Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Listing of Substitutes for
Ozone-Depleting Substances
Related Material
[Federal Register: February 3, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 22)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 5491-5494]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03fe98-22]
[[Page 5491]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081026152942im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}