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

Federal RegisterDec 1, 2016

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

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

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:

Farquharson.chenise@epa.gov

. 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

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

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.

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 (CO

)) 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

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.

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:

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:

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

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®), 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

Category

NAICS code

Description of regulated 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

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

—Methane

CMAQ—

Community Multiscale Air Quality

—Carbon Dioxide

—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

—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

—Federal Register

FTA—

Fault Tree Analysis

—Gram

GHG—

Greenhouse Gas

GtCO

eq—

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

—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

MMTCO

eq—

Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent

MVAC—

Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning

MY—

Model Year

O—

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

—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

—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

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,

it may also apply to importers, formulators, equipment manufacturers, or end users

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.

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.

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).

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.

The SNAP regulations also include “pending,” referring to submissions for which EPA has not reached a determination, under this provision.

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.

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)).

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

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

remove a substitute from either the list of prohibited or acceptable substitutes.

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 § 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:

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.

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:

• Releases in the workplace and in homes;

• Releases to ambient air and surface water;

• Releases from the management of solid wastes.

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.

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.

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 § 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

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 § 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

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)

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.

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—CO

, methane (CH

), nitrous oxide (N

O), HFCs, PFCs, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF

)—may reasonably be anticipated to endanger

the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.

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.

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 CO

and CH

are unintentional byproducts from energy production, industrial and agricultural activities, and mobile sources, HFCs are intentionally produced chemicals.

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 CO

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.

At that rate, emissions are projected to double by 2020 and triple by 2030.

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.

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

HFC-23 is an exception; it is produced as a byproduct during the production of HCFC-22 and other chemicals.

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

Akerman, 2013. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change: Summaries of Recent Scientific and Papers. 2013.

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 CO

equivalent (GtCO

eq) in 2050,

which is comparable to the drop in annual GHG emissions from ODS of 8.0 GtCO

eq between 1988 and 2010.

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 CO

since 2000, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES).

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 CO

emissions in 2050 based on the IPCC's highest CO

emissions scenario and equivalent to 27 to 69 percent of CO

emissions based on the IPCC's lowest CO

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).

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.

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

Ibid.

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.

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 GtCO

eq 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

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:

NRDC/IGSD, 2015. Petition for Change of Status of HFCs under Clean Air Act Section 612 (Significant New Alternatives Policy). Submitted October 6, 2015.

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

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 § 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®), 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

(

MMTCO

eq) in 2025 and up to approximately 11.3 MMTCO

eq in 2030.

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

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.”

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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 °C (−170 °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.

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).

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

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).

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.

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,

have ODPs ranging from 0.01 to 0.047. Thus, propane has an ODP lower

than or identical to the ODPs of other alternatives in these end-uses.

We assume that substitutes containing no chlorine, bromine, or iodine have an ODP of zero.

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.

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 CO

. Propane has a low GWP of three.

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.

For very low temperature refrigeration, the GWPs for acceptable substitutes range from one for CO

to 14,800 for HFC-23. Propane's GWP is comparable to or significantly lower than those of other alternatives in these end-uses.

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.

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

Refrigerants

GWP

ODP

VOC

Listing status

Propane

Yes

Acceptable, subject to use conditions.

Commercial Ice Machines

Ammonia, HFC-134a, R-404A, R-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

0-3,990

Acceptable.

FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON A, IKON 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

30-3,610

0—Not public

Yes

Acceptable.

Water Coolers

HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-426A, R-437A, R-450A, R-507A, R-513A

0-3,990

Acceptable.

FOR12A, FOR-12B, IKON B, R-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

30-3,090

0—Not public

Yes

Acceptable.

Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Equipment

, HFC-23, HFC-245fa, HFE-7000, HFE-7100, HFE-7200, R-170 (ethane), R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-507A, R-508A, R-508B

1-14,800

Acceptable.

ISCEON 89, R-125/R-290/R-134a/R-600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-422B, R-422C, PFC-1102HC, PFC-662HC, PFC-552HC, and FLC-15

2,530-8,500

Yes

Acceptable.

The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-use.

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.

The ODP of one or more alternatives is not published here in order to avoid disclosing information that is claimed as confidential business information.

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.

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

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.

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

Eppendorf, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for R-170 and R-290 in Very Low Temperature Refrigeration. May, 2015.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

Ibid.

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.

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.

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).

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.

ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014.

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.

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.

(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 °C and 101.3 kPa.

Figure 1 in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15-2013 uses the same safety group but limits its concentration to 3,400 ppm.

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.

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

. 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 °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

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.

ER01DE16.000

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.,

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

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.

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

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

corresponding SNAP regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.

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.

Supplement SB to the 7th edition of UL 399, dated August 22, 2008, applies to water coolers using flammable refrigerants.

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.

UL, 2009. Standard 563—Standard for Ice Makers. A summary of this document is accessible at:

http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=563

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

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

(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.

This document is included in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).

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.

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

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.

For more information on ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013 and the difference between flammability classes of refrigerants, see section VI.A.3.a.

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

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.

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.

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.

ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014.

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.

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

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, recycl

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.