# Market Characterization Fire Suppression, Commercial Comfort Cooling, Cold Storage, Refrigerated Food Processing and Dispensing Equipment, and Household Refrigeration Industries in the United States

March 2016

Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Stratospheric Protection Division Office of Atmospheric Programs 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Prepared by ICF International 1725 Eye Street , NW Washington, DC 20006

## blank pageICF International iii March 2016 

# Table of Contents
Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... viii 1 U.S. Fire Suppression Industry

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 1 1.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 1 1.2 Market Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 2 1. 2.1 Overview of Fire Suppression Products

................................ ................................ ........... 2 1.2.2 Total Flooding Systems

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4 1.2.3 Streaming Applications

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 5 1.3 Sector Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 7 1.3.1 To tal Flooding Agents

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 8 1.3.2 Streaming Agents

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 11 1.4 Climate

- Friendly Alternatives

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 13 1.4.1 Total Flooding

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 13 1.4.2 Streaming

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 16 2 U.S. Commercial Comfort Cooling Industry

................................ ................................ ................. 18 2.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 18 2.2 Market Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 18 2.2.1 Vapor Compression Chillers

................................ ................................ ........................... 19 2.3 Sector Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 23 2.3.1 Centrifugal Chillers

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 24 2.3.2 Positive Displacement Chillers

................................ ................................ ....................... 25 2.4 Climate

- Friendly Alternatives

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 26 2.4.1 HFO/HFC Blends

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 28 2.4.2 Am monia

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 28 2.4.3 Absorption Chillers

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 29 2.4.4 Carbon Dioxide

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 29 2.4.5 Hydrocarbons

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 29 3 U.S. Cold Storage Industry

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 30 3.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 30 3.2 Market C haracterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 30 3.2.1 Cold Storage Refrigeration Systems

................................ ................................ .............. 30 3.2.2 U.S. Cold Storage Facility Types and Operators

................................ ............................ 34 3.2.3 Cold Storage Capacity in the United States

................................ ................................ ... 36 3.3 Sector Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 38 3.4 Climate

- Friendly Alternatives

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 39 3.4.1 Ammonia

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 39 3.4.2 Carbon Dioxide

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 40 3.4.3 HF C/HFO Blends

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 40 4 U.S. Refrigerated Food Processing and Dispensing Equipment

................................ ..................... 42 4.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 42 4.2 Market Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 42 4.3 Sector Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 43 4.4 Climate

- Friendly Alternatives

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 44 4.4.1 Hydrocarbons

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 44 4.4.2 Carbon Dioxide

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 44ICF International iv March 2016 4.4.3 HFC/HFO Blends

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 44 5 U.S. H ousehold Refrigeration Industry

................................ ................................ ........................ 46 5.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 46 5.2 Market Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 46 5.2.1 Overview of U.S. Household Refrigeration Equipment

................................ ................. 46 5.3 Sector Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 49 5.4 Climate

- Friendly Alternatives

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 49 5.4.1 Hydrocarbons and Hydrocarbon Blends

................................ ................................ ........ 50 5.4.2 HFO/HFC Blends

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 51 5.4.3 Low

- GWP Saturated HFCs

................................ ................................ ............................. 51 5.4.4 Ammonia Absorption

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 52 6 References

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 53 

# Figures

Figure 1. U.S. Total Flooding Agent Use from 1985 to 2015 (metric tons (MT))*

................................ ...... 10 Figure 2. U.S. Streaming Agent Use from 1985 to 2015 (MT)*

................................ ................................ .. 12 Figure 3: Example Images of Centrifugal Chillers (Johnson Controls 2015 and McQuay 2015)

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 20 Figure 4 : Example Images of Positive Displacement Chillers (Trane 2015a and Carrier 2015)

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 21 Figure 5: Fluorinated Refrigerant Stock in Vapor

- compression Chillers in the United States from 1985

- 2015 (MT)

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 24 Figure 6: Ceiling

- mounted Cold Storage Room Evaporators (T RJ Refrigeration 2015; UNEP 2015c)

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 31 Figure 7: Central Plant Compressors in a Machine Room (Cole 2004)

................................ ....................... 32 Figure 8: Three Evaporative Condensers outside a Cold Storage Facility (Cole 2004)

............................... 32 Figure 9: Packaged Units on the Roof and Ceiling of a Refrigerated Warehouse (Cole 2004)

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 33 Figure 10: Gross Capacity of Refrigerated Storage by Facility Type, 2013

................................ ................. 35 Figure 11. Largest Public Refrigerated Warehousing and Logistics Providers in the United States a

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 36 Figure 12: Gross Capacity of Refrigerated Storage by Year (1995

- 2013) and Facility Type

....................... 37 Figure 13: Number of Cold Storage Warehouses in 2013 by Size Group and Facility Type

....................... 37 Figure 14: F luorinated Refrigerant Stock in U.S. Cold Storage (MT)*

................................ ......................... 38 Figure 15: Example Images of Refrigerated Food Processing and Dispensi ng Equipment (Avantco 2015; Stoelting 2015; Taylor Company 2015)

................................ ............................ 42 Figure 16. Example Images of Household Refrigeration Equipment (Maytag 2015; Whirlpool 2015; Kenmore 2015; GE 2015)

................................ ................................ ............... 47 Figure 17. Refrigerant Stock in U.S. Household Refrigeration from 1985 t o 2015 (MT)

............................ 49 Figure 18. Refrigerant Safety Group Classification

................................ ................................ ..................... 50ICF International v March 2016 

# Tables

Table 1. Standards on National and International Fire Suppression Products

................................ ............. 3 Table 2. Total Flooding System Applications

................................ ................................ ................................ 5 Table 3. Streaming Agent Applications

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 6 Table 4. Classifications of Fire Types in the United States Based on Fuel Hazard

................................ ........ 8 Table 5. Halon, HCFC, and HFC Total Flooding Agents

................................ ................................ ................. 9 Table 6. Military Weapon s Fire Protection Applications of HFC

- 125 and HFC

- 227ea

................................ 10 Table 7. Halon, HCFC, and HFC Streaming Agents

................................ ................................ ...................... 12 Table 8. Climate

- Friendly Total Flooding Agents

................................ ................................ ........................ 13 Table 9. Climate

- Friendly Streaming Agents

................................ ................................ ............................... 16 Table 10: Typical Chiller Capacity Ranges and Refrigerants

................................ ................................ ....... 19 Table 11: Estimated 2015 Vapor Compression Chillers St ock in the United States

................................ ... 20 Table 12: Typical Chiller Charge Sizes

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 21 Table 13: Manufacturers of Compressors and Chillers

................................ ................................ ............... 22 Table 14: Centrifugal Chiller Estimated Stock

................................ ................................ ............................. 24 Table 15: Positive Displacement Chiller Stock Estimates

................................ ................................ ............ 25 Table 16: Overview of Climate

- Friendly Alternatives and SNAP Listing Status

................................ .......... 27 Table 17: Types of Cold Storage Facilities and Operators

................................ ................................ .......... 34 Table 18. Climate

- Friendly Alternatives in Cold Storage

................................ ................................ ............ 39 Table 19: Manufacturers of Refrigerated Food Processing and Dispensing Equipment*

.......................... 43 Table 20: Climate

- Friendly Alternative Refrigerants

................................ ................................ .................. 44 Table 21. Summary of U.S. Household Refrigerator and Freezer Characteristics

................................ ...... 47 Table 22. Refrigerator Typ es in U.S. Households

................................ ................................ ........................ 48 Table 23. Climate

- Friendly Alternative Refrigerants in U.S. Household Refrigeration

............................... 50ICF International vi March 2016 

# Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronym / Abbreviation Definition
3PL Third party logistics ACE Armored Combat Earthmover
AHRI Air

- Conditioning, Heating, & Refrigeration Institute
ANSI American National Standards Institute
APUs Auxiliary power units
Ar Argon ASHRAE American Society of Heating , Refrigerating and Air

- Conditioning Engineers ASV Autonomous surface v ehicles
BTU British Thermal Units CAA Clean Air Act CFC C hlorofluorocarbon
CO 2 Carbon dioxide CVN Aircraft carrier (nuclear propulsion)
DoD U.S. Department of Defense
EER Energy e fficiency r atio
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FAASV Field a rtillery ammunition supply v ehicle
FEMP Federal Energy Management Program
FKs F luoroketones GE General Electric GWP G lobal w arming p otential
HCFCs H ydrochlorofluorocarbons
HFCs H ydrofluorocarbons
HFOs Hydrofluoro

- olefins
HFPEs Hydrofluoropolyethers
HMMWV Up

- armored h igh m obility m ultipurpose w heeled v ehicle
IG Inert gas IIAR International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration
IPLV Integrated part l oad v alueICF International vii March 2016 Acronym / Abbreviation Definition ISO International Organization for Standardization kg K ilogram kW K ilowatt LAES L ocally a pplied e xtinguishing s ystems LAVs Light armored v ehicles LCS Littoral c ombat s hip
LEED Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design
LHA Landing h elicopter a ssault
LHD Landing h elicopter d eck
LPD Landing platform/d ock LVSR Logistics v ehicle system r eplacement
MRAP Mine resistant ambush p rotected
MT M etric tons
MTVR Medium tactical v ehicle r eplacement
N 2 Nitrogen
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NIK N ot

- in

- kind
ODP Ozone d epleti o n p otential ODS Ozone depleting substances OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
RAD Responsible Appliance Disposal SCAFE Self

- contained a utomatic f ire e xtinguishing s ystems SEE Small e m placement e xcavator SNAP Significant New Alternatives Policy
UL Underwriters Laboratories
UNFI United Natural Foods, Inc. USDA United States Department of AgricultureICF International viii March 2016 

# Executive Summary This report characterizes the current state of the U.S. market for the industries that are anticipated to be impacted by the Environmenta l Protection Agency’s ( EPA’s ) proposed rule on changing the l isting
s tatus for c ertain s ubstitutes under the Significant N ew Alternatives Policy (SNAP) p rogram. This report includes information on the fire suppression , commercial comfort cooling , cold stor age , r efrigerated f ood p rocessing and d ispensing e quipment , and household refrigeration industr ies . Historically, each of these industries has relied on ozone depleting substances (ODS), which are substances that destroy the stratospheric ozone layer that shields the Earth from overexposure to the sun’s ultraviolet radiation. Each chapter of this docum ent characterizes one of these industries in terms of the market size and companies, historical and current use of ODS and alternatives, the availability of climate

- friendly alternatives, and barriers identified in transitioning to new alternatives.ICF International 1 March 2016 

# 1 U.S. Fire Suppression Industry
1.1 Introduction
The fire suppression industry has historically used halons, a class of halogenated chemicals containing bromine, as clean extinguishing agents (i.e., those that do not leave residue following system discharge) in many different applications. Halons have a unique combination of characteristics including being electrically non

- conductive, dissipating rapidly without residue (i.e., clean), efficiently extinguishing most types of fires, and low toxicity. These agents are extremely effective on ordinary combusti bles, flammable liquids and gases, and electrical fires (i.e., Class A, Class B, and Class C fires, respectively). These characteristics allow systems employing these agents to effectively protect valuable and sensitive assets in locations such as computer and control rooms, electronic data processing facilities, museums, military equipment, shipboard machinery space, and oil and gas industry facilities. Halons have very high ozone depleti o n potentials (ODP s ) 1 because they contain bromine, which has a hig her reactivity with ozone than chlorine. Specifically, the ODPs of halon 1211 and halon 1301 are listed in the Montreal Protocol with ODP values of 3.0 and 10.0, respectively . Under the U.S. Clean Air Act (CAA), the United States banned the production and import of newly produced halons beginning January 1, 1994 , in compliance with the Montreal Protocol. The U.S. government also imposed an excise tax on halons and passed regulations to reduce emissions of halon through technician training and proper disposa l. The U.S. fire suppression industry supported the phaseout of halon production by working to find effective substitutes and to reduce unnecessary emissions of halon. Because the Montreal Protocol ended global halon production in 2010, recycled halon is r elied on for continuing uses of halons. In response to the early phaseout of halon production, industry took actions to find alternatives including lower ODP hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), non

- ozone
- depleting hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), as well as a vari ety of lower G lobal W arming P otential (GWP) or no
- GWP alternatives (e.g., inert gases, carbon dioxide ( CO 2 ) , powdered aerosols, foams, water) in the early 1990s. Although HFCs do not contribute to ozone depletion, these substances are powerful greenhouse g ases thousands of times more potent per pound than CO 2 and their emissions contribute to climate change. Industry also took actions to minimize emissions and halon recycling emerged as an important initiative to both reduce unnecessary emissions and to ens ure supplies of halons during the transition. Other efforts included changes to national and international fire codes and standards to discourage the use of halons for testing and training while supporting the adoption of the alternatives listed as accepta ble replacements for halons by EPA’s SNAP program.
The remainder of this chapter characterizes the U.S. fire suppression sector in terms of key market players, historical and current extinguishing agent use, and the availability of alternative , more cl imate

friendly fire suppression agents.

1 ODP is a measure relative to CFC

- 11, which has an ODP of 1.0.Market Characterization U.S. Fire Suppression Ind ustry

ICF International 2 March 2016 

## 1.2 Market Characterization
This section provides an overview of fire suppression end

- uses and applications, as well as the current equipment market and key manufacturers.


## 1.2.1 Overview of Fire Suppression Products
The fire suppression industry use s fire extinguishing agents for a variety of applications. This market characterization covers two main product categories: total flooding systems and streaming applications

. 2 , 3

• Total flooding systems are designe d to automatically discharge a fire extinguishing agent by detection and related controls or manually by a system operator , and achieve a specified minimum agent concentration throughout a confined space (i.e., volume percent of the agent in air). Within t his category are two specialized applications: explosion suppression and inerting against explosions and fires.

• Streaming applications use portable fire extinguishers that can be manually manipulated to discharge an agent in a specific direction and releas e a specific quantity to extinguishing agent at the time of a fire. Fire suppression applications have a wide variety of characteristics that depend on the details of the hazard being protected against and th e assets being protected . Specifically, the foll owing criteria must be considered before a product is chosen to protect a particular area (UNEP 2014):

• Whether the space may be occupied at the time a fire occurs;

• Whether fire extinguishing is to be achieved by local application of an agent directly onto burning materials or by creation of a fire extinguishing atmosphere in a defined volume (total flooding); and

• Asset value and sensitivity of objects and spaces being protected.

