Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Listing of Substitutes for Ozone-Depleting Substances

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-5958-4]

RIN 2060-AG12

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Listing of Substitutes for

Ozone-Depleting Substances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes restrictions or prohibitions on

substitutes for ozone depleting substances (ODSs) under the

Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Significant New Alternatives

Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP implements section 612 of the amended Clean

Air Act of 1990, which requires EPA to evaluate substitutes for the

ODSs to reduce overall risk to human health and the environment.

Through these evaluations, SNAP generates lists of acceptable and

unacceptable substitutes for each of the major industrial use sectors.

The intended effect of the SNAP program is to expedite movement away

from ozone depleting compounds while avoiding a shift into substitutes

posing other environmental problems.

On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated a final rulemaking setting forth

its plan for administering the SNAP program, and issued decisions on

the acceptability and unacceptability of a number of substitutes. In

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is issuing its

preliminary decisions on the acceptability of certain substitutes not

previously reviewed by the Agency. Specifically, this action proposes

to list as unacceptable the use of two gases as refrigerants in ``self-

chilling cans'' because of unacceptably high greenhouse gas emissions

which would result from the direct release of the cans' refrigerants to

the atmosphere.

DATES: Written comments or data provided in response to this document

must be submitted by March 5, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and data should be sent to Docket A-91-42,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAR Docket and Information

Center, 401 M Street, S.W., Room M-1500, Mail Code 6102, Washington,

D.C. 20460. The docket may be inspected between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on

weekdays. Telephone (202) 260-7548; fax (202) 260-4400. As provided in

40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for photocopying. To

expedite review, a second copy of the comments should be sent to Carol

Weisner, Stratospheric Protection Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Mail Code 6205J, Washington,

D.C. 20460, or at the address listed in the next paragraph for

overnight or courier deliveries. Information designated as Confidential

Business Information (CBI) under 40 CFR, part 2, subpart B must be sent

directly to the contact person for this document. However, the Agency

is requesting that all respondents submit a non-confidential version of

their comments to the docket as well.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Weisner at (202) 564-9193 or fax

(202) 565-2096, Substitutes Analysis and Review Branch, Stratospheric

Protection Division, Mail Code 6205J, Washington, D.C. 20460. Overnight

or courier deliveries should be sent to our 501-3rd Street, NW,

Washington, DC, 20001 location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview of This Action

This action is divided into six sections, including this

overview:

II. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

B. Regulatory History

III. Proposed Listing of Substitutes

IV. Administrative Requirements

V. Additional Information

II. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

Section 612 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to develop a

program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA

is referring to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy

(SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are:

Rulemaking--Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making

it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon

tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and

hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon) 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.

Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes--Section 612(c) also

requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes unacceptable for

specific uses. EPA must publish a corresponding list of acceptable

alternatives for specific uses.

Petition Process--Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to

petition EPA to add a substitute to or delete a substitute 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.

90-day Notification--Section 612(e) requires 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 health and safety studies on

such substitutes.

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.

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. Regulatory History

On March 18, 1994, EPA published the Final Rulemaking (FRM) (59 FR

13044) which described the process for administering the SNAP program

and issued EPA's first acceptability lists for substitutes in the major

industrial use sectors. These sectors include: refrigeration and air

conditioning; foam blowing; solvent cleaning; fire suppression and

explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and

inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal

industrial sectors that historically consume large volumes of ozone-

depleting compounds.

The Agency defines a ``substitute'' as any chemical, product

substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or

new, that could replace a class I or class II substance. Anyone who

produces a substitute must provide the Agency with health and safety

studies on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into

interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. This

requirement applies to chemical manufacturers, but may include

importers, formulators or end-users when they are responsible for

introducing a substitute into commerce.

[[Page 5492]]

III. Proposed Listing of Substitutes

To develop the lists of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes,

EPA conducts screens of health and environmental risks posed by various

substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds in each use sector. The

outcome of these risks screens can be found in the public docket, as

described above in the ADDRESSES portion of this document.

