-
life of the unit,
and should not be
accessed with an
adaptor.
Very low temperature
equipment using
propane may also
use another
acceptable
refrigerant
substitute in a
separate
refrigerant circuit
or stage (e.g., one
temperature stage
with propane and a
second stage with
ethane).
[[Page 86891]]
Water coolers (new only).... Propane (R-290) Acceptable, As of January 3, 2017: Applicable OSHA
subject to use This refrigerant may be requirements at 29
conditions. used only in new CFR part 1910 must
equipment designed be followed,
specifically and clearly including those at
identified for the 29 CFR 1910.94
refrigerant--i.e., this (ventilation) and
refrigerant may not be 1910.106 (flammable
used as a conversion or and combustible
``retrofit'' refrigerant liquids), 1910.110
for existing equipment. (storage and
This refrigerant may be handling of
used only in water liquefied petroleum
coolers that meet all gases), 1910.157
requirements listed in (portable fire
Supplement SB to UL 399 extinguishers), and
\1\ \2\ \3\ In cases 1910.1000 (toxic
where the rule includes and hazardous
requirements more substances).
stringent than those of Proper ventilation
the UL 399, the appliance should be
must meet the maintained at all
requirements of the final times during the
rule in place of the manufacture and
requirements in the UL storage of
Standard. equipment
The charge size must not containing
exceed 60 grams (2.12 hydrocarbon
ounces) per refrigerant refrigerants
circuit in the water through adherence
cooler. to good
The equipment must have manufacturing
red PMS #185 marked practices as per 29
pipes, hoses, or other CFR 1910.106. If
devices through which the refrigerant levels
refrigerant passes, to in the air
indicate the use of a surrounding the
flammable refrigerant. equipment rise
This color must be above one-fourth of
applied at all service the lower
ports and other parts of flammability limit,
the system where service the space should be
puncturing or other evacuated and re-
actions creating an entry should occur
opening from the only after the
refrigerant circuit to space has been
the atmosphere might be properly
expected and must extend ventilated.
a minimum of one (1) inch Technicians and
in both directions from equipment
such locations. manufacturers
As provided in clauses should wear
SB6.1.2 to SB6.1.5 of UL appropriate
399, the following personal protective
markings must be attached equipment,
at the locations provided including chemical
and must be permanent:. goggles and
(a) ``DANGER--Risk of Fire protective gloves,
or Explosion. Flammable when handling
Refrigerant Used. Do Not propane. Special
Use Mechanical Devices To care should be
Defrost Refrigerator. Do taken to avoid
Not Puncture Refrigerant contact with the
Tubing.'' This marking skin since propane,
must be provided on or like many
near any evaporators that refrigerants, can
can be contacted by the cause freeze burns
consumer. on the skin.
(b) ``DANGER--Risk of Fire A Class B dry powder
or Explosion. Flammable type fire
Refrigerant Used. To Be extinguisher should
Repaired Only By Trained be kept nearby.
Service Personnel. Do Not Technicians should
Puncture Refrigerant only use spark-
Tubing.'' This marking proof tools when
must be located near the working on
machine compartment. equipment with
(c) ``CAUTION--Risk of flammable
Fire or Explosion. refrigerants.
Flammable Refrigerant Any recovery
Used. Consult Repair equipment used
Manual/Owner's Guide should be designed
Before Attempting To for flammable
Service This Product. All refrigerants.
Safety Precautions Must Any refrigerant
be Followed.'' This releases should be
marking must be located in a well-
near the machine ventilated area,
compartment. such as outside of
(d) ``CAUTION--Risk of a building.