2 S elf

- contained automatic fire e xtinguishing systems (SCAFE) and locally applied extinguishing systems (LAES) are not covered

in this market characterization . SCAFE and LAES did not historically use ODS and therefore EPA’s SNAP program has not traditionally analyzed these fire suppression application s
. 3 Other specialized fire suppression products such as explosion suppression and fire/explosion inerting are not covered in this

market characterization because of their specialized application and limited market presence. These systems decrease the likelihood of combustion by maintaining a chemically

- inert and non

- reactive atmosphere. They are used in military, oil processing, and other similar applicati ons.Market Characterization U.S. Fire Suppression Industry

ICF International 3 March 2016 Table 1 lists the national and international standards related to fire extinguishing products (i.e., total flooding systems, streaming applications) from organizations such as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), International Organi zation for Standardization (ISO), American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and Underwriters Laboratories (UL). These standards include requirements, specifications, and recommendations for the design, installation, testing, maintenance, and safety fac tors for different types of fire suppression agents in total flooding systems and streaming applications.

Table 1 . Standards on National and International Fire Suppression Products
Product Category Standard Title Description

Total Flooding Systems NFPA 2001 Standard on Clean Agent Extinguishing Systems • Sets minimum agent design concentrations for halogenated agents and inert gases and minimum safety factors for different fire hazards
NFPA 12 Standard on Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems • R equi rements for carbon dioxide fire extinguishing systems to help ensure that such equipment will function as intended throughout its life
NFPA 12A Standard o n Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Systems • Requirements for total flooding h alon 1301 systems to help those who design, install, test, inspect, approve, list, operate, maintain, decommission, and remove halogenated agent systems ensure that such equipment will function as intended throughout its life
NFPA 750 Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems • S tandardization of design, installation, maintenance, and testing requirements for wate r mist fire suppression systems
ISO 14520 Gaseous Fire

Extinguishing Systems • R equirements and recommendations for design, installation, te sting, maintenance and safety of gaseous firefighting systems in buildi ngs, plant or other structures

• Characteristics of various agents and corresponding

types of fire
ISO 6182

- 9 Fire protection

– Automatic sprinkler systems • Requirements and test methods for water mist nozzles

Streaming Applications NFPA 10 Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers • R equirements to ensure that portable fire extinguishers will work as intended to provide a first line of defense against fires of limited size
NFPA 12B Standard on Halon 1211 Fire Extinguishing Systems • M inimum requirements for design, installation, testing, inspection, and maintenance of h alon 1211 extinguishing systems ANSI/UL 711 Standard for Rating and Fire Testing of Fire Extinguishers • R equirements for rating, and performance during fire tests, of fire extinguishers intended for use in attacking Class A, B, C, D, and K fires a

• R equirements for performance during fire tests of fire

extinguishing agents for application on Class D firesMarket Characterization U.S. Fire Suppression Ind ustry

ICF International 4 March 2016 Product Category Standard Title Description

UL 2129 Halocarbon Clean Agent Fire Extinguishers • Requirements for construction and performance of portable halocarbon clean agent fire extinguishers Total Flooding and Streaming Applications ANSI/UL 1058 Standard for Halogenated Agent Extinguishing System Units • R equirements for construction and operation of halogenated agent fire extinguishing system units intended to be installed, inspected, tested, and maintained in accordance with NFPA 12A and NFPA 12B
Aviation Total Flooding and Streaming Applications NFPA 408 Standard for Aircraft Hand Portable Fire Extinguishers • Requirements for type and size of portable fire extinguis hers for all types of aircraft

• R equirements for training flight

- crew members on

extinguisher use in the event of a fire onboard an aircraft
FAA Minimum Performance Standard (MPS) (DOT/FAA/AR

01/37) Handh eld Fire Extinguishers as a Replacement for Halon 1211 on Civilian Transport Category Aircraft • Specifies two extinguisher tests that replacement agents must pass in addition to requiring nati onal certifications to ensure that replacement agents will meet or exceed performance of halon 1211 both in fighting fires and maintaining a safe breathing environment in aircraft cabins FAA MPS ( DOT/FAA/TC

TN12/11) Aircraft Cargo Compartment Halon Replacement Fire Suppression Systems • E stablishes the MPS that a Halon 1301 replacement aircraft cargo compartment fi re suppression system must meet as part of the aircraft certification procedures
FAA MPS Fire Extinguishing Agents/Systems of Civil Aircra ft Engine and Auxiliary Power Unit Compartments • Establishes the MPS that e ng ine and APU compar tment fire extinguishing systems must meet

FAA MPS (DOT/FAA/AR

96/122) Lavatory Trash Receptacle Automatic Fire Extinguishers • Establishes the MPS that an agent must meet and provides an equivalent level of safety to that of halon

• Establishes the fire load, trash disposal receptacle test

article, test procedures, and pass/fail criteria for built

in extinguishers for lavatory disposal receptacles

a Class D fires are combustible metal fires and Class K fires are kitchen fires involving cooking oils, grease, or animal fat. 

## 1.2.2 Total Flooding Systems
Total flooding systems, which historically employed halon 1301 as a fire suppression agent, are used in both normally occupied and unoccupied areas. In addition to halon 1301, the current market for total flooding systems also includes HCFCs, HFCs, inert g ases, and a variety of not

- in

- kind (NIK) extinguishing agents (e.g., powdered aerosols, foams, water). These agents are discussed in more detail in Section 1.3.1 , below. In the United States, approximately 90 percent of total flooding systems installed protect anticipated hazards from ordinary combustibles (i.e., Class A fires), while the remaining 10 percent protect applications involving flammable liquidsMarket Characterization U.S. Fire Suppression Industry

ICF International 5 March 2016 and gases (i.e., Class B fires) (Wickham 2002). 4 It is also estimated that approximately 75 percent of total flooding systems protect electronics (e.g., computers, telecommunications, process control areas) while the remaining 25 percent serve to protect other applications, primarily in civil aviation (e.g., engine nacelles/ auxiliary power units ( APUs ) , cargo compartments, lavatory trash receptacles), military weapons systems (e.g., combat vehicles, machinery spaces on ships, aircraft engines and t anks), oil/gas and manufacturing industries (e.g., gas/oil pumping, compressor stations), and maritime (e.g., machinery space, cargo pump rooms) (Wickham 2002). Table 2 includes the primary applications for total flooding systems in the United States (Robin 2011 ; JENSEN HUGHES, Inc. 2015).

Table 2 . Total Flooding System Applications

Known total flooding system manufacturers within the United States are listed below. The companies listed were identified during literature review while developing this report, and do not necessarily represent an inclusive list of all companies manufacturing within the United States.

• Amerex Corporation • FireCombat • Reliable Fire & Security

• Badger Fire Protection • Firetrace International • Sevo Systems

• BFPE International • Meggitt • TYCO (Ansul)

• Fike Corporation • Minimax • UTC (Kidde)

• FireBoy

- Xintex • PyroChem


## 1.2.3 Streaming Applications
Streaming applications, which have historically used halon 1211 as an extinguishing agent, include portable fire extinguishers designed to protect against specific hazards. In addition to halon 1211, the current market for streaming applications also inclu des HC FCs, HFCs, and a variety of other agents (e.g., dry chemical, CO 2 , water) . These agents are discussed in more detail in Section 1.3.2

. Porta ble fire extinguishers are intended as a first line of defense to cope with fires of limited size. The selection and installation of extinguishers is independent of whether a building or area is equipped with

4 Table 4 in Section 1.3 provides additional information about classifications of fire. Commercial (including maritime) Industrial Aviation Military

• Telecommunication facilities

• Computer rooms

• Data processing centers

• Maritime

• Museums

• Libraries

• Hospitals

• Medical facilities • Clean rooms

• Petrochemical facilities

• Production lines

• Grain elevators • Engine nacelles

• APUs

• Cargo compartments

• Aircraft lavatory trash receptacles • Crew spaces of armored vehicles

• Aviation engine nacelles and dry bays

• Shipboard machinery spacesMarket Characterization U.S. Fire Suppression Ind ustry

ICF International 6 March 2016 fixed fire protection equipment (NFPA 10: 2013). Handheld extinguishers are commonly used in more than fifty applications falling under the broad categories of commercial (including maritime), industrial, aviation/aerospace, and military uses. 5 Table 3 , organizes some of the applications that use portable fire extinguishers to protect valuable or sensitive assets or areas in which contamination may be an issue.

Table 3
. Streaming Agent Applications
Commercial (including maritime) Industrial Aviation/Aerospace Military

• Cable trays

• Computer rooms

• Data centers

• Telecommunications facilities

• Electronic compartments

• Ship control rooms

• Transmission facilities

• Utility vaults

• Art galleries

• Banking facilities

• Libraries

• Retail and wholesale facilities

• Warehouses • Process control facilities

• Motor control rooms

• Manufacturing plants

• Clean rooms

• Oil and gas facilities

• Conventional and nuclear power plants

• Hazardous materials storage a reas • Onboard aircraft

• Control towers

• Aircraft flight lines

• Aircraft ramps

• Aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicles

• Spacecraft facilities • Electronics facilities

• Ship control rooms

• Training

• Aircraft flight lines

Portable fire extinguishers are classified in the United States by their UL r ating, which is a relative measurement of the effectiveness of the extinguisher on specific fire classes. The UL rating system includes Class A , B , and C ratings and a numerical r ating that represents the relative extinguishing effectiveness of the fire extinguisher. The Class A rating measures water equivalency where 1A equals 1.25 gallons of water. The Class B rating measures the equivalent amount of square footage that the extin guisher can cover and the Class C rating indicates whether or not it can be used on electrically energized items (UL 2004). This rating system provides guidance to understanding the different types of extinguishers and requ irements for various end

- uses. According to available market reports, in 2014, the fire extinguisher manufacturing industry in the United States was estimated to have gross sales of $545 million and employed approximately 860 people (IBIS World 2014). Leading manufacturers of portable f ire extinguishers in the Unite d States are summarized below.

• Amerex Corporation • H3R Aviation, Inc. • PyroChem

• Badger Fire Protection • H3R Performance, Inc. • Reliable Fire & Security

• BFPE International • JL Industries • Sea

- Fire

• Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. • Koatsu • TYCO (Ansul)

• E

- ONE • Larsen’s • UTC (Kidde)

5 Handheld extinguis hers are also used in the residential sector, however, units primarily use dry chemical as a streaming agent,

rather than halons, HCFCs, or HFCs. Therefore, applications in the residential sector are not discussed further in this marke t characterization.Market Characterization U.S. Fire Suppression Industry

ICF International 7 March 2016

• FireBoy

- Xintex • Oshkosh Truck Corporation

• Gielle • Potter Roemer Fire Pro 

## 1.3 Sector Background
Historically, the fire suppression sector relied on halons as the extinguishing agent in both total flooding systems and streaming applications. In the United States, halon 1301 and halon 1211 were the only two halons extensively used in fire suppression, primarily in total flooding systems and streaming applications, respectively. 6 In response to the halon phase out under the Montreal Protocol and as mandated by the CAA, fire suppression agent manufacturers transitioned to less intensive ozone

depleting HCFCs, non

- ozone
- depleting HFCs, as well as a variety of lower

- GWP or no

- GWP alternatives (e.g., inert gases, CO 2 , powdered aerosols, foams, water) in the early 1990s. As the industry made these transitions, further regulations limited the use of HCFCs as alternatives (e.g., HCFC

- 123, HCFC

- 124, HCFC blends), as required by Title VI of the CAA, to help the United St ates achieve and go beyond the Montreal Protocol phaseout targets. In particular, the nonessential products bans, implemented under Section 610 of the CAA, addressed several important emissive uses of ODS in the early 1990s, including the use of HCFCs in a ll “pressurized dispensers” (e.g., portable fire extinguishers). The use of HCFCs as a fire suppressant in portable fire extinguishers for non

- residential applications was initially banned as part of the original 1993 rulemaking but was reconsidered for us e in 1996. Thus, EPA allows the sale and distribution of HCFCs in portable fire extinguishers strictly for non

- residential applications. The use of HCFCs continues to be permitted as a result of a House Resolution 1540 signed into law where Section 320, Fi re Suppression Agents, amends section 605(a) of the CAA to allow HCFCs to continue to be used after 2015 in portable fire extinguishers for non

- residential applications. 7 Despite this specific use exemption, HCFC

- based fire extinguishing agents are subject to the U.S. HCFC phaseout schedule, which remains on track to completely phase out production and import of HCFC

- 22 and HCFC

142b by January 1, 2020, and ban the production and import of all other HCFCs, completing th e phaseout by January 1, 2030. Today, the entire halon alternative market is comprised of both clean agents and not

- in

- kind ( NIK ) technologies (i.e., non

- gaseous agents, including powdered aerosols, foam, and water mist). 8 HFCs represent approximately 15 percent of the halon alternative marke t in the United States, with CO 2 and inert gases accounting for most of the remainder, although HCFCs, PFCs, fluoroketones (FKs), and iodinated fluorocarbons are also in use (EPA 2014a) . HFC

- 227ea is commonly used today in this sector , with some use of HFC

- 23, HFC

- 125, and HFC

- 236fa. Although HFCs do not contribute to ozone depletion, these substances are powerful greenhouse gases thousands of times more potent per pound than CO 2 and their emission s contribute to climate change. The successful adoption of halon alternatives in fire suppression is significantly reliant on the agent’s effectiveness in a particular application, which is dependent upon the agent’s chemical structure and the type of fire hazard to be extinguished. Alternatives to halons are n ow used in applications serving

6 Halon 2402 was used in some very limited applications.
7 HCFCs in total flooding systems and fixed streaming systems are not subject to the ban under CAA section 610(d) because

these systems are not defined as pressurized dispensers. 8 Clean agents are ga seous extinguishing agents that are electrically non

- conductive and leave no residue. Typical applications

for clean agents include explosion prevention, electrical and electronic hazards, subfloors and other concealed spaces, flammable and combustible li quids and gases, high

- value assets, and telecommunications facilities.Market Characterization U.S. Fire Suppression Ind ustry

ICF International 8 March 2016 certain fire classes, i.e., ordinary combustibles, flammable liquids, flammable gases, and electrical equipment. The different types of fires where halons are used are based on the physical and chemical nature of fuel involv ed and are shown in Table 4

. Table 4 . Classifications of F ire T ypes in the United States B ased on F uel H azard
Symbol Fire Type Classification Fuel

Class A Ordinary combustibles (e.g., wood, paper, plastics)

Class B Flammable liquids (e.g., gasoline, petroleum oil and paint) and flammable gases (e.g., propane, butane)

Class C Energized e lectrical equipment (e.g., motors, transformers, appliances)

Source: FEMA (2015) Gaseous agents (e.g., halons, HCFCs, HFCs) extinguish fires using three main mechanisms (Wickham 2002):

1. Chemical inhibition by halogen atoms

– Bromine, chlorine, and iodine atoms can act catal ytically and react with free radicals from combustion gases multiple times, thereby reducing fire propagation at the flame front.