Under section 612, the Agency has considerable discretion in the

risk management decisions it can make in SNAP. The Agency has

identified five possible decision categories: acceptable; acceptable

subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits;

unacceptable; and pending. Fully acceptable substitutes, i.e., those

with no restrictions, can be used for all applications within the

relevant sector end-use. Conversely, it is illegal to replace an ODS

with a substitute listed by SNAP as unacceptable. A pending listing

represents substitutes for which the Agency has not received complete

data or has not completed its review of the data.

After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may make a determination

that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions of use are

met to minimize risks to human health and the environment. Use of such

substitutes in ways that are inconsistent with such use conditions

renders these substitutes unacceptable.

Even though the Agency can restrict the use of a substitute based

on the potential for adverse effects, it may be necessary to permit a

narrowed range of use within a sector end-use because of the lack of

alternatives for specialized applications. Users intending to adopt a

substitute acceptable with narrowed use limits must ascertain that

other acceptable alternatives are not technically feasible. Companies

must document the results of their evaluation, and retain the results

on file for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. This documentation

shall include descriptions of substitutes examined and rejected,

processes or products in which the substitute is needed, reason for

rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety

standards, and the anticipated date other substitutes will be available

and projected time for switching to other available substitutes. Use of

such substitutes in application and end-uses which are not specified as

acceptable in the narrowed use limit renders these substitutes

unacceptable.

In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is issuing its

preliminary decision on the acceptability of certain substitutes not

previously reviewed by the Agency. As described in the final rule for

the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), EPA believes that notice-and-comment

rulemaking is required to place any alternative on the list of

prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute as acceptable only under

certain use conditions or narrowed use limits, or to remove an

alternative from either the list of prohibited or acceptable

substitutes.

EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are required to

list alternatives as acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do

not impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior license to use a

substitute. Consequently, EPA adds substitutes to the list of

acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new

listings. Updates to the acceptable and pending lists are published as

separate Notices of Acceptability in the Federal Register.

Part A. below presents a detailed discussion of the proposed

substitute listing determinations by major use sector. Tables

summarizing listing decisions in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are

in Appendix F. The comments contained in Appendix F to Subpart G of 40

CFR Part 82, provide additional information on a substitute. Since

comments are not part of the regulatory decision, they are not

mandatory for use of a substitute. Nor should the comments be

considered comprehensive with respect to other legal obligations

pertaining to the use of the substitute. However, EPA encourages users

of acceptable substitutes to apply all comments in their application of

these substitutes. In many instances, the comments simply allude to

sound operating practices that have already been identified in existing

industry and/or building-code standards. Thus, many of the comments, if

adopted, would not require significant changes in existing operating

practices for the affected industry.

A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

1. Unacceptable Substitutes

a. CFC-12, R-502, and HCFC-22 Household Refrigeration, Transport

Refrigeration, Vending Machines, Cold Storage Warehouses, and Retail

Food Refrigeration, Retrofit and New.

(i) Self-chilling Cans Using HFC-134a or HFC-152a.

This technology represents a product substitute intended to replace

several types of refrigeration equipment. A self-chilling can includes

a heat transfer unit that performs the same function as one half of the

traditional vapor-compression refrigeration cycle. The unit contains a

charge of pressurized refrigerant that is released to the atmosphere

when the user activates the cooling unit. As the refrigerant's pressure

drops to atmospheric pressure, it absorbs heat from the can's contents

and evaporates, cooling the can. Because this process provides the same

cooling effect as household refrigeration, transport refrigeration,

vending machines, cold storage warehouses, or retail food

refrigeration, it is a substitute for CFC-12, R-502, or HCFC-22 in

these systems. The Agency requests comment on the approach of defining

self-chilling cans as a product substitute for a variety of types of

refrigeration equipment.

HFCs have played a major role in the phaseout of CFC refrigerants,

and EPA expects this responsible use to continue. HFC-134a is an

acceptable substitute for ozone-depleting refrigerants in a wide

variety of refrigeration systems. In addition, both HFC-134a and HFC-

152a are components in refrigerant blends that are themselves

acceptable substitutes. These refrigeration systems are closed, meaning

that refrigerant recirculates, and there are EPA regulations requiring

their recovery and reuse. The only source of refrigerant emissions is

leaks, and EPA regulations require the repair of large leaks from these

systems. In contrast, however, self-chilling cans work by releasing

refrigerant.