Fire or Explosion. Only technicians
Dispose of Properly In specifically
Accordance With Federal trained in handling
Or Local Regulations. flammable
Flammable Refrigerant refrigerants should
Used.'' This marking must service equipment
be provided on the containing propane.
exterior of the Technicians should
refrigeration equipment. gain an
(e) ``CAUTION--Risk of understanding of
Fire or Explosion Due To minimizing the risk
Puncture Of Refrigerant of fire and the
Tubing; Follow Handling steps to use
Instructions Carefully. flammable
Flammable Refrigerant refrigerants
Used.'' This marking must safely.
be provided near all Room occupants
exposed refrigerant should evacuate the
tubing. space immediately
following the
accidental release
of this
refrigerant.
If a service port is
added, then water
coolers or
equipment using
propane should have
service aperture
fittings that
differ from
fittings used in
equipment or
containers using
non-flammable
refrigerant.
``Differ'' means
that either the
diameter differs by
at least \1/16\
inch or the thread
direction is
reversed (i.e.,
right-handed vs.
left-handed). These
different fittings
should be
permanently affixed
to the unit at the
point of service
and maintained
until the end-of-
life of the unit,
and should not be
accessed with an
adaptor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference (5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51). 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.
\2\ You may obtain the material from: Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) COMM 2000; 151 Eastern Avenue,
Bensenville, IL 60106; 2000.com">orders@comm-2000.com; 1-888-853-3503 in the U.S. or Canada (other countries dial +1-415-
352-2168); http://ulstandards.ul.com/ or www.comm-2000.com.
\3\ UL 399, Standard for Safety: DrinkingWater Coolers.--Supplement SB: Requirements for Drinking Water Coolers
Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System, 7th edition, Dated August 22, 2008, including
revisions through October 17, 2013.
\4\ UL 471, Standard for Safety: Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers--Supplement SB: Requirements for
Refrigerators and Freezers Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System, 10th edition, Dated
November 24, 2010.
\5\ UL 563, Standard for Safety: Ice Makers.--Supplement SA: Requirements for Ice Makers Employing a Flammable
Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System, 8th edition, Dated July 31, 2009, including revisions through
November 29, 2013.
[[Page 86892]]
Refrigerants--Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitutes Decision Narrowed use limits Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centrifugal chillers (new HFC-134a........ Acceptable Acceptable after Users are required to
only). subject to January 1, 2024, document and retain
narrowed use only in military the results of their
limits. marine vessels where technical
reasonable efforts investigation of
have been made to alternatives for the
ascertain that other purpose of
alternatives are not demonstrating
technically feasible compliance.
due to performance Information should
or safety include descriptions
requirements. of:
Application
in which the
substitute is
needed;
Substitutes
examined and
rejected;
Reason for
rejection of other
alternatives, e.g.,
performance,
technical or safety
standards; and/or
Anticipated
date other
substitutes will be
available and
qualified and
projected time for
switching.
Centrifugal chillers (new HFC-134a and R- Acceptable Acceptable after Users are required to
only). 404A. subject to January 1, 2024, document and retain
narrowed use only in human-rated the results of their
limits. spacecraft and technical
related support investigation of
equipment where alternatives for the
reasonable efforts purpose of
have been made to demonstrating
ascertain that other compliance.
alternatives are not Information should
technically feasible include descriptions
due to performance of:
or safety Application
requirements. in which the
substitute is
needed;
Substitutes
examined and
rejected;
Reason for
rejection of other
alternatives, e.g.,
performance,
technical or safety
standards; and/or
Anticipated
date other
substitutes will be
available and
qualified and
projected time for
switching.
Positive displacement chillers HFC-134a........ Acceptable Acceptable after Users are required to
(new only). subject to January 1, 2024, document and retain
narrowed use only in military the results of their
limits. marine vessels where technical
reasonable efforts investigation of
have been made to alternatives for the
ascertain that other purpose of
alternatives are not demonstrating
technically feasible compliance.
due to performance Information should
or safety include descriptions
requirements. of:
Application
in which the
substitute is
needed;
Substitutes
examined and
rejected;
Reason for
rejection of other
alternatives, e.g.,
performance,
technical or safety
standards; and/or
Anticipated
date other
substitutes will be
available and
qualified and
projected time for
switching.