2. Thermal physical effects

– The flame temperature decreases upon mixing of a non

- reactive gas with a flammable gas, thereby dec reasing the rate of combustion.

3. Dilution physical effects

– The collision frequency of oxygen and fuel is reduced by adding another gas to the fuel

- air mixture. The primary mechanisms (i.e., chemical or physical) used by each agent are different (e.g., halon vers us inert gases). The remainder of this chapter provides an overview of the historically

- and currently

- used chemicals installed in fire suppression equipment in the United States, primarily for the applications within the main product categories : total flooding systems and streaming applications, as introduced in Section 1.2

. 

## 1.3.1 Total Flooding Agents
Historically, halon 1301 (bromotrifluoro methane, CBrF 3 ) was used as the primary gaseous agent in total flooding fire extinguishing systems. Clean total flooding agents (i.e., those that do not leave residue following system discharge such as halon) are ideally suited to protect areas containing highly valuableMarket Characterization U.S. Fire Suppression Industry

ICF International 9 March 2016 or sensitive assets, as well as areas where egress of personnel may be difficult. HCFCs and HFCs are clean extinguishing agents that are widely used as halon replacements, serving to protect high value assets in many applications following the production and import ban on halons in 1994. There is still continuing use of halon 1301 to maintain and service existing systems (e.g., oil processing, military) and in new installations on aircraft ( e.g., engine nacelles/APUs, and airplane cargo compartments)

. Table 5 summarizes the primary extinguishing agent , manufacturers, and the environmental characteristics, including ODP and GWP, for commercially available and technically proven halon, HCFC, and HFC total flooding agents.

Table 5 . Halon, HCFC, and HFC Total Flooding Agents Total Flooding Agent Trade Name Manufacturer ODP a GWP b
Halon 1301 d Freon FE DuPont and G reat Lakes Chemical 10 7,140 HCFC Blend A e NAF S

- III Safety Hi

- Tech f 0.0 48 1,546
HCFC

- 124 FE

- 241 Chemours c, e,f 0.022 609 HFC Blend B g Halotron II American Pacific 0 1,598
HFC

- 23 FE

- 13 Chemours c 0 14,800
HFC

- 125 FE

- 25 Chemours c 0 3,500
HFC

- 227ea FM

- 200 Chemours c 0 3,220
HFC

- 236fa FE

- 36 Chemours c 0 9,810 Note: Rows highlighted in gray denote chemicals that have been subjected to a phaseout under the Montreal Protocol. See footnotes for more information.

a Montreal Protocol b IPCC (2007)

c Chemours was formerly DuPont and the fire suppressant division of Great Lakes Chemical

. d The production of Halon 1301 and Halon 2402 was banned in the United States in 1994 in compliance with the Montreal Protocol. Ongoing halon use is limited to recycle d halon.

e HCFC Blend A contains 82% HCFC

- 22, 9.5% HCFC

- 124, 4.75% HCFC

- 123, and 3.75% isopropenyl

- 1

- methylcyclohexane. f HCFCs are scheduled for phaseout under the Montreal Protocol. Starting in 2015, production and import of HCFCs (except in portable fire extinguishers for non

- residential use and refrigeration and air conditioning equipment ) are not allowed.
g HFC Blend B contains greater than 70% HFC

- 134a, less than 15% HFC

- 125, and less than 15% CO 2 (AMPAC 2007). Currently, HFCs account for approximately 23 percent of the alternatives used to replace halon 1301, while HFC

- 227ea constitutes a majority of that total (EPA 2014 a )

. As illustrated in Figure 1 , the U.S. total flooding systems industry has made significant progress in adopting a variety of suppression agent alternatives to halon; as a result, a mix of agents are in use today with high

- GWP HFCs occupying a substantial portion of the products on the market.Market Characterization U.S. Fire Suppression In dustry

ICF International 10 March 2016 Figure 1 . U.S. Total Flooding Agent Use from 1985 to 2015 (metric tons (MT))*

Source: EPA (2014 a ) * “ No GWP/ODP ” includes NIK technologies with no ODP and low or no GWP including inert gases, powdered aerosols, foam, and water mist

. For example, the U.S. military selected HFCs as alternatives in some of its military weapons systems. Specifically, HFC

- 125 and HFC

- 227ea have been adopted in a number of military engine compartment, crew compartment, and engine nacelle/APU applications, a s shown in Table 6

. Table 6
. Military Weapons Fire Protection Applications of HFC

- 125 and HFC

- 227ea U.S. Military Branch HFC Agent Weapon System

U.S. Air Force HFC

- 125 • F

- 22 Raptor fighter

• KC

- 46 (Boeing 767 derivative under development)

• MV

- 22 Osprey assault transport U.S. Army HFC

227ea/Sodium Bicarbonate Dry Chemical • Stryker combat vehicle crew and engine compartments

• Autonomo us Surface Vehicles (ASV) crew and engine compartments

• Mine Resistant Ambush Protected ( MRAP ) crew and engine compartment s

• Up

- Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) crew space

• Small Emplacement Excavator ( SEE ) engine

• M9 Armored Combat Earthmover (ACE) engine

• Army watercraft engine spaces

• Multiple Launch Rocket System engine

• Field Artillery Ammunition Supply Vehicle (FAASV ) engine
HFC

- 125 • UH1 Huey helicopter 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Stock (MT)

Halon 1301 HFC-23 HFC-227ea HFC-125 FK-5-1-12 No GWP/ODS No GWP/ODPMarket Characterization U.S. Fire Suppression Industry

ICF International 11 March 2016 U.S. Military Branch HFC Agent Weapon System

U.S. Marine Corps • AH1 Cobra helicopter

• MV

- 22 Osprey assault transport

• Light Armored Vehicles ( LAVs )

• M edium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (M TVR )
HFC

227ea/Sodium Bicarbonate Dry Chemical • Logistics Vehicle System Replacement (LVSR) crew compartments

U.S. Navy HFC

- 125 Aircraft

• F

- 22 Raptor fighter

• F

- 18 E/F Super Hornet fighter

• EA

- 18G Growler

• Bell UH

- 1Y Venom

• Bell AH

- 1Z Viper

• E

- 2D Hawkeye

• Sikorsky CH

- 53K King Stallion

• MV

- 22 Osprey

• CV

- 22 (U.S. Air Force Special Ops Command variant of MV

- 22)

• P

- 8A (dry bay only) derivative of Boeing 737

- 800

• CH

- 60 helicopter
HFC

- 227ea Ships

• Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) 1

• LCS 2

• Landing Helicopter Assault (LHA) 6

• L anding Helicopter Deck (L HD ) 8

• L anding Platform/Dock (L PD ) 17

• A ircraft carrier (nuclear propulsion ) ( CVN ) 76

- 78

• D DG

- 1000 Zumwalt

- C lass Destroyer

• DDG

- 51 Flight III Destroyer (proposed) Source s : Wickham (2002), Hughes Associates and ICF Consulting (2004) , JENSEN HUGHES , Inc. (2015) 

## 1.3.2 Streaming Agents
Historically, halon 1211 (b romochlorodifluoromethane , CBrClF 2 ) was used as the primary clean agent in portable fire extinguishers. HCFC blends (e.g., Halotron I) and HFCs (largely HFC

- 236fa) replaced halon 1211 in various applications following the production and import ban of halons in 1994. However, the U.S. fire protection industry has made significant progress in adopting a variety of climat e
- friendly alternatives for streaming applications. In the mid

- 1990s, streaming agents with zero ODP and low or no GWP, including water, CO 2 , and dry chemical, began to penetrate the market and currently occupy a large portion of available products. There is still some continuing use of halon 1211 to maintain and service existing handheld extinguishers , primarily for handheld extinguishers onboard aircraft.
Table 7 , summarizes the extinguishing agent environmental characteristics including ODP and GWP, and primary manufacturer for commercially available and/or technically proven halon, HCFC, and HFC str eaming fire protection agents. The only HCFC and HFC streaming agents currently commerciallyMarket Characterization U.S. Fire Suppressio n Industry

ICF International 12 March 2016 available in the United States are HCFC Blend B (Halotron I), HFC

- 236fa (FE

- 36), and HFC

- 227ea (FM

220). HCFC Blend B and HFC

- 236fa are in the same range of effect iveness as halon 1211.

Table 7 . Halon, HCFC, and HFC Streaming Agents Streaming Agent Trade Name Manufacturer ODP a GWP b
Halon 1211 c FREON 12B1 DuPont 3 1,890 HCFC Blend B e Halotron I American Pacific f 0.02 222
HFC

- 236fa FE

- 36 Chemours d 0 9,810
HFC

- 227ea FM

- 200 Chemours d 0 3,220 Note: Rows highlighted in gray denote chemicals that have been subjected to a phaseout under the Montreal Protocol. See footnotes for more information.

a Montreal Protocol b IPCC (2007)

c The production of Halon 1211 was banned in the United States in 1994 in compliance with the Montreal Protocol. d Chemours was formerly DuPont and the fire suppressant division of Great Lakes Chemical

. e HCFC Blend B contains approximately 9 4 % HCFC

- 123, 4% argon, and 2% CF 4 . f HCFCs are scheduled for phaseout under the Montreal Protocol. Starting in 2015, production and import of HCFCs (except HCFC

- 142b and HCFC

- 22) are not allowed. Currently, HFCs (e.g., HFC

- 236fa) account for only three percent of the alternatives used to replace halon 1211 (EPA 2014 a )

. As illustrated in Figure 2 , the U.S. total flooding systems industry has made significant progress in adopting a variety of suppression agent alternatives to halon, largely streaming agents with zero ODP and low or no GWP, including water, CO 2 , and dry chemical

. Figure 2
. U.S. Streaming Agent Use from 1985 to 2015 (MT)*

Source: EPA (2014 a ) * “No GWP/ODP ” includes chemicals with no ODP and low GWP such as water, CO 2 , and dry chemical. 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Halon 1211 Halotron I HFC-236fa/HFC-227ea No GWP/ODS No GWP/ODPMarket Characterization U.S. Fire Suppression Industry

ICF International 13 March 2016 

## 1.4 Climate

- Friendly Alternatives
Many climate

- friendly alternatives have been found to be acceptable under EPA’s SNAP program for use in fire suppression, including gas
- powder blends, powders, and other NIK technologies (i.e., non

- gaseous agents)

. A s discussed in the previous section, the U.S. fire protection industry has made significant progress in adopting climate

- friendly alternatives, largely in streaming applications, following the ban on halons in the early 1990s. Section 1.4 presents a closer look at each of the available classes of climate

friendly alternatives, organized by the two product categories: total flooding systems and streami ng applications

. 

## 1.4.1 Total Flooding

This section summarizes information on climate

- friendly total flooding agents that have been found acceptable for use or are undergoing review under EPA’s SNAP program. Table 8 presents the GWP, SNAP

- listing status, and primary manufacturers of each alternative.

Table 8
. Climate

- Friendly Total Flooding Agents Total Flooding Agent ODP a GWP b SNAP Listing Status Manufacturer s (Product)

FK

- 5

- 1

- 12 (Novec TM 1230) 0 <1 SNAP

- listed (2002) • 3M

CF 3 I 0.008 c 0.4 SNAP

- listed (1996) • Ajay North America, LLC
PBr 3 d 0.01

– 0.08 0 SNAP

- listed (2006) • PhostrEx

2

- BTP 0.0028 0.23

– 0.26 e Under SNAP review • American Pacific

Inert Gas (IG) Blends 0 0 SNAP

- listed (various years) • Ansul Fire Protection (IG

- 541, Inergen)

• LPG Fire (IG

- 01, IG

- 100, IG

- 55)

• Minimax GmbH (IG

- 01)

• Koatsu Company, Ltd. (IG

- 100)

• Nohmi Bosai Ltd. (IG

- 100)

• Kidde Danmark A/S (IG

- 55)
Inert Gas Generators 0 <1 SNAP

- listed (2012) • ATK (Nitrogen/Water Vapor Gas Generator, OS

- 10)

Carbon Dioxide 0 1 SNAP

- listed (1994) • Various
Water 0 0 SNAP

- listed (1994) • Various Water Mist Systems 0 0 SNAP

- listed (1995) • Marioff Oy

• Securiplex Technologies

• Statewide Fire ProtectionMarket Characterization U.S. Fire Suppression Industry

ICF International 14 March 2016

Total Flooding Agent ODP a GWP b SNAP Listing Status Manufacturer s (Product)

Powdered Aerosols 0 0 SNAP

- listed (various years) • Amerex Defense (K

- Ace)

• ADI Technologies, Inc. (Powdered Aerosol A, SFE)

• Dynamit Nobel GmbH (Powdered Aerosol C,

Dynameco)

• Pyrogen Technologies (Powdered Aerosol C,

Pyrogen/Soyuz)

• Fireaway, Inc. (Powdered Aerosol D, Aero K/Stat X)

• FirePro Systems Limited (Powdered Aerosol E,

FirePro)

• Kidde Aerospace and Defense (Powdered Aerosol F,

KSA®)

• DSPA (Powdered Aerosol G, DSPA Fixed Generators)

• Aerojet (I nert Gas/Powdered Aerosol Blend, FS

0140)

a W MO (2011) , EPA (2002), EPA (2006), Orkin (2004) b IPCC (2007) , EPA (2002), EPA (2012 b )

c At higher altit udes (i.e., 21,000

– 30,000 feet), the ODP of CF 3 I is measured to be in the range of 0.07 to 0.25 (Li and Wuebbles 2006). d PBr 3 is currently only used in one aircraft engine application.

e GWP range represents GWPs for 30°N to 60°N and 60°S to 60°N emissions scenarios for a 100

- year time horizon. A tropospherically well

- mixed approximation of the GWP is equal to 0.59. (Patten et a l. 2012)


### 1. 4.1.1 Halocarbon Agents

Climate

- friendly halocarbon agents are technically proven alternatives for total flooding fire protection. These agents have similar characteristics to other clean agents (i.e., halons, HCFCs, and HFCs), without the envir onmental impact (i.e., no ODP and low GWP). FK

- 5

- 1

- 12, a fluoroketone and commercially known as Novec TM 1230, is a climate

- friendly halocarbon currently available for use in total flooding systems in normally occupied spaces. Halogenated agents primarily f unction by removing heat and decreasing the flame temperature of a fire below that required for combustion (Robin 2009).