In assessing the risks of proposed substitutes under the SNAP

program, EPA considers all environmental impacts a substitute may

produce. HFC-134a and HFC-152a have no ozone depletion potential, are

low in toxicity, and are not volatile organic compounds. HFC-152a is

flammable, but the primary area of concern for both HFC-134a and HFC-

152a is their potential to contribute to global warming; both compounds

are powerful greenhouse gases.

EPA has assessed the possible contribution of self-chilling can

technology to U.S. emissions of global warming gases when HFC-134a and

HFC-152a are used. EPA included several possible market penetration

values in this assessment, ranging from 1% to 25%. A one percent

penetration would amount to sales of roughly one billion cans annually.

The resultant emissions estimates are directly proportional to the

market penetration; to estimate the effects of market penetrations

other than those evaluated here, scale appropriately. For purposes of

illustration, the discussion below uses market penetration scenarios of

5%

[[Page 5493]]

and 25%. Because the product has not yet been introduced, it is not

possible to know actual market penetration, and the Agency is not aware

of any projections of market penetration in the trade press. EPA

invites comment on both the expected cost of producing and sales price

of self-chilling cans and on their possible market penetration.

Because the total US market for beer and soft drinks is

approximately 100 billion cans per year, even a small market

penetration could substantially increase US emissions of greenhouse

gases. Based on industry estimates appearing in trade journals for the

beverage canning industry and a basic understanding of the physical

properties of refrigerants, EPA assumed that a 12 ounce beverage can

requires 2 ounces of refrigerant and a 16 ounce beverage can requires

2.7 ounces of refrigerant. EPA used values from the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change for the global warming potential (GWP) of HFC-

134a (1300) and HFC-152a (140), based on a 100-year integrated time

horizon. This analysis is conservative for two reasons: (1) EPA assumed

that the refrigerant absorbs heat only from the beverage and not from

the surrounding air, thereby reducing the refrigerant charge required,

and (2) several articles in canning industry trade journals have

indicated that the likely usage would be 3-4 oz. of refrigerant per 12

ounce can instead of the 2 ounces assumed here. Under this scenario, 5%

market penetration of cans using HFC-134a results in emissions of 96

million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE).

To provide perspective, this value is 25% higher than 76.5 MMTCE,

the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions currently estimated in the

year 2000 under President Clinton's Climate Change Action Plan

published in October, 1993 (CCAP). At 25% market penetration of cans

using HFC-134a, the emissions are 479 MMTCE, nearly one third of the

total emissions from all US power generation. Using HFC-152a, a 5%

market penetration results in emissions of 10 MMTCE and a 25% market

penetration yields emissions of 52 MMTCE, or more than 2/3 the total

expected reductions under the CCAP.

Under the SNAP program, EPA compares the risks of a given

substitute to what it is replacing, as well as to the risks of other

substitutes available for the same use. Therefore, EPA also analyzed

the effect of replacing systems with new equipment using new

refrigerants in the end-uses listed above with self-chilling cans. Like

chilling cans, refrigeration systems have a direct effect on greenhouse

gas emissions related to emissions, but leakage from refrigeration

systems is minimal. They also have an indirect effect because the

production of electricity to power the systems results in the release

of carbon dioxide. Self-chilling cans have only a direct effect, namely

the release of refrigerant to the atmosphere. However, cans using HFC-

134a exceed the combined direct and indirect effects of equivalent

refrigeration systems by a factor of more than 40. Cans using HFC-152a

exceed refrigeration systems by a factor of 4. Again, these are

conservative estimates, because EPA assumes that these systems are

dedicated solely to cooling beverages, while in reality much of this

capacity is devoted to cooling other products.

Today's proposal has no implications for high value medical

emissive uses, such as the use of HFC-134a as a propellant in metered

dose inhalers. Information from trade journals and the company

developing self-chilling cans indicates that the predominant use of

this technology will be to cool beverages. EPA has always distinguished

between critical uses of substitutes and more general use, and

therefore invites comment on other potential uses of self-chilling

cans. In addition, EPA has long recognized the difference between uses

designed to be emissive and those designed to be closed systems. For

example, this determination has no bearing on continued, responsible

use of HFC-134a and HFC-152a in non-emissive uses such as retail food

refrigeration.