Positive displacement chillers HFC-134a and R- Acceptable Acceptable after Users are required to
(new only). 404A. subject to January 1, 2024, document and retain
narrowed use only in human-rated the results of their
limits. spacecraft and technical
related support investigation of
equipment where alternatives for the
reasonable efforts purpose of
have been made to demonstrating
ascertain that other compliance.
alternatives are not Information should
technically feasible include descriptions
due to performance of:
or safety Application
requirements. in which the
substitute is
needed;
Substitutes
examined and
rejected;
Reason for
rejection of other
alternatives, e.g.,
performance,
technical or safety
standards; and/or
Anticipated
date other
substitutes will be
available and
qualified and
projected time for
switching.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigerants--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitutes Decision Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centrifugal chillers (new only)...... FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC- Unacceptable as of These refrigerants have
134a, HFC-227ea, HFC- January 1, 2024 except GWPs ranging from
236fa, HFC-245fa, R- where allowed under a approximately 900 to
125/134a/600a (28.1/70/ narrowed use limit. 9,810. Other
1.9), R-125/290/134a/ alternatives will be
600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/ available for this end-
1.5), R-404A, R-407C, use with lower overall
R-410A, R-410B, R- risk to human health
417A, R-421A, R-422B, and the environment by
R-422C, R-422D, R- the status change
423A, R-424A, R-434A, date.
R-438A, R-507A, RS-44
(2003 composition),
and THR-03.
Centrifugal chillers (new only)...... Propylene (R-1270) and Unacceptable as of These refrigerants are
R-443A. January 3, 2017. highly photochemically
reactive in the lower
atmosphere and may
deteriorate local air
quality (that is, may
increase ground level
ozone). Other
alternatives are
available for this end-
use with lower overall
risk to human health
and the environment.
[[Page 86893]]
Cold storage warehouses (new only)... HFC-227ea, R-125/290/ Unacceptable as of These refrigerants have
134a/600a (55.0/1.0/ January 1, 2023. GWPs ranging from
42.5/1.5), R-404A, R- approximately 2,090 to
407A, R-407B, R-410A, 3,990. Other
R-410B, R-417A, R- alternatives will be
421A, R-421B, R-422A, available for this end-
R-422B, R-422C, R- use with lower overall
422D, R-423A, R-424A, risk to human health
R-428A, R-434A, R- and the environment by
438A, R-507A, and RS- the status change
44 (2003 composition). date.
Cold storage warehouses (new only)... Propylene (R-1270) and Unacceptable as of These refrigerants are
R-443A. January 3, 2017. highly photochemically
reactive in the lower
atmosphere and may
deteriorate local air
quality (that is, may
increase ground level
ozone). Other
alternatives are
available for this end-
use with lower overall
risk to human health
and the environment.
Household refrigerators and freezers FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC- Unacceptable as of These refrigerants have
(new only). 134a, KDD6, R-125/290/ January 1, 2021. GWPs ranging from
134a/600a (55.0/1.0/ approximately 900 to
42.5/1.5), R-404A, R- 3,985. Other
407C, R-407F, R-410A, alternatives will be
R-410B, R-417A, R- available for this end-
421A, R-421B, R-422A, use with lower overall
R-422B, R-422C, R- risk to human health
422D, R-424A, R-426A, and the environment by
R-428A, R-434A, R- the status change
437A, R-438A, R-507A, date.
RS-24 (2002
formulation), RS-44
(2003 formulation),
SP34E, and THR-03.
Positive displacement chillers (new FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC- Unacceptable as of These refrigerants have
only). 134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, January 1, 2024 except GWPs ranging from
R-125/134a/600a (28.1/ where allowed under a approximately 900 to
70/1.9), R-125/290/ narrowed use limit. 3,985. Other
134a/600a (55.0/1.0/ alternatives will be
42.5/1.5), R-404A, R- available for this end-
407C, R-410A, R-410B, use with lower overall
R-417A, R-421A, R- risk to human health
422B, R-422C, R-422D, and the environment by
R-424A, R-434A, R- the status change
437A, R-438A, R-507A, date.