### 1. 4.1.2 Inert Gas Clean Agents and Generators Inert gas clean agents, typically consisting of nitrogen (N 2 ), argon (Ar), and CO 2 , have zero ODP and GWP. 9 Four inert gas agents , IG

- 01 (argon) , IG

- 55 (blend of 50 % nitrogen and 50% argon) , IG

- 100 (nitrogen) , and IG

- 541 (blend of 52% nitrogen, 40% argon, and 8% CO 2 ) , are listed as acceptable for use in total flooding systems under EPA’s SNAP program. However, only IG

- 01 and IG

- 541 are considered to be commercially viable in the U.S. market (Wickham 2002). These agents function physically by reducing the oxygen concentration in a confined space (UNEP 2014). Like halogen agents, inert gases are electrically non

- conductive and leave no residue (i.e., clean). Although these agents are acceptable for use in occupied spaces, the risk of asphyxiation via hypoxia may exist. 10

9 Although CO 2 has a GWP of 1, it is not a large component of most commercialized inert gas blends (i.e., 8% of IG

- 541). 10 Twelve percent oxygen in air is the NOAEL for hypoxia (ICF 1997).Market Characterization U.S. Fire Suppression Industry

ICF International 15 March 2016 Inert gas generators are pyrotechnic devices that use a solid material that o xidizes rapidly, producing large quantities of CO 2 and/or N 2 (UNEP 2014). OS

- 10, an N 2 /water vapor gas generator , is listed as an acceptable substitute under EPA’s SNAP program.



### 1. 4.1.3 Carbon Dioxide Carbon dioxide, which has a GWP of 1, has historically been extensively used for fire protection before (i.e., early 1990s) and after the phaseout of halons. Use conditions set by EPA’s SNAP program require that CO 2 total flooding s ystem design s must adhere to Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSH A ) 1910.162(b)(5) 11 and NFPA Standard 12

. In the early 20 th century, CO 2 was the only practical gaseous fire extinguishing agent in commercial use (Wickham 2003). After the phaseout of halons, CO 2 total flooding systems were largely employed in engine room s of all newly constructed commercial ships (Wickham 2002).
However, CO 2 can have significant adverse physiological effects at concentrations above 4 percent , which are required for effective total flooding . Safety precautions and engineering controls are now established for this alternative. Specifically, NFPA 12 includes restrictions on the use of CO 2 total flooding systems in normally occupied spaces (UNEP 2014).



### 1. 4.1.4 Water Mist Technology Water mist technology for fire protection generates and distr ibutes very small mist droplets (i.e., less than 200 μm) to extinguish flames in a confined space, using both cooling effects and oxygen dilution as extinguishing mechanisms (UNEP 2014). Although not clean agent systems, they have negligible environmental impacts and toxicological and physiological hazards. Water mist systems are described in NFPA 750: Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems. There are currently two types of water mist systems: single and dual fluid systems. Single fluid systems deli ver water at 7

– 200 bar through spray nozzles while in dual systems, another gas (e.g., air, nitrogen) atomizes the water in the nozzle (UNEP 2014). Technological advances in these systems include nozzle designs such as the use of air/water nozzles to gen erate even smaller droplets (e.g., 10

– 100 μm) and adjustable spray patterns. This alternative is currently employed in various applications including ship machinery spaces, combustion turbine enclosures, and flammable and combustible liquid storage space s (UNEP 2014).



### 1. 4.1.5 Fine Solid Particulate Technology Fine solid particulate technologies (e.g., condensed powdered aerosol systems) generate and discharge solid aerosol particles and inert gases into the protected space upon activation, either automat ically or manually. The pyrotechnic system charge forms aerosol and inert gases of a specified composition through a burning reaction. The inert gases deliver the solid aerosols that act directly on the flame to

11 OSHA 1910.162(b)(5) requires that t he employer shall provide a distinctive pre

- discharge employee alarm capable of being

perceived above ambient light or noise levels when agent design concentrations exceed the maximum safe level for employee expo sure. A pre

- discharge employee alarm for alerting employees before system discharge shall be provided on Halon 1211 and carbon dioxide systems with a design concentration of 4 percent or greater and for Halon 1301 systems with a design concentration of 10 percent or greater. The pre

- discharge employee alarm shall provide employees time to safely exit the discharge area prior to system discharge. (OSHA 1974)Market Characteriza tion U.S. Fire Suppression Industry

ICF International 16 March 2016 extinguish it (UNEP 2014). EPA’s SNAP progra m has listed numerous powdered aerosols as acceptable for use in total flood ing systems, as shown in Table 9

. Aerosol generators have been manufactured and commercialized for use in various applications including nuclear power station control rooms, automotive and ship engine compartments, and telecommunications and electronics cabinets (UNEP 2014). For example, the U.S. Army uses sodium bica rbonate dry chemical systems in engine compartments of vari ous weapons systems (see Table 6 ).


## 1.4.2 Streaming

In the mid

- 1990s, streaming agents with zero OD P and low GWP, including water, CO 2 , and dry chemical, began to penetrate the market and currently occupy a large portion of available products. This section summarizes information on climate

- friendly streaming agents that have been found acceptable for us e in portable fire extinguishers under EPA’s SNAP program. Table 9 , below, presents the ODP, GWP, SNAP

listing status, and primary manufacturers of ea ch alternative.

Table 9
. Climate

- Friendly Streaming Agents Streaming Agent ODP a GWP b SNAP Listing Status Manufacturer
FK

- 5

- 1

- 12 (Novec TM 1230) 0 <1 Acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits (2002) • 3M

FK

- 6

- 1

- 14 (C7 Fluoroketone) 0 1 Acceptable, subject to use conditions (2012) • 3M

CF 3 I 0.008 0.4 Acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits (1996) • Ajay North America, LLC

2

- BTP 0.0028 0.23

– 0.26 c Proposed acceptable, subject to use conditions • American Pacific

H Galden HFPEs d 0 2,790

– 6,230 Acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits (2003) • Solvay

Dry Chemicals 0 0 Acceptable (1994) • Various Carbon Dioxide 0 1 Acceptable (1994) • Various
Water 0 0 Acceptable (1994) • Various

a WMO (2011) , Orkin (2004) , EPA (2002), EPA (2003) b IPCC (2007), EPA (2002), EPA (2012a)

c GWP range represents GWPs for 30°N to 60°N and 60°S to 60°N emissions scenarios for a 100

- year time horizon. A tropospherically well

- mixed approximation of the GWP is equal to 0.59. (Patten et al. 2012) d Hydrofluoropolyet hers (HFPEs)


### 1. 4.2.1 Halocarbon Agents

Climate

- friendly halocarbon streaming agents (i.e., excluding HCFCs and HFCs) effectively extinguish Class A, B, and C fires without leaving any residue or causing damage in a protected space. EPA’s SNAPMarket Characterization U.S. Fire Suppression Industry

ICF International 17 March 2016 program has l isted two fluoroketones as acceptable for use in portable fire extinguishers, FK

- 5

- 1

- 12 ( Novec TM 1230 ) and FK

- 6

- 1

- 14 (C7 Fluoroketone) . U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) testing demonstrated the successful performance of the use of Novec TM 1230 in a wheeled flightline extinguisher (AFCEC 2014).



### 1. 4.2.2 Carbon Dioxide Carbon dioxide fire extinguishers store CO 2 as a liquefied compressed gas and are typically used on fires with flammable liquids and/or electrically energized equipment. CO 2 extinguishers do not leave residue on a protected area following release and are generally very cost effective (Wickham 2002).



### 1. 4.2.3 Dry Chemical Agents Dry chemical extinguishers, which are commonly used in many applications in the United States, exist in two types (UNEP 2014):

1. Ordinary dry chemicals have a formulation based on sodium or potassium bicarbonate and can be used on fires involving flammable liquids and gases (i.e., Class B) and electrical equipment (i.e., Class C).

2. Multipurpose (“ABC”) dry chemicals have a formulation of ammonium phosphate and are suitable for use on fires involving ordinary combustibles (i.e., Class A) as well as Class B and C fires. The measured particle size ranges from 25

– 95 μm with an average of 31 μm (Fire Protection R esearch Foundation 2010). Dry chemical extinguishers discharge a fine, powdery residue and should not be used to protect valuable or sensitive assets.



### 1. 4.2.4 Water (Straight

- Stream and Spray)

Water

- based extinguishers are only suitable for use on Class A fires involving ordinary combustibles such as wood, paper, and fabrics. Water can be discharged as a fire suppression agent from the extinguisher via spray or straight stream.Marke t Characterization U.S. Commercial Comfort Cooling Industry

ICF International 18 March 2016 

# 2 U.S. Commercial Comfort Cooling Industry
2.1 Introduction
This market characterization focuses on comfort cooling in the commercial sector, and specifically only addresses chillers. Commercial comfort cooling refers to regulating the temperature and humidity in offices, hotels, hospitals, shopping centers, and ot her buildings. The U.S. commercial air conditioning industry historically has relied on chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and HCFC refrigerants, and transitioned to HFCs (e.g. , HFC

- 134a) in response to the phasing out of these ODS . Today, low

- GWP alternatives (e.g. , ammonia, CO 2 , unsaturated HFCs) have entered or are expected to enter the U.S. commercial air conditioning market, facilitated by acceptability listings under EPA’s SNAP program. There are two major categories of chillers

— vapor
- compression and absorption chillers. 12 Vapor

compression chillers are further classified into two categories

— cen trifugal and positive displacement chillers . Centrifugal chillers are centralized air conditioning systems typically used in larger buildings (e.g., offices, hotels, shopping centers, and other large buildings). Positive displacement chillers are smaller and may be either water

- cooled 13 or air

- cool ed

. 14 There are four types of positive displacement chillers

— 1) reciprocating, 2) rotary

- vane, 3 ) screw, and 4 ) scroll

— each of which is named for the type of compressor employed.

T he remainder of this document examines the chiller sector more closely, in t erms of key market players, historical and current refrigerant use, and the availability of alternative, more climate

- friendly refrigerants and technologies. 

## 2.2 Market Characterization
Chillers are a form of stationary air

- conditioning equipment that control heat and/or humidity for the comfort of occupants or for climate control of facilities , such as office and commercial buildings. The chiller industry is composed of two main end

- uses : absorption chillers and vapor

- compression chillers.

• Absorption chiller s are designed to run on direct fired fuel or hot water/steam. Absorption chillers are further classified by the number of heat

- input levels available and the type of fuel
source (IPCC/TEAP 2005)

. • Vapor
- compression chillers are designed with an electric mo tor that runs a compressor and are further classified by the type of compression systems used: centrifugal or positive displacement

. The latter classification can be further categorized into reciprocating, rotary

vane, screw, and scroll compressors (IPCC/TEAP 2005)

. Table 10 summarizes these chiller end

- uses according to the types found in the market, their cooling capacity 15 (in kilowatts ( kW ) ), and refrigerants used.

12 Absorption chillers have not historically used ODS refrigerants; therefore, these applications are not discussed in detail in this

market characterization , except as they are considered to be alternatives for vapor compression chillers. 13 Water

- cooled chillers typically employ cooling towers to remove heat from the system. 14 Air

- cooled chillers employ r efrigerant

- to

- air condenser coils and fans to remove heat from the system. 15 The cooling capacity is the measure of a refrigeration system’s ability to remove heat.Market Characterization U.S. Commercial Comfort Cooling Industry

ICF International 19 March 2016 Table 10 : Typical Chiller Capacity Ranges and Refrigerants

End

- use Chiller Type Approximate Capacity Range (kW) Typical Refrigerants
Absorption Ammonia

- water, air cooled 17

- 85 Ammonia (R

- 717)
R

- 717

- water, water cooled 17

- 85 700

- 3,500 R

- 717

W ater

- lithium bromide

– shell and coil 17

- 120 Water (R

- 718)

W ater

- lithium bromide

– shell and tube 140

- 18,000 R

- 718

Vapor

Compression Scroll, rotary, and reciprocating water

- cooled 10

- 1,200 R

- 410A, HCFC

- 22, R

- 407C

Screw, scroll, rotary, and reciprocating air

- cooled 10

- 1,800 HFC

- 134a, R

- 410A, HCFC

- 22, R

- 407C
Screw water

- cooled 100

- 7,000 HFC

- 134a, HCFC

- 22, R

- 717 (secondary loop) Centrifugal air

- cooled 200

- 7,000 HFC

- 134a Centrifugal water

- cooled 200

- 21,000 HFC

- 134a, HCFC

- 123
Source: UNEP 2015 a Absorption chillers have been used in the commercial air conditioning industry since the 1950s. As presented in Table 10 , a mmonia / water and lithium bromide / water absorption chillers have historically been the most common refrigerant

- absorber pairs, and so the Montreal Protocol and restrictions on the use of CFCs have had little impact on th e design of absorption chillers (UNEP 2015a ). Because absorption chillers have not historically used ODS and do not currently use HFC refrigerants, absorption chillers are not addressed in detail in this market characteri zation (i.e., in terms of producers, charge size, and other activity data). However, they can be considered a viable alternative to vapor

compression chillers under certain circumstances, and are discussed further in Section 2.4.3 on alternatives

– in particular in Table 16

. 

## 2.2.1 Vapor Compression Chil lers
EPA’s Vintaging Model estimates that there are approximately 6 16 ,000 vapor compression chillers installed in the United States in 2015 (U.S. EPA 2014 a ). 16 Approximately 80 percent of the U.S. chiller market (in terms of number of units) is assumed to b e positive displacement chillers

. About half of all vapor compression chillers are screw chillers and one

- quarter are scroll chillers . Reciprocating chillers represent the smallest classification of chillers at just over fi ve percent of the U.S. market. Ce ntrifugal

16 The Vintaging Model tracks rotary chillers and screw chillers as categories of vapor com pression chillers, but does not

specifically identify the subclass of rotary

- vane chillers.Market Characterization U.S. Commercial Comfort Cooling Industry

ICF International 20 March 2016 chillers make up the remaining 20 percent of the vapor compression market. Table 11 presents the estimated number of these chillers, by type, installed in the United States.