Under the SNAP program, EPA has encouraged the introduction of

innovative technology designed to reduce emissions of ozone depleting

substances. In pursuit of such developments, we have promoted the use

of substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (ODS) with lower overall

risk. Guided by this policy, we have stressed the importance of

examining all the environmental effects a substitute may produce,

including global warming. EPA has restricted the use of several

greenhouse gases through narrowed use limits and unacceptability

determinations. For example, PFCs may only be used in new heat transfer

systems after a study has demonstrated that no other substitute will

work. Similarly, EPA proposed several refrigerant blends as

unacceptable on May 21, 1997 (62 FR 27873) because they contain HFC-23,

a gas with an extremely high GWP. Today's proposal is consistent with

EPA's ongoing efforts to assure that as the transition away from ODS

continues, we do not contribute to significant new use of high-GWP

greenhouse gases.

Therefore, EPA proposes self-chilling cans using HFC-134a or HFC-

152a to be unacceptable substitutes for CFC-12, R-502, or HCFC-22 in

the end-uses listed above.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993) the

Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''

and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the

Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as

one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual

effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a

material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,

local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious

inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by

another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy

issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or

the principles set forth in the Executive Order.''

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB notified EPA

that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within the

meaning of the Executive Order and EPA submitted this action to OMB for

review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations

have been documented in the public record.

B. Unfunded Mandates Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires

EPA to prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule

that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by

state, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private

sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 203 requires

the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing

any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely affected by

the rule. Section 205 requires that regulatory alternatives be

considered before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact

statement is prepared. The Agency must select the least costly, most

cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the

rule's objectives, unless there is an explanation why this alternative

is not

[[Page 5494]]

selected or this alternative is inconsistent with law.

Because this proposed rule is estimated to result in the

expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments or the private

sector of less than $100 million in any one year, the Agency has not

prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the

selection of the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome

alternative. Because small governments will not be significantly or

uniquely affected by this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a

plan with regard to small governments. However, this proposed rule has

the net effect of reducing burden from part 82, Stratospheric

Protection regulations, on regulated entities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This proposed rule would not have a significant impact

on a substantial number of small entities because costs of the SNAP

requirements as a whole are expected to be minor. In fact, this

proposed rule offers regulatory relief to small businesses by providing

acceptable alternatives to phased-out ozone-depleting substances.

Additionally, the SNAP rule exempts small sectors and end-uses from

reporting requirements and formal agency review. To the extent that

information gathering is more expensive and time-consuming for small

companies, the actions proposed herein may well provide benefits for

small businesses anxious to examine potential substitutes to any ozone-

depleting class I and class II substances they may be using, by

requiring manufacturers to make information on such substitutes

available. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no information

requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq., that are not already approved by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB). OMB has reviewed and approved two Information Collection

Requests by EPA which are described in the March 18, 1994 rulemaking

(59 FR 13044, at 13121, 13146-13147) and in the October 16, 1996

rulemaking (61 FR 54030, at 54038-54039). The OMB Control Numbers are

2060-0226 and 2060-0350.

V. Additional Information

For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists or additional

information on SNAP, contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at 1-

800-296-1996, Monday-Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00

p.m. (EST).

For more information on the Agency's process for administering the

SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the

SNAP final rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18,

1994 (59 FR 13044). Federal Register notices can be ordered from the

Government Printing Office Order Desk (202) 783-3238; the citation is

the date of publication. Notices and rulemakings under the SNAP program

are available from the Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site at ``http://

www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap'' .

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: January 28, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is proposed

to be amended as follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671--7671q.

Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

2. Subpart G is amended by adding Appendix F to read as follows:

Appendix F to Subpart G--Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions

and Unacceptable Substitutes

Refrigerants--Unacceptable Substitutes

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End-use Substitute Decision Comments

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CFC-12, R-502, and HCFC-22 Household Self-Chilling Cans Unacceptable............. Unacceptably high

Refrigeration, Transport Using HFC-134a or HFC- greenhouse gas

Refrigeration, Vending Machines, 152a. emissions from direct

Cold Storage Warehouses, and Retail release of

Food Refrigeration, Retrofit and refrigerant to the

New. atmosphere.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 98-2617 Filed 2-2-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P