RS-44 (2003
composition), SP34E,
and THR-03.
Positive displacement chillers (new Propylene (R-1270) and Unacceptable as of These refrigerants are
only). R-443A. January 3, 2017. highly photochemically
reactive in the lower
atmosphere and may
deteriorate local air
quality (that is, may
increase ground level
ozone). Other
alternatives are
available for this end-
use with lower overall
risk to human health
and the environment.
Residential and light commercial air Propylene (R-1270) and Unacceptable as of These refrigerants are
conditioning and heat pumps (new R-443A. January 3, 2017. highly photochemically
only). reactive in the lower
atmosphere and may
deteriorate local air
quality (that is, may
increase ground level
ozone). Other
alternatives are
available for this end-
use with lower overall
risk to human health
and the environment.
Residential and light commercial air All refrigerants Unacceptable as of These refrigerants are
conditioning--unitary split AC identified as January 3, 2017. highly flammable and
systems and heat pumps (retrofit flammability Class 3 present a flammability
only). in ANSI/ASHRAE risk when used in
Standard 34-2013 1 2 3. equipment designed for
All refrigerants nonflammable
meeting the criteria refrigerants. Other
for flammability Class alternatives are
3 in ANSI/ASHRAE available for this end-
Standard 34-2013. This use with lower overall
includes, but is not risk to human health
limited to, and the environment.
refrigerant products
sold under the names R-
22a, 22a, Blue Sky 22a
refrigerant, Coolant
Express 22a, DURACOOL-
22a, EC-22, Ecofreeez
EF-22a, Envirosafe
22a, ES-22a, Frost
22a, HC-22a, Maxi-
Fridge, MX-22a, Oz-
Chill 22a, Priority
Cool, and RED TEK 22a.
Retail food refrigeration HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/ Unacceptable as of These refrigerants have
(refrigerated food processing and 290/134a/600a (55.0/ January 1, 2021. GWPs ranging from
dispensing equipment) (new only). 1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, approximately 1,770 to
R-407A, R-407B, R- 3,990. Other
407C, R-407F, R-410A, alternatives will be
R-410B, R-417A, R- available for this end-
421A, R-421B, R-422A, use with lower overall
R-422B, R-422C, R- risk to human health
422D, R-424A, R-428A, and the environment by
R-434A, R-437A, R- the status change
438A, R-507A, RS-44 date.
(2003 formulation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference (5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51). 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 this standard, 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.
\2\ You may obtain this material from: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) 6300 Interfirst Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48108; 1-800-527-4723 in the U.S. or Canada; http://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/ashrae_standards.html?ashrae_auth_token=.
\3\ ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013, Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants, 2013.
[[Page 86894]]
Foam Blowing Agents--Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitutes Decision Narrowed use limits Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigid PU: Spray foam--high- HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Acceptable from Users are required to
pressure two-component. 245fa, and subject to January 1, 2020, document and retain
blends thereof; narrowed use until January 1, the results of their
blends of HFC- limits. 2025, only in technical
365mfc with at military or space- investigation of
least four and aeronautics- alternatives for the
percent HFC- related applications purpose of
245fa, and where reasonable demonstrating
commercial efforts have been compliance.
blends of HFC- made to ascertain Information should
365mfc with that other include descriptions
seven to 13 alternatives are not of:
percent HFC- technically feasible Process or
227ea and the due to performance product in which the
remainder HFC- or safety substitute is
365mfc; and requirements. needed;
Formacel TI. Closed cell foam Substitutes
products and examined and
products containing rejected;
closed cell foams Reason for
manufactured with rejection of other
these substitutes on alternatives, e.g.,
or before January 1, performance,
2025, may be used technical or safety
after that date. standards; and/or
Anticipated
date other
substitutes will be
available and
projected time for
switching.