Table 11 : Estimated 2015 Vapor Compression Chillers Stock in the United States Chiller Type 2015 Stock (Units) Vapor Compression (Total) 616 ,010 Centrifugal 122,210 Positive Displacement a 493,800
Screw 307,840
Scroll 150,930 Reciprocating 35,030

a The Vintaging Model tracks rotary chillers and screw chillers as categories of vapor compression chillers, but does not specifically identify the subclass of rotary

- vane chillers

. Source: U.S. EPA 2014 a
A vapor

- compress ion chiller consists of a compressor with an electric motor, a liquid cooler (evaporator), a condenser, a refrigerant expansion devi c e, and a control unit. Prior to the 1980s, centrifugal chillers were the most common type of vapor
- compress ion chillers for applications requiring more than 700 kW cooling capacity, and reciprocating compressors were most common for smaller chillers. Start ing in the mid

- 1980s, screw compressors became available in addition to reciprocating compressors in the cooling capacity range s of 140

- 700 kW , as well as up to 2 , 275 kW to replace centrifugal chillers. Scroll compressors became available for smaller appli cations in the seven to over 90 kW range (IPCC/TEAP 2005)

. Example images of centrifugal and positive displacement chillers are provided in Figure 3 and Figure 4 , respectively.
Figure 3 : Example Images of Centrifugal Chillers (Johnson Controls 2015 and McQuay 2015)Market Characterization U.S. Commercial Comfort Cooling Industry

ICF International 21 Ma rch 2016 Figure 4 : Example Images of Positive Displacement Chillers (Trane 2015 a and Carrier 2015)

In general, the main consideration when determining the best compressor for a specific application is the size of the cooling capacity needed. Scroll, reciprocating , and sma ll screw compressors have a typical cooling capacity between 50 and 750 kW, compared to large screw or centrifugal compressors which can serve between 750 and 10,000 kW (UNEP 2015 d )

. As a result, charge sizes for scroll, reciprocating or small screw compr essors are much lower than that of large screw and centrifugal compressors and can range from 40

- 500 kilograms ( kg ) and 500

- 13,000 kg,
re spectively (UNEP 2015 d ). Table 12 shows the typical charge sizes for centrifugal and some types of positive displacement chillers, as mo deled by EPA’s Vintaging Model.

Table 12 : Typical Chiller Charge Sizes Chiller Type a Typical Charge Size (kg) Centrifugal 440

- 720 Positive Displacement: Screw 300 Positive Displacement: S croll 240 Positive Displacement: Reciprocating 315

a The Vintaging Model tracks rotary chillers and screw chillers as categories of vapor compression chillers, but does not specifically identify the subclass of rotary

- vane chillers. Source: U.S. EPA 2014 a Centrifugal and positive displacement chillers have average lifetimes that are estimated to be about 26 and 20 years, respectively (U.S. EPA 2014 a ) , though chillers can be in service for up to 40 years (UNEP 2015a) . Although vapor

- compression chillers hav e long lifetimes and large charge sizes, leak rates for these systems are low. The average annual leak rates, which includes operational leaks and leaks during servicing (i.e., due to loss of refrigerant from fugitive emissions) across all vapor

- compressio n chillers, are estimated to be less than two percent for both ODS and HFC systems (U.S. EPA 2014 a ). The refrigerating circuit in most vapor

- compression chillers is often pre

- charged and factory sealed, leading to minimal leaks during installation and use (UNEP 2015 d )

. Some larger chillers are built on

- site and charged with refrigerant during installation

.Market Characterization U.S. Commercial Comfort Cooling Industry

ICF International 22 March 2016 

### 2.2.1.1 Manufacturers

A selection of comfort cooling chiller manufacturers within the United States is listed in Table 13

. The Department of Energy (DOE) identified domestic water

- and evaporatively

- cooled air conditioner manufacturers in a technical support document for a final rule on Commercial, Air Conditioning, and Water Heating Equipment ( DOE 2011) , including six centrifugal and positive displacement chiller manufacturers. 17 In addition to the DOE technical support document, additional U.S. manufacturers of centrifugal and positive displacement chillers were ide ntified through an online search. Some of these companies manufacture the chillers as well as the compressors. Th e companies identified while developing this report do not necessarily represent an inclusive list of all companies manufacturing within the Un ited States.

Table 13 : Manufacturers of Compressors and Chillers
Manufacturer Compressor Chiller
American Chillers X Arctic Chiller Group X
Bitzer X Cooling Technology, Inc. X Daikin Applied X X
Danfoss X
Emerson Electric X EVAPCO, Inc. X Ingersoll Rand X X
Johnson Controls X X
NAPPS X
Thermal Care X X United Technologies X X



### 2.2.1.2 Industry Standards Vapor compression chillers are subject to several industry standards implemented by the Air

Conditioning, Heating, & Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) and the American Society of Heating , Refrigerating and Air

- Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). AHRI 550/590: Performance Rating of Water

Chilling and Heat Pump Water

- Heating Packages Using the Vapor Compression Cycle standard establishes standard rating conditions for chillers. ASHRAE 90.1: Energy Standard for Buildings except

17 DOE identified the following eight manufacturers of water

- and evaporatively

- cooled air conditioners: Aaon, Inc., Allied

Thermal Systems, Carrier Corp. (United Te chnologies Corporation), Lennox International, Inc., Engineered Air, Thermoplus Air, Inc., Trane Inc. (Ingersoll Rand), and York International Corp. (Johnson Controls, Inc.). Six of these manufacturers (excludi ng Allied Thermal Systems and ThermoPlus Air) manufacture centrifugal and positive displacement chillers.Market Characterization U.S. Commercial Comfort Cooling Industry

ICF International 23 March 2016 Low

- Rise Residential Buildings serves as a benchmark for commercial building energy codes as well as a key basis for energy c odes and standards around the world. In 2013, ASHRAE released updates to Standard 90.1 providing new minimum requirements for the energy
- efficient design of most buildings, whether they are new buildings with new systems, new portions of buildings with new systems, or existing buildings with new systems (ASHRAE 2013). These standards require a modest improvement to the full

- load efficiency of chillers but will require a substantial margin of difference in improvement to the part

- load efficiency of chillers (The Air

Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration News 2014). Additionally, chillers installed at U.S. federal buildings are subject to standards apart from the residential and commercial sector. The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) provides guidanc e on the efficiency requirements for air

- cooled electric chillers (DOE 2015). Chillers are subject to standards for full

- and part

- load optimization in terms of Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) 18 and Integrated Part Load Value (IPLV) 19 specified by the capacity of the chiller. Chillers smaller than 150 tons, for instance, must have a full

- load EER of greater than or equal to 10.40 in applications optimized for full

- load and 9.56 for applications optimized for part

- load , while the minimum IPLV requirements for su ch units are 12.5 and 15.39, respectively (DOE 2015). 

## 2.3 Sector Background

V apor
- compress ion chiller s have historically used CFC

- 11 , CFC

- 12 , and HCFC

- 22 as refrigerants (U.S. EPA 2014 a ) . Once the U.S. ODS phaseout regulations came into effect, CFC

- 11 and CFC

- 12 were replaced by HCFC

- 123 , HCFC

- 22, and HFC

- 134a. In the early 2000’s, HFC blends

— namely R

- 407C and R

- 4 10 A

— began gaining market share to replace HCFC

- 22. ODS chillers, particularly HCFC

- 22, HCFC

- 123, and even some CFC

- 11 and CFC

- 12 systems, are still pr esent in the market due to the long lifetime of chillers

. As shown in Figure 5 below, refrigerant stock in vapor

- compression chillers (i.e., the amount of refrigerant charge in chillers installed in the United States) is largely HCFC

- 22 and HFC

- 134a.

18 EER is the ratio of net cooling capacity (or heat removed in British thermal units (BTU) per hour) to the total input rate of

electric power applied in watts. The units of EER are BTU/Wh. A high er EER value indicates a more efficient system. 19 IPLV is an efficiency metric calculated using AHRI Standard 550/590 test conditions at load capacities of 25%, 50%, 75%, and

100%. It is intended to provide comparative information about a chiller used unde r variable load conditions.Market Characterization U.S. Commercial Comfort Cooling Industry

ICF International 24 March 2016 Figure 5 : Fluorinated Refrigerant Stock in Vapor

- compress ion Chillers in the United States from 1985

- 2015 (MT)

Source: U.S. EPA 2014 a The remainder of this section provides an overview of the historically

- and currently

- used refrigerants installed in centrifugal and positive displacement chillers in the Unite d States.


## 2.3.1 Centrifugal Chillers
Prior to the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, the most common refrigerant used in centrifugal chillers was CFC

- 11 but there were also centrifugal chillers using CFC

- 12, CFC

- 114, R

- 500 , and HCFC

- 22 as refrigerants (U NEP 2004) . By 1993, the use of CFC

- 11, CFC

- 12 , CFC

- 114, and R

- 500 in new chillers was phased out with the Montreal Protocol and CAA while HCFC

- 22 was used through the late 1990s. To replace the CFCs, HCFC

- 123 , HFC

- 236fa, and HFC

- 134a were used as alternati ves starting in 1993 and up through the mid

- 2000s (UNEP 2004)

. Table 14 shows the estimated distribution of refrigerants used in centrifugal chiller units in the United States today.

Table 14 : Centrifugal Chiller Estimated Stock Chiller Type Refrigerant Estimated 2015 Stock (Units) Centrifugal CFC

- 11 4,380
CFC

- 12 1,140
R

- 500 570
HCFC

- 22 9,370
HCFC

- 123 47, 620 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Stock (MT)

R-11 R-12 R-22 R-114 R-123 R-134a R-236fa R-410A R-500 R-407CMarket Characterization U.S. Commercial Comfort Cooling Industry

ICF International 25 March 2016 Chiller Type Refrigerant Estimated 2015 Stock (Units)
HFC

- 134a 57,190
HFC

- 236fa 1,940

Total 122,210
Source: U.S. EPA 2014 a 

## 2.3.2 Positive Displacement Chillers
All p ositive displacement chillers (e.g., r eciprocating, rotary

- vane , screw , and scroll chillers ) have employed a variety of refrigerants both prior to and after the implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Prior to implementation of the Montreal Protocol, HCFC

- 22 was the primary refrigerant offered in reciprocating, screw, and scroll chillers. CFC

- 12 was offered in s ome small reciprocating systems (under 100 kW), but HCFC

- 22 was used for the majority of small and large reciprocating chillers (UNEP 2004). Once HCFC requirements were in place under the Montreal Protocol and the CAA , HCFC

- 22 began being replaced largely by R

- 407C and R

- 410A. HFC

- 134a also gained a share of the scroll and screw compressor market and was introduced to a small extent in reciprocating chillers (UNEP 2004). Table 15 presents the estimated distribution of refrigerants by chiller type and the estimated number of these appliances in use in the United States today.

Table 15 : Positive Displacement Chiller Stock Estimates Chiller Type a Refrigerant Estimated 2015 Stock (Units)

Screw HCFC

- 22 197,460
HFC

- 134a 72,040

R

- 410A 10,920
R

- 407C 27,420
Total 307,840
Scroll HCFC

- 22 96,820
HFC

- 134a 35,320

R

- 410A 5,350
R

- 407C 13,440

Total 150,930
Reciprocating HCFC

- 22 22,620
HFC

- 134a 8,110

R

- 410A 1,220
R

- 407C 3,080
Total 35,030Market Characterization U.S. Commercial Comfort Cooling Industry

ICF International 26 March 2016 a The Vintaging Model does not specifically track rotary

- vane chillers. Source: U.S. EPA 2014 a 

## 2.4 Climate

- Friendly Alternatives
Although not a significant portion of the market today, climate

- friendly alternatives (e.g., unsaturated HFCs [ often blended with saturated HFCs ] , ammonia, and CO 2 ) are available for use or are expected to be available for use in the near

- term for all type s of vapor compression chillers. Regarding refrigerant choice, assuming that a chiller is located in either a machinery room or outdoors, manufacturers have a wide range of low er
- GWP options for refrigerants as there are few restrictions on the refrigerant charge in these locations (UNEP 2015 d ); however, some may require additional safety precautions and technician training. These safety precautions and training can translate into higher costs when compared with the systems they replace (UNEP 2015 d ).
As di scussed in Section 2.2 , energy efficiency is another important consideration in regards to choosing an alternative refrigerant or technology for chi llers. The energy efficiency of an alternative refrigerant when used in a chiller should be equal to or better than the refrigerant being replaced (UNEP 2015a), and chillers will need to maintain compliance with relevant energy efficiency standards.
The r emainder of this section summarizes information on refrigerant alternatives and technologies for chillers, which is also summarized in Table 16 , includ ing both alternative refrigerants and alternative technologies (i.e., absorption chillers).Market Characterization U.S. Commercial Comfort Cooling Industry

ICF International 27 March 2016 Table 16 : Overview of Climate

- Friendly Alternatives and SNAP Listing Status
Alternative GWP a SNAP Listing Status Chiller Use Status
Unsaturated Halocarbons and Blends Hydrofluoro

olefin ( HFO )

- 1234ze (E) 6 • Acceptable ( 2012 ) • Alternative for use in reciprocating, scroll, screw and centrifugal compressors
Trans

- 1

- chloro

3,3,3

- trifluoro

prop
- 1

- ene(R

1233zd(E)) 4.7 to 7 • Acceptable ( 2014 ) • Alternative for use in low

- pressure centrifugal systems

HFO

- 1336mzz(Z) ~9 • Under SNAP review • Under development

R

- 513A 630 • Acceptable ( 2015 ) • A lternative in medium

- pressure chillers and for use in new and retrofit systems replacing HFC

134a
R

- 450A 601 • Acceptable ( 2014 ) • A lternative in medium

- pressure chillers and for use in new and retrofit systems replacing HFC

134a
R
- 717 (ammonia) 0 • Acceptable ( 1996 ) • A lternative in vapor

- compression and absorption chillers Absorption Chillers Ammonia/water 0 • Acceptable ( 1996 ) • Used in absorption chillers, alternative technology for centrifugal chillers
Lithium Bromide/water 0 • Acceptable ( 1996 ) • Used in absorption chillers, alternative technology for centrifugal chillers
R
- 744 (CO 2 ) 1 • Under S NAP review • Air

- cooled CO 2 chillers have been used in Northern Europe Hydrocarbons and Hydrocarbon Blends R

- 290 3 • Not EPA SNAP approved • Has been used as an HFC alternative in small and medium sized chillers in Europe.
R

- 1270 2 • Proposed unacceptable • Has been used as an HFC alternative in small and medium sized chillers in Europe.
R

- 441 A <5 • Not EPA SNAP approved • Commercially available as an HFC alternative in small and medium sized chillers in Europe.
Source: U.S. EPA 2015 a ; UNEP 2015 dMarket Characterization U.S. Commercial Co mfort Cooling Industry

ICF International 28 March 2016 a IPCC 2007 and UNEP 2015a 

## 2.4.1 HFO/ H FC Blends

The use of unsaturated HFCs, or HFOs , and related compounds in chillers is growing with several HFOs and HFO/HFC blends available or currently under development

. HFO

- 1234ze (E) is available for reciprocating, rotary

- vane, scroll, screw, and centrifugal compressors and is approved 20 by EPA ’s SNAP program. System modifications are required to compensate for HFO

- 1234ze (E) ’s lower capacity than HFC

- 134a; however, it has comparable or higher energy efficiency across a range of applications and cond itions (Honeywell 2012). In addition, due to its physical properties including its low

- flammability, only minor changes are necessary to transition a system from HFC

- 134 a to HFO

- 1234ze (E) . A potential barrier to the adoption of HFO

- 1234ze (E) chillers is th at these systems may be of slightly higher cost than HFC

- 134a (UNEP 2015 d ). In addition, training will be necessary for technicians operating these chillers due to the mild flammability of HFO

- 1234ze (E)

. R

- 1233zd(E) is SNAP

- approved to replace HCFC

- 123 i n low pressure centrifugal chillers (Honeywell 2015 b ). Th is refrigerant is non

- flammable and it is becoming commercially available in the United States. R

- 1233zd(E) is currently being used in large

- capacity centrifugal chillers in Europe, the Middle East, and Japan that are up to 10 percent more energy efficient than other commercially available centrifugal chillers (BusinessWire 2015). R

- 1233zd (E) , as well as HFO

- 1336mzz (Z), which is still under development and under SNAP review , are expected to be competi tive with HCFC

- 123 and offer alternatives as HCFC

123 is phased out ( Honeywell 2015b ).