Rigid PU: Spray foam--low- HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Acceptable from Users are required to
pressure two-component. 245fa, and subject to January 1, 2021, document and retain
blends thereof; narrowed use until January 1, the results of their
blends of HFC- limits. 2025, only in technical
365mfc with at military or space- investigation of
least four and aeronautics- alternatives for the
percent HFC- related applications purpose of
245fa, and where reasonable demonstrating
commercial efforts have been compliance.
blends of HFC- made to ascertain Information should
365mfc with that other include descriptions
seven to 13 alternatives are not of:
percent HFC- technically feasible Process or
227ea and the due to performance product in which the
remainder HFC- or safety substitute is
365mfc; and requirements. needed;
Formacel TI. Low pressure two- Substitutes
component spray foam examined and
kits manufactured rejected;
with these Reason for
substitutes on or rejection of other
before January 1, alternatives, e.g.,
2025, for military performance,
or space- and technical or safety
aeronautics-related standards; and/or
applications may be Anticipated
used after that date. date other
substitutes will be
available and
projected time for
switching.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foam Blowing Agents--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitutes Decision Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flexible PU.......................... Methylene chloride..... Unacceptable as of Methylene chloride is a
January 3, 2017. carcinogen and may
present a toxicity
risk. Other
alternatives are
available for this end-
use with lower overall
risk to human health
and the environment.
Rigid PU: Spray foam--one component HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing
foam sealants. and blends thereof; January 1, 2020. agents have GWPs
blends of HFC-365mfc One-component foam ranging from higher
with at least four sealant cans than 730 to
percent HFC-245fa, and manufactured with approximately 1,500.
commercial blends of these substitutes on Other alternatives
HFC-365mfc with seven or before January 1, will be available for
to 13 percent HFC- 2020, may be used this end-use with
227ea and the after that date. lower overall risk to
remainder HFC-365mfc; human health and the
and Formacel TI. environment by the
status change date.
Rigid PU: Spray foam--high-pressure HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing
two-component. and blends thereof; January 1, 2020, agents have GWPs
blends of HFC-365mfc except where allowed ranging from higher
with at least four under a narrowed use than 730 to
percent HFC-245fa, and limit. Closed cell approximately 1,500.
commercial blends of foam products and Other alternatives
HFC-365mfc with seven products containing will be available for
to 13 percent HFC- closed cell foams this end-use with
227ea and the manufactured with lower overall risk to
remainder HFC-365mfc; these substitutes on human health and the
and Formacel TI. or before January 1, environment by the
2020, may be used status change date.
after that date.
Rigid PU: Spray foam--low-pressure HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of These foam blowing
two-component. and blends thereof; January 1, 2021, agents have GWPs
blends of HFC-365mfc except where allowed ranging from higher
with at least four under a narrowed use than 730 to
percent HFC-245fa, and limit. approximately 1,500.
commercial blends of Low pressure two- Other alternatives
HFC-365mfc with seven component spray foam will be available for
to 13 percent HFC- kits manufactured with this end-use with
227ea and the these substitutes on lower overall risk to
remainder HFC-365mfc; or before January 1, human health and the
and Formacel TI. 2025, may be used environment by the
after that date. status change date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 86895]]
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection Agents--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Streaming........................... 2-BTP.................. Acceptable, subject to As of January 3, 2017, This fire suppressant has a relatively
use conditions. acceptable only for low GWP of 0.23-0.26 and a short
use in handheld atmospheric lifetime of approximately
extinguishers in seven days.
aircraft. This agent is subject to requirements
contained in a Toxic Substance Control
Act (TSCA) section 5(e) Consent Order
and any subsequent TSCA section
5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rule
(SNUR).
For establishments manufacturing,
installing and maintaining handheld
extinguishers using this agent:
(1) Use of this agent should be used in
accordance with the latest edition of
NFPA Standard 10 for Portable Fire
Extinguishers;
(2) In the case that 2-BTP is inhaled,
person(s) should be immediately
removed and exposed to fresh air; if
breathing is difficult, person(s)
should seek medical attention;
(3) Eye wash and quick drench
facilities should be available. In
case of ocular exposure, person(s)
should immediately flush the eyes,
including under the eyelids, with
fresh water and move to a non-
contaminated area;
(4) Exposed person(s) should remove all
contaminated clothing and footwear to
avoid irritation, and medical
attention should be sought if
irritation develops or persists;
(5) Although unlikely, in case of
ingestion of 2-BTP, the person(s)
should consult a physician
immediately;
(6) Manufacturing space should be
equipped with specialized engineering
controls and well ventilated with a
local exhaust system and low-lying
source ventilation to effectively
mitigate potential occupational
exposure; regular testing and
monitoring of the workplace atmosphere
should be conducted;
(7) Employees responsible for chemical
processing should wear the appropriate
PPE, such as protective gloves,
tightly sealed goggles, protective
work clothing, and suitable
respiratory protection in case of
accidental release or insufficient
ventilation;
(8) All spills should be cleaned up
immediately in accordance with good
industrial hygiene practices; and
(9) Training for safe handling
procedures should be provided to all
employees that would be likely to
handle containers of the agent or
extinguishing units filled with the
agent.
Total flooding...................... 2-BTP.................. Acceptable, subject to As of January 3, 2017, This fire suppressant has a relatively
use conditions. acceptable only for low GWP of 0.23-0.26 and a short
use in engine nacelles atmospheric lifetime of approximately
and auxiliary power seven days.
units on aircraft. This agent is subject to requirements
contained in a TSCA section 5(e)
Consent Order and any subsequent TSCA
section 5(a)(2) SNUR.
For establishments manufacturing,
installing, and servicing engine
nacelles and auxiliary power units on
aircraft using this agent:
(1) This agent should be used in
accordance with the safety guidelines
in the latest edition of the National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
2001 Standard for Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishing Systems;
(2) In the case that 2-BTP is inhaled,
person(s) should be immediately
removed and exposed to fresh air; if
breathing is difficult, person(s)
should seek medical attention;
(3) Eye wash and quick drench
facilities should be available. In
case of ocular exposure, person(s)
should immediately flush the eyes,
including under the eyelids, with
fresh water and move to a non-
contaminated area.
(4) Exposed person(s) should remove all
contaminated clothing and footwear to
avoid irritation, and medical
attention should be sought if
irritation develops or persists;
(5) Although unlikely, in case of
ingestion of 2-BTP, the person(s)
should consult a physician
immediately;
(6) Manufacturing space should be
equipped with specialized engineering
controls and well ventilated with a
local exhaust system and low-lying
source ventilation to effectively
mitigate potential occupational
exposure; regular testing and
monitoring of the workplace atmosphere
should be conducted;
(7) Employees responsible for chemical
processing should wear the appropriate
PPE, such as protective gloves,
tightly sealed goggles, protective
work clothing, and suitable
respiratory protection in case of
accidental release or insufficient
ventilation;
(8) All spills should be cleaned up
immediately in accordance with good
industrial hygiene practices;
(9) Training for safe handling
procedures should be provided to all
employees that would be likely to
handle containers of the agent or
extinguishing units filled with the
agent;
(10) Safety features that are typical
of total flooding systems such as pre-
discharge alarms, time delays, and
system abort switches should be
provided, as directed by applicable
OSHA regulations and NFPA standards;
use of this agent should also conform
to relevant OSHA requirements,
including 29 CFR 1910, subpart L,
sections 1910.160 and 1910.162.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2016-25167 Filed 11-30-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P