R

- 513A and R

- 450 A are refrigerant blends of HFC

- 134a / HFO

- 1234yf and HFC

- 134a/ HFO

- 1234ze , respectively and both blends are suitable for replacing HFC

- 134a (Chemours 2015 a , Honeywell 2015a)

. Beginning in 2015, R

- 513A air

- cooled chillers became commercially available in North America and Latin America (BusinessWire 2015 , Trane 2015 b ).


## 2.4.2 Ammonia
Ammonia (R

- 717) has been used as a refrigerant since the early 1900s and is listed as an acceptable substitute by EPA ’s SNAP program in both vapor compression and absorption chillers. Despite the advent of fluorocarbon refrigerants, ammonia remained a popular refrigerant throughout the 20 th century due to its low cost and good thermodyna mic properties. In addition to these characteristics, ammonia has no ODP and no GWP (The Linde Group 2015 a ) . Ammonia is most suitable for use in medium and large screw compressors , but is more commonly used in industrial chillers than for air

conditioning (UNEP 2015c)

. There is some use of ammonia in screw chillers in northern Europe (IPCC/TEAP 2005) as well as the United States and elsewhere

. Ammonia chillers are considerably more expensive than those designed for other refrigerants and operation of ammoni a chillers require s additional training for technicians due to the high toxicity of the refrigerant ; h owever, there are already well established training courses for technicians in the United States and many other countries where ammonia is more common ly u sed as a refrigerant (UNEP 2015 d )

.

20 Within this market characterization report, we use “approve” to indicate a SNAP listing of acceptable or acceptable subject t o

use conditions.Market Characterization U.S. Commercial Comfort Cooling Industry

ICF International 29 March 2016 

## 2.4.3 Absorption Chillers
Absorption chillers can be considered a viable alternative to vapor

- compression chillers under certain circumstances. The most common refrigerant

- absorber pairs in absorption chillers are a mmonia / water and lithium bromide / water , both of which are listed as acceptable alternatives under the SNAP program (U.S. EPA 2015 a ). The energy source for absorption chillers is heat provided by steam, hot water, or a fuel burner. Compared to vapor compression chillers, absorption systems have a higher initial cost and lower operating efficiency , and they are not very common in the United States; h owever, they can be a cost

- effective alternatives to vapor compression chillers in certain situations, such as when waste heat or steam is available to power the chiller or where the cost of electricity makes gas

- fired absorption a lower

- cost alternative (UNEP 2004)

. 

## 2.4.4 Carbon Dioxide

C arbon dioxide (R

- 744) has regained popularity as an environmentally friendly refrigeran t because it has
zero ODP , a GWP of 1, low toxicity , and is not flammab le. In addition, equipment using R

- 744 can experience lower energy usage (The Linde Group 2015 a ) . R

- 744 air

- cooled chillers have been introduced in northern Europe. This refrigerant is not EPA SNAP approved for this use at the time this document was produced ; however, R

- 744 is under review for certain applications for use with chillers

. 

## 2.4.5 Hydrocarbons

R

- 290 (propane), R

- 1270 (propylene), and other hydrocarbon s have been successfully used a s HFC alternatives in small and medium sized chillers in Europe (The Linde Group 2013)

. Hydrocarbon blends (including R

- 441A, a blend of ethane, propane, butane, and isobutane) may also be in operation outside of the U.S. These refrigerants are not curren tly EPA SNAP approved for this use

. The SNAP program is proposing R

- 1270 to be unacceptable for use in chillers.Market Char acterization U.S. Cold Storage Industry

ICF International 30 March 2016 

# 3 U.S. Cold Storage Industry
3.1 Introduction
The U.S. cold storage industry consists of refrigerated warehousing and storage facilities that are used to preserve meat, produce, dairy products, and other perishable goods prior to their distribution and sale. 21 Historically, cold storage facilities reli ed on refrigeration systems that contain ammonia or ozone depleting substances (ODS), such as CFCs and HCFCs

— specifically, CFC

- 12, HCFC

- 22 and R

- 502 (a CFC/HCFC blend). I n response to the global phaseout of ODS under the Montreal Protocol , some manufacture rs transitioned from ODS to HFC refrigerants, with a large portion of the market moving to or continuing to rely on ammonia. Increasingly, advanced ammonia technologies, including low charge packaged ammonia systems, ammonia/CO 2 cascade systems, and ammoni a secondary loop systems are gaining market share as alternatives to conventional cold storage systems. Other climate

- friendly alternatives, such as HFC/HFO blends with lower GWPs, are EPA SNAP approved for use in cold storage systems, but have not yet bee n widely adopted by the market

. The remainder of this report characterizes the U.S. cold storage industry in terms of market size, facility operators, refrigeration systems types, system manufacturers, historical and current refrigerant use, and the avai lability of climate

- friendly alternative refrigerants. 22 

## 3.2 Market Characterization
In the United States, the majority of cold storage warehouses are used to store refrigerated and frozen food (approximately 88 percent), with food manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers representing 33 percent, 33 percent, and 22 percent of the demand for storage space, respectively (JLL 2014). The remaining capacity (roughly 12 percent) is mainly used to store pharmaceutical, floral, and fur products (JLL 2014). The remai nder of this section discusses the types of cold storage refrigeration systems, manufacturers of these systems, types of facility operators, and total cold storage capacity in the United States. Relevant standards that impact cold storage facilities and t heir refrigeration systems are also presented.


## 3.2.1 Cold Storage Refrigeration Systems
To effectively preserve goods, cold storage facilities must maintain specific operating temperatures. Cold storage facilities usually operate at two temperature levels : fro zen (below

- 18 ° C) and chilled (above 0 ° C) (UNEP 2015a). Most f rozen produce is store d between

- 22 ° C and

- 26 ° C , although some products require lower temperatures

— for example , ice cream is stored between

- 26 ° C and

- 29 ° C while some types of sushi are kept at

- 60 ° C . Chilled produce is typically kept between 0 ° C and 4 ° C with some produce, such as fruit, bakery products and vegetables , being stored between 8 ° C and 12 ° C (UNEP 2015a)

. Pharmaceutical products also typically require specific storage temperatures, wi th the optimum temperature for refrigerated vaccines, for example, being between 2 ° C and 8 ° C ( Shafaat et al. 2013)

.

21 Cold storage, as characterized for the purposes of this report, excludes food pro cessing activities (e.g., air blast

freezing) and other industrial process refrigeration. 22 Although the cold storage industry also relies on insulating foam that commonly use HFCs, insulating foams

found in cold storage are not discussed as part of this m arket characterization report.Market Characterization U.S. Cold Storage Industry

ICF International 31 March 2016 For most cut flowers, ideal temperatures range from roughly 0°C to 2°C (Reid and Nell 2004), while the optimal storage temperature for furs is between 1°C to 7°C (Furcare.com 2015). The refrigeration systems used in cold storage facilities are commonly categorized into two system types: central plant systems and packaged systems. Central plant systems are large, custom built systems that are made up of separately manufactured components, while packaged systems are manufactured to contain all system components within a single factory

- packaged unit. These system types are described further in the sections below.


### 3.2.1.1 Central Plant Systems Central plants are custom

- built refrigeration systems that are typically used in large refrigerated warehouses with cooling capacities that range from 20 to 5,000 kW (UNEP 2015 c ). 23 Central plant systems deliver cool air to the refrigerated space through evaporators, which are typically suspended from the ceiling in the refrigerated space (EIA 2012). The evaporators are connected through a piping network to multiple compressors that are located in a centr al machine room, and a condenser, which is typically mounted outside near the compressor (Cole 2004). Central plant systems can have a direct or indirect (secondary loop) design. Direct systems circulate a primary refrigerant throughout the refrigerated s pace. In an indirect system, a primary refrigerant cools a secondary refrigerant in the machine room, and the secondary refrigerant is then circulated thr oughout the refrigerated space. Example images of central plant evaporators, compressors, and condense rs are presented in Figures 6

- 8

. Figure 6 : Ceiling

- mounted Cold Storage Room Evaporators (TRJ Refrigeration 2015; UNEP 2015 c )

23 The cooling capacity is the measure of a refrigeration system’s ability to remove heat.Market Characterization U.S. Cold Storage Industry

ICF International 32 March 2016 Figure 7 : Central Plant Compressors in a Machine Room (Cole 2004)

Fi gure 8 : Three Evaporative Condensers outside a Cold Storage Facility (Cole 2004)



### 3.2.1.2 Packaged Systems Packaged systems (also known as unitary systems) are self

- contained systems that combine an evaporator, compressor, and con denser in one frame. Packaged systems are commonly installed on the roof of a refrigerated warehouse above the air cooling units that are within the refrigerated space (Cole 2004). The evaporator is located inside the refrigerated space of a walk

- in faci lity while the condensing unit, which is usually protected by weather resistant housing, is located outside (EIA 2012). Packaged systems are most commonly used in small refrigerated warehouses that have a capacity of 20 to 750 kW (Emerson Climate 2014). Figure 9 presents example images of two packaged units installed in a refrigerated warehouse.Market Characterization U.S. Cold Storage Industry

ICF International 33 March 2016 Figure 9 : Packaged Units on the Roof and Ceiling of a Refrigerated Warehouse (Cole 2004)



### 3.2.1.3 System Manufacturers

A non

- comprehensive list of manufacturers of central plant and packaged systems in the United States is provided below, as identified largely through the Global Col d Chain Alliance directory

. 24

• Alta Refrigeration

• American Industrial Refrigeration

• AMS Mechanical Systems

• Azane, Inc.

• Baltimore Air Coil

• Bitzer U.S., Inc.

• Cimco, Refrigeration

• Colmac Coil

• Emerson Climate Technologies

• Evapco

• Gartner Refrigeration & MFG, Inc.

• Guntner U.S., LLC

• Heatcraft Refrigeration Products

• Hill Phoenix

• Hussmann Corporation • Ingersoll Rand

• Innovative Refrigeration Systems, Inc.

• Johnson Controls

• Krack Corporation

• NXTCOLD LLC

• M&M Refrigeration, Inc.

• Mayekawa U.S.A., Inc.

• Mollenberg

- Betz, Inc.

• R epublic Refrigeration, Inc.

• S&S Refrigeration Company

• Service Refrigeration, LLC

• TRJ Refrigeration

• Uni

- Temp Refrigeration, Inc.

• Zero Zone

24 The Global Cold Chain Alliance directory is available online at: https://gcca.connext.io/#/search

. Other system

manufacturers were identified through EIA 2012 and an online search.Market Characterization U.S. Cold St orage Industry

ICF International 34 March 2016 

### 3.2.1.4 Standards Relevant standards for the design and operation of cold storage refrigeration systems are listed below:

• ASHRAE Standard 15

- 2013

– Safety Standard for Refrigeration Systems

• ASHRAE Standard 34

- 2013

– Designation and Classification of Refrigerants

• ANSI/ASHRA E/IES 90.1

- 201 3

– Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low

- Rise Residential Buildings

• California Energy Commission

– 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings

– Section 126

• ANSI/ International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration ( IIAR ) Standard 2

- 2008 (Addendum B)

– American National Standard for Equipment, Design, & Installation of Closed Circuit Ammonia Mechanical Refrigerating Systems

• ANSI/IIAR Standard 3

- 2012

– American National Standard for Ammonia Refri geration Valves In addition to the standards listed above, ASHRAE published Design Essentials for Refrigerated Storage Facilities in 2005 to share best practices in the design of refrigerated warehouses. Furthermore, ASHRAE Technical Committee 10.5 is task ed with addressing the application of packaged and customized refrigeration systems for cold storage applications. The committee meets semi

- annually to develop guidelines and approve standards related to cold storage refrigeration systems.


## 3.2.2 U.S. Cold Storag e Facility Types and Operators Cold storage facilities are often characterized as either public or private/semi private. Table 17 defines the facility types and the types of operators that commonly manage these facilities.

Table 17 : Types of Cold Storage Facilities and Operators
Facility Type Definition Type of Operators

Public Public cold storage warehouses store goods from various vendors, and are typically operated by one refrigerated warehouse logistics provider. • Refrigerated warehouse providers

• Third party logistics (3PL) providers a

Private and Semi

Private In private/semi

- private cold storage warehouses, the operator owns the goods that are stored.
Private storage facilities typically exist to facilitate an operator’s role

— often that of a producer, processor or manufacturer of refrigerated food products.

Semi

- private facilities store an operator’s products in addition to offering storage space to outside clients. • Food manufacturers

• Wholesale distributors

• Retailers

a 3PL provide both storage and transportation services In total, there are more than 600 facility operators in the United States (JLL 2014). In 2013, public refrigerated warehouses accounted for 76 percent of U.S. cold storage capacity with more than threeMarket Characterization U.S. Cold Storage Industry

ICF International 35 March 2016 billion cubic feet of storage space, while private ref rigerated warehouses comprised 24 percent of the U.S. cold storage capacity with approximately 980 million cubic feet of storage space (USDA 2014). Figure 10 graphical ly presents the breakout of cold storage capacity by facility type in the United States in 2013.
Figure 10 : Gross Capacity of Refrigerated Storage by Facility Type, 2013

Source: USDA 2014
Refrigerated warehouse providers and 3PL providers make up the public refrigerated warehouse industry. In addition to operating facilities that house goods from a variety of customers, these providers also operate dedicated facilities under long

- term contracts with their customers. F orward
ware houses ( stand

- alone warehouses that are independent of the manufacturing site ) , in particular, are also commonly outsourced to 3PL providers (Harps 2003)

. Figure 11 presents the largest public refrigerated warehousing and logistics providers in the United States and their total storage capacity. While many wholesale distributors, food manufacturers, and retailers use the services offered by 3PL and other public cold storage facility operators, some operate private cold storage facilities in

- house. For example, Uni ted Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI), the largest distributor of organic and natural products in N orth America , owns and operates 33 distribution centers, including the nation’s first Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certified refrigerated warehouse (UNFI 2014a; UNFI 2014b). Public 3 billion ft 3 (76%) Private/Semi

Private 980 million ft 3 (24%)Market Characterization U.S. Cold Storage Indust ry

ICF International 36 March 2016 Figure 11 . Largest Public Re frigerated Warehousing and Logistics Providers in the United States a

a Americold Logistics provides a total capacity of roughly 908 million cubic feet, 16 million cubic feet of which are located in Canada. Source s : IARW (2015) ; Colliers International (201 1); Cushman & Wakefield (2013); U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (2010)

. 

## 3.2.3 Cold Storage Capacity in the United States
According to a 2013 survey conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), there are roughly 1,500 cold storage warehouses in the United States with a gross refrigerated storage capacity of more than four billion cubic feet (USDA 2014). S ince 1995, storage capacity in the United States has increased by an average of roughly four percent each year. Figure 12 presents the gross refriger ated storage capacity in the United States by year and facility ty pe. Figure 13 summarizes the number of warehouses in 2013 in the United States by s ize group. 892 600 234 213 82 70 65 62 54 39 29 24 22 21 21 21 18 17 16

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Americold Logistics Lineage Logistics United States Cold Storage, Inc. Preferred Freezer Services Interstate Warehousing, Inc. Nordic Logistics and Warehousing, LLC Cloverleaf Cold Storage Co. Burris Logistics Henningsen Cold Storage Co. Hanson Logistics AGRO Merchants Group, LLC Zero Mountain, Inc. East Coast Warehouse & Distribution Corp. Interstate Cold Storage, Inc.

Allied Frozen Storage, Inc. Hall’s Warehouse Corp. MTC Logistics Nor-Am Cold Storage, Inc. U.S. Growers Cold Storage, Inc.

Capacity (million cubic feet)Market Characterization U.S. Cold Storage Industry

ICF International 37 March 2016 Figure 12 : Gross Capacity of Refrigerated Storage by Year (1995

- 2013) and Facility Type

Source: USDA 2014

Figure 13 : Number of Cold Storage Warehouses in 2013 by Size Group and Facility Type

Source: USDA 2014 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013Refrigerated Storage Capacity (million cubic feet)

Year Private/Semi-Private
Public

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0-499,999 500,000-999,999 1,000,000-2,499,999 2,500,000-4,999,999 5,000,000 and overNumber of Warehouses

Cubic Feet Private/Semi-Private
PublicMarket Characterization U.S. Cold Storage Industry

ICF International 38 March 2016 

## 3.3 Sector Background
In the late 1800s, ammonia (R

- 717) was first adopted in the United States for use in cold storage applications. Following the introduction of CFC and HCFC refrigerants in the 1930s, part of the cold storage market tr ansitioned to ODS

— namely CFC

- 12, R

- 502 , and HCFC

- 22

— to avoid the safety concerns associated with ammonia. However, unlike other refrigeration applications, a significant portion of the cold storage market in the United States continued to use ammonia due to both the low cost of ammonia refrigerant and the high energy efficiency of ammonia systems (UNEP 2015a). In response to the global phaseout of ODS under the Montreal Protocol, in the 1990s many manufactures began the transition from CFCs to HCFC

- 22, an d then from HCFC

- 22 to HFCs

— primarily R

- 404A and R

- 507, which have GWPs of 3,922 and 3,985, respectively (UNEP 2015a). Some traditional ODS users tr ansitioned to ammonia, as well. Today, ammonia continues to be the most commonly used refrigerant in large central plant cold storage systems, while HCFCs and HFCs continue to be used largely in smaller packaged systems. Specifically, it is estimated that approximately 90 percent of the U.S. cold storage market today uses ammonia (Accelerate America 2015). Fo r the portion of the market that does not use ammonia, HCFC

- 22 represents the largest existing stock of refrigerant, followed closely by R

- 404A. Figure 14 presents the estimated stock of fluorinated refrigerants from 1985 to 2015 used in cold storage applications in the United States

. Figure 14 : Fluorinated Refrigerant Stock in U.S. Cold Storage (MT)*

Source: EPA (2014) *The stock of ammonia, which represents roughly 90 percent of the cold storage market, is not reflected in the graph. - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Stock (MT)

CFC-12 HCFC-22 R-502 R-507 R-404AMarket Characterization U.S. Cold Storage Industry

ICF International 39 March 2016 

## 3.4 Climate

- Friendly Alternatives
As discussed in the section above, ammonia (R

- 717) has been and continues to be the most widely used climate

- frie ndly alternative in cold storage applications in the United States, particularly in large refrigerated warehouses. With the introduction of advanced system designs

— such as low charge packaged ammonia systems and ammonia/CO 2 cascade systems

— ammonia is expected to continue to gain market share. Other alternatives, including CO 2 (R

- 744) and HFC/HFO blends are also viable alternatives for use in cold storage facilities. Table 18 summarizes the current status of climate

- friendly alternatives in cold storage applications in the United States, including each alternative’s GWP and SNAP

- listing status. Each alternative is discus sed in more detail in the sections that follow.

Table 18 . Climate

- Friendly Alternatives in Cold Storage

Climate

- Friendly Alternative GWP a Status of Use

Ammonia (R

- 717) 0 • Acceptable under SNAP (1996 )

• Used in 90 percent of the U.S. cold storage industry

• Alternative designs also available

CO 2 (R

- 744) 1 • Acceptable under SNAP (20 09)

• U sed in cascade designs with ammonia
HFC/HFO Blends <631 • R

- 450A ( blend of HFO

- 1234ze (E) /HFC

- 134a) acceptable under SNAP (2014)

• R

- 513A ( blend of HFO

- 1234 yf /HFC

- 134a) acceptable under SNAP (201 5 )

• R

- 448A and R

- 449A under SNAP review

• Other blends under development

a Source: UNEP 2015 c 

## 3.4.1 Ammonia
Ammonia (R

- 717) is the most common alternative to ODS in cold storage systems and has consistently been used in large co ld storage facilities throughout the United States (UNEP 2015a). Conventional central plant systems that use ammonia can have a refrigerant charge as high as 20,000 to 40,000 pounds (Accelerate America 2015 ). 25 Ammonia is inexpensive and has excellent heat transfer characteristics (IARW 2014). At the same time, ammonia is more toxic than common fluorinated refrigerants and slightly flammable, and can be dangerous if not used properly. Due to safety concerns and regulations, some cold storage operators are hesitant to adopt ammonia

- based systems. In addition, ammonia is less popular for use in smaller applications that currently rely on ODS

- or HFC

based packaged systems. In recent years, however, advanced syste m designs

— including low charge

25 Systems that exceed 10,000 pounds of ammonia refrigerant are subject to regulations set forth by EPA and

OSHA. These regulations mandate a range of compulsory measures including registration with local authorities, periodic inspection, strict requirements on reporting of any emissions and preparation of an offsite consequence analysis and emergency response plan (including regular drills) (I ARW 2015; Pearson 2010)

.Market Characterization U.S. Cold Storage Industry

ICF International 40 March 2016 packaged ammonia systems, ammonia/CO 2 cascade systems and ammonia secondary loop systems

— have been introduced into the market and are gaining market share , as discussed further below.


### 3.4.1.1 Low Charge Packaged Ammonia Syste ms In recent years, a number of manufacturers have introduced systems that use ammonia refrigerant in small, packaged units. Unlike conventional ammonia systems, the low charge packaged systems do not require the use of a machine room, eliminate the large scale vessels required for holding ammonia refrigerant, and minimize distribution piping throughout the cold storage facility (IAWR 2014). They also reduce the charge size of ammonia by an estimated 80 to 98 percent (IAWR 2014). These systems, in particu lar, have great potential to replace smaller systems that currently use HCFC or HFC refrigerants.


### 3.4.1.2 Ammonia/CO 2 

### Cascade Systems As an alternate design to conventional ammonia central plant systems, many operators have begun to adopt ammonia/CO 2 cascade systems, which use CO 2 as the low stage refrigerant in a cascade design. These systems, which are most favorable for use in low temperature applications , c an reduce the charge size by an estimate 70 to 90 percent compared to an ammonia

- only syste m (Shecco 2013; IAWR 2014). For example, in 2005, U.S. Cold Storage installed its first a mmonia / CO 2 cascade system at their facility in Bethlehem, PA. Since then, U.S. Cold Storage has installed more than ten ammonia/CO 2 systems in the United States (Acce lerate America 2015). In addition to reducing the charge size of ammonia to between 5,000 and 8,000 pounds, their ammonia/CO 2 systems on average are roughly six percent more efficient than a conventional central plant ammonia system (Accelerate America 201 5).


### 3.4.1.3 Ammonia Secondary Loop Systems While ammonia/CO 2 cascade designs are the most popular advanced system design for use in large cold storage applications, secondary loop systems

— where ammonia (or another primary refrigerant) is contained to the machine room and a secondary fluid such as CO 2 or brine/glycol is circulated to the evaporators in the refrigerated space

— are also feasible. These systems have similar benefits in terms of charge reduction to an ammonia/CO 2 cascade system, achieving a red uction of an estimated 70 percent relative to an ammonia

- only system (IAWR 2014). It is also possible to implement a hybrid design that uses both a secondary loop and cascade system.


## 3.4.2 Carbon Dioxide
Due to the low critical temperature of CO 2 , it cannot be used in the same way as other industrial refrigerants (UNEP 2015a). While CO 2 is approved for use as a primary refrigerant under SNAP in transcritical systems, there are no compressors currently on the market t hat provide the necessary high operating pres sures to run an industrial

- sized CO 2 transcritical system (UNEP 2015a). Therefore, CO 2 transcritical system s may be adopted by some smaller cold storage facilities in the United States, while in larger applications the use of CO 2 will likely be limited to cascade and other indirect system designs.


## 3.4.3 HFC/HFO Blends
Unsaturated HFCs (i.e., HFOs) blended with saturated HFCs, namely R

- 450A and R

- 513A, are approved for use in cold storage under EPA’s SNAP program but are not believed to have been adopted by the
c old storage industry yet . R

- 450A is a blend of HFO

- 1234ze (E) /HFC

- 134a and R

- 513A is a blend of HFO

-Market Characterization U.S. Cold Storage Industry

ICF International 41 March 2016 1234yf/HFC

- 134a. The HFO/HFC blends R

- 448A and R

- 449A are currently under review by the SNAP program for use in cold storage warehouses . R

- 448A is a blend of HFC

- 32, HFC

- 125, HFC

- 134a, HFO

1234yf, and HFO

- 1234ze(E), and R

- 449A is a blend of HFC

- 32, HFC

- 125, HFC

- 134a, and HFO

- 1234yf. Due to costs and the viability of other climate

- friendly alternatives, it is not expected that these refrigerants and others that are under development will gain significant market share in cold storage applications in the United States (UNEP 2015a)

.Market Characterization U.S. Refrigerated Fo od Processing and Dispensing Equipment

ICF International 42 March 2016 

# 4 U.S. Refrigerated Food Processing and Dispensing Equipment
4.1 Introduction
The refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment in dustry consists of self

- contained units that cool and dispense food and beverages via a nozzle. This equipment is typically found in small retail food facilities, including convenience stores, restaurants, cafeterias, hotels, schools, hospitals, and snack and beverage bars. The refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment industry historically relied on ODS, including CFC

- 12 and HCFC

- 22, but transitioned to HFC

- 134a and R

- 404A

— both of which are powerful greenhouse gases

— for medium

- and low

- temperat ure applications, respectively, in response to the phaseout of ODS under the Montreal Protocol. Today, there are several low

- GWP alternative refrigerants (e.g., hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, R

- 448A, R

- 449A , R

- 450A, and R

- 513A ) that may become available fo r use in refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment. The remainder of this chapter characterizes the refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment industry in terms of equipment type, system manufacturers, historical and current refriger ant use, and the availability of climate

- friendly alternatives. 

## 4.2 Market Characterization
Refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment comprise three main product categories: soft serve/ice cream machines, chilled beverage dispensers, and frozen beverage dispensers. Soft serve/ice cream dispensers serve ice cream, soft

- serve, frozen yogurt /custard , sorbet, gelato, and Italian i ce; chilled beverage dispensers serve cold drinks including, but not limited to, fountain drinks, iced coffee and tea, jui ce, and milk; and frozen beverage dispensers typically serve “slushies,” shakes, and cocktails. Example images of refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment are provided in Figure 15

. Figure 15 : Example Images of Refrigerated Food Processing and Dispensing Equipment (Avantco 2015; Stoelting 2015; Taylor Company 2015)

Chilled Beverage Dispenser Frozen Beverage Dispenser Soft Serve/Ice Cream DispenserMarket Characterization U.S. Refrigerated Food Processing and Dispensing Equipment

ICF International 43 March 2016 This equipment can be either air

- or water

- cooled and has the potential to employ various types of compressors (Alpine 2014, Electro Freeze 2015). Major components of the refrigerated food processing and dispensing systems include: electric motors, compres sors, a liquid cooler, and refrigerant expansion valves. Charge sizes are estimated to range 0.1 to 1 kg (Alpine 2014). Manufacturers of refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment, as identified through an internet search are summarized below in Table 19

. Table 19 : Manufacturers of Refrigerated Food Processing and Dispensing Equipment*

Company Soft Service/Ice Cream Machines Chilled Beverage Dispensers Frozen Beverage Dispensers Alpine Freezer X
Avantco Equipment X

Bunn X X
Central Restaurant Products X X
Cornelius X X
Electro Freeze X X X
Elmeco X X Emery Thompson Machine & Supply Co. X
Eurodib X
Grindmaster Cecilware X X MegaLane X Omega X X
SaniServ X X Spaceman X X Stoelting X X Taylor Company X X

* The companies listed do not necessarily represent an inclusive list of all manufacturers of refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment in the United States. 

## 4.3 Sector Background
Historically, the refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment industry relied on ODS refrigerants, including CFC

- 12 and HCFC

- 22. In response to the phaseout of ODS under the Montreal Protocol, the refrigerated food processing and dispensing equip ment industry adopted HFC

- 134a and R

404A in medium

- and low

- temperature applications, respectively. Both HFC

- 134a and R

- 404A are potent GHGs with GWPs of 1,430 and 3,920, respectively (EPA 2015 e ).Market Characterization U.S. Refrigerated Food Processing and Dispensing Equipment

ICF International 44 March 2016 

## 4.4 Climate

- Friendly Alternatives
Several alternative refriger ants with lower GWPs have the potential for use in refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment. These alternatives include hydrocarbons ( e.g., R

- 600a and R

- 290 ) , carbon dioxide (R

- 744), and HFO/HFC blends ( e.g., R

- 448A, R

- 449A, R

- 450A , and R

- 513A ). Table 20 below provides an overview of climate

- friendly alternatives and their listing status under EPA’s SNAP program. Each alternative is discusse d in more detail in the sections that follow.

Table 20 : Climate

- Friendly Alternative Refrigerants
Alternative GWP SNAP Listing Status Hydrocarbons R

- 600a ~4 Not EPA SNAP approved
R

- 290 3 .3 Not EPA SNAP approved
Carbon Dioxide R

- 744 1 Acceptable (2009) HFO/HFC Blends R

- 450A 601 Acceptable (2014)
R

- 448A 1,3 90 Not EPA SNAP approved
R

- 449A 1,400 Not EPA SNAP approved
R

- 513A 63 0 Under SNAP review Source s : EPA 2009b, EPA 2011, EPA 2014c, and EPA 2015d


## 4.4.1 Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbons, such as R

- 600a and R

- 290 , are a potentially viable alternative refrigerant for HFC

- 134a and R

- 404A in refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment but are not currently SNAP

approved for this end

- use (The Linde Group 2015 b , EPA 2015 b ). Hydrocarbon refrigerants have no ODP, low GWPs, but are also highly flammable ( ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34 Safety Group A3) (The Linde Group 2015 b ). Hydrocarbon refrigerants can also pro duce higher energy efficiency in some equipment types (The Linde Group 2015a). Supplement SB to the UL Standard for Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers, UL 471, dated November 24, 2010 applies to h ydrocarbon refrigerants in refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment

. These refrigerants are not currently EPA SNAP approved for this use.


## 4.4.2 Carbon Dioxide
Carbon dioxide (R

- 744) has regained popularity as an environmentally friendly refrigerant because it has zero ODP , a GWP of 1 , low toxicity , and is not flammable. In addition, e quipment using R

- 744 can experience lo wer energy usage (The Linde Group 2015a). This refrigerant was EPA SNAP approved for use in new retail food refrigeration in 2009 (EPA 2009b).


## 4.4.3 HFC/HFO Blends

Other potentially viable alternative s for refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment ar e HFO/HFC blends, such as R

- 450A and R

- 513A in medium

- temperature systems, and R

- 448A and R

- 449A, which could be used in both low

- and medium

- temperature refrigeration applications (Honeywell 2015 c , Chemours 2015 b , Honeywell 2015a , Chemours 2015 a ). R

- 450A, a blend of HFC

- 134a and HFO

- 1234ze (E) ,Market Characterization U.S. Refrigerated Food Processing and Dispensing Equipment

ICF International 45 March 2016 is compatible with new and retrofit equipment using HFC

- 134a, has a GWP nearly 60% lower than HFC

134a , and was approved by EPA’s SNAP program across all retail food refrigeration systems in 2014 (EPA 2014 c , Honeywel l 2015a). R

- 5 13 A, a blend of HFC

- 134a and HFO

- 1234 yf , is compatible for new and retrofit equipment using HFC

- 134a, with a GWP more than 55 % less than HFC

- 134a and was approved by EPA’s SNAP program in a number of types of retail food refrigeration systems in 2015, but not yet for refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment (EPA 201 5 d , Chemours 2015 a ). R

- 450 A and R

513A are also non

- flammable, and offer a similar performance and energy efficiency to HFC

- 134a (Honeywell 2015a ; Chemours 2015 a ). R

- 448 A, a blend of HFC

- 32, HFC

- 125, HFC

- 134a, HFO

- 1234ze (E) , and HFO

- 1234yf, is considered a near drop

- in replacement for R

- 404A, with a GWP almost 70% lower than R

- 404A (Honeywell 2015 c ). Similarly, R

- 449A, a blend of HFC

- 32, HFC

- 125, HFC

- 134a, and HFO

1234yf, is compatible for new and retrofit equipment using R

- 404A and has a GWP almost 65% lower than R

- 404A (Chemours 2015 b ). Both are non

- flammable (ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34 Safety Group A1) with increases in efficiency of 5

- 10% compared to R

- 404A (Honeywell 201 5 c , The Linde Group 2015 c ). R

448A and R

- 449A have not been EPA SNAP approved for this end

- use.Market Characterization U.S. Household Refrigeration Industry

ICF International 46 March 2016 

# 5 U.S. Household Refrigeration Industry
5.1 Introduction

The U.S. household refrigeration industry includes household refrigerators and freezers that are intended primarily for residential use. Note, however, that some of this equipment may also be used outside the home, for example, in an office building break room or college do rmitory . The U.S. household refrigeration industry historically relied on CFC

- 12 refrigerant, which depletes the stratospheric ozone layer and contributes to climate change. In response to the global phaseout of ODS, the industry transitioned to HFC

- 134a i n the mid

- 1990s. Although HFC

- 134a does not contribute to ozone depletion, it is a powerful greenhouse gas (GHG), and its emissions contribute to climate change. Today, low

- GWP alternative refrigerants (e.g., hydrocarbons, HFOs, and HFO/HFC blends) have e ntered or are expected to enter the U.S. household refrigeration market, facilitated by acceptability listings under EPA ’s SNAP program. The remainder of this chapter characterizes the U.S. household refrigeration industry in terms of key market players, h istorical and current refrigerant use, and the availability of climate

- friendly alternatives. 

## 5.2 Market Characterization
This section provides an overview of household refrigeration equipment, the current market, and key manufacturers.


## 5.2.1 Overview of U.S. House hold Refrigeration Equipment
Household refrigerators and freezers comprise three main product categories: refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator

- freezers, with a combined refrigerator

- freezer in a single unit being the most common. A small fraction of h ousehold refrigeration equipment is made up of small refrigerated household appliances such as chilled kitchen drawers, wine coolers, and mini

- fridges. The descriptions provided in the following sections do not distinguish between product categories since the equipment is very similar in design across categories. Example images of household refrigeration equipment are provided in Figure 16

.Market Characterization U.S. Household Refrigeration Industry

ICF International 47 March 2016 Figure 16 . Example Images of Household Refrigeration Equipment (Maytag 2015; Whirlpool 2015; Kenmore 2015; GE 2015)

Most household refrigeration equipment are factory

- produced, electrically

- driven, hermetically

- sealed systems that use a vapor compression refrigeration cycle (UNEP 2015 b ). Major components of each system include an evaporator, a compressor with an electric motor, a con denser, and an expansion valve. Household refrigerators and freezers typically contain between 0.1 and 0.3 kg of refrigerant. 26 Refrigerant charge sizes have decreased over the years in the United States, but are typically larger than those in Europe and Ja pan (U.S. EPA 2010). Table 21 summarizes key characteristics for currently manufactured household refrigerators and freezers for sale and distribution in interstate c ommerce.
Table 21 . Summary of U.S. Household Refrigerator and Freezer Characteristics

Parameter Typical Characteristics Typical cooling capacity a 0.1 to 0.5 kW Refrigerants used HFC

- 134a Refrigeration circuit design Hermetically sealed vapor compression Manufacture/installation Factory built Typical annual leakage rate <5%, with an average of 0.6% Main source of emissions Losses at end

- of

- life Typical size of refrigerated space 15 to 22 cubic feet

26 Although this industry also relies on insulating foam that commonly use HFCs, insulating foams found in household

refrigerators and freezers are not discussed as part of this market characterization report. Side

- by

- side refrigerator Top freezer refrigerator Upright freezer Wine/beverage coolerMarket Characterization U.S. Household Refrigeration Indu stry

ICF International 48 March 2016 Parameter Typical Characteristics Average lifetime 14 years

a The cooling capacity is the measure of a refrigeration system’s ability to remove heat. Source: EPA 2014a; UNEP 2015 b ; EIA 2013 In 2014, an estimated 164 million household refrigerators and freezers were in operation in the United States (EPA 2014a). Approximately 10.8 million new units enter the U.S. market annually (EPA 2014a). 27 According to a recent U.S. residential energy consumption survey, 113.4 million U.S. households use a refrigerator, 77% of which use one refrigerator and 23% of which use two or more refrigerators (EIA 2013). As shown in Table 22 , the most

- used refrigerator types in U.S. households are the two

- door configuration with a freezer on top, followed by the two

- door configuration with the refrigerator and freezer side

- by

- side.

Table 22 . Refrigerator Types in U.S. Households Type of Refrigerator a Total U.S. Homes (millions) Percent Single Door 9.3 8% 2 Doors (Top Freezer) 55.8 49% 2 Doors (Bottom Freezer) 7.7 7% 2 Doors (Side

- By

- Side) 38.5 34%
3 or More Doors 0.9 1% Half

- Size/Other 1.3 1% Total 113.5 100%

a For homes with more than one refrigerator, the most

- used one is shown and the others are excluded. Source: EIA 2013
Known household refrigeration equipment manufacturers with a presence in the United States market are listed below. The largest appliance manufacturers are Whirlpool, General Electric (GE) and Kenmore (Bloomberg 2014). The companies below were identified through a literature review while developing this report, and this is not necessarily an inclusive list of all companies producing and/or selling refrigerated appliances within the United States.

• AGA Ranges LLC • General Elect ric • Norcold

• Amana • Haier • Panasonic

• Avanti • Kenmore • Perlick

• Bosch • KitchenAid • Samsung

• Dacor • Liebherr • Sub

- Zero

• Danby • LG • Summit

• Electrolux • Middleby • Whirlpool

• Fagor America, Inc. • Miele

• Frigidaire • Maytag

27 Based on previous in dustry research and analysis, it is estimated that approximately 70 percent of the annual demand for

household refrigerators and freezers in the United States is met by imports (EPA 2009a, U.S. Census Bureau 2007).Market Characterization U.S. Household Refrigeration Industry

ICF International 49 March 2016 

## 5.3 Sector Background

CFC

- 12 was introduced as a refrigerant in the early 1930s as a replacement for the flammable and/or toxic natural refrigerants that were commonly used at the time (UNEP 2015a ). CFC

- 12 was a popular refrigerant through the 1980s until the Montreal Protocol came into effect, banning its use due to its high ODP. As a replacement for CFC

- 12, the household refrigeration industry transitioned to the non

ozone depleting alternative HFC

- 134a in the mid

- 1990s. However, like its predecessor, HFC

- 134a is a potent GHG. HFC

- 134a, which has a GWP of 1,430 (IPCC 2007), is the predominant refrigerant used today in U.S. refrigerator

- freezers , as illustrated in Figure 17 . HCFCs have not b een used as refrigerants in this end

- use
. Figure 17 . Refrigerant Stock in U.S. Household Refrigeration from 1985 to 2015 (MT) a

a EPA’s Vintaging Model does not model CFC refrigerants after 2007; however, data from EPA’s Responsible Appliance Disposal (RAD) program indicate that some CFC

- 12 refrigerators are still being decommissioned

. Source: EPA 2014a



## 5.4 Climate

- F riendly Alternatives
Several alternative refrigerants with lower GWPs have been found to be acceptable under EPA’s SNAP program for use in household refrigerators and freezers. These alternatives have no ODP and include ammonia absorption, hydrocarbons, HFOs, and HFO/HFC blends. The remainder of this section summarizes information on refrigerant alternatives for the U.S. household refrigeration industry. Table 23 provides an overview of climate

- friendly alternatives and their listing status under EPA’s SNAP program.Market Characterization U .S. Household Refrigeration Industry

ICF International 50 March 2016 Table 23 . Climate

- F riendly Alternative Refrigerants in U.S. Household Refrigeration
Alternative GWP a SNAP Listing Status Hydrocarbons and hydrocarbon blends R

- 290 3 Acceptable subject to use conditions ( 2015 )
R

- 600a ~4 Acceptable subject to use conditions ( 2011 )
R

- 441A <5 Acceptable subject to use conditions ( 2011 ) HFOs and HFO/HFC Blends R

- 450A 60 1 Acceptable ( 2014 )
R

- 513A 63 1 Acceptable ( 2015 )
HFO

- 1234yf 4 Not EPA SNAP approved
HFO

- 1234ze (E) 6 Not EPA SNAP approved
Low

- GWP Saturated HFCs HFC

- 152a 124 Acceptable (1994) Ammonia absorption 0 Acceptable ( 1995 )

a Sources: EPA 2011, EPA 2012a, EPA 2014c, EPA 20 15d, and IPCC 2007


## 5.4.1 Hydrocarbons and Hydrocarbon Blends
Hydrocarbons and hydrocarbon blends, including R

- 290, R

- 600a, and R

- 441A, are SNAP

- approved alternative refrigerants subject to use conditions. Due to their flammability, these refrigerants may only be used in new household refrigerators and freezers that are specifically designed for and clearly ident ified to contain these refrigerants. Further, these refrigerants may only be used in household refrigerators and freezers that meet all requirements listed in Supplement SA to the 10 th edition of the UL Standard for Household Refrigerators and Freezers, UL 250, dated August 25, 2000. As mandated in UL 250, the maximum charge size is limited to 57 grams in any refrigerator or freezer (UL 2015). ANSI/ASHRAE Standards 34 and 15 assign a safety group classification to refrigerants based on their toxicity and f lammability and establish procedures for operating systems using those refrigerants (see Figure 18 ). Using these safety group classifications, R

- 290, R

600a, and R

- 441A are in the A3 Safety Group. Meeting these standards leads to additional costs for safety features such as proper ventilat ion and leak prevention resulting in manufacturers opting to continue to produce equipment using HFC

- 134a (UNEP 2015a ). Although the United States has been slow to adopt hydrocarbons in household
r efrigerators, they have been widely used in other countries for many years (UNEP 2015a ). Globally, R

- 600a is now the predominant Figure 18 . Refrigerant Safety Group Classification

Source: EPA 2015eMarket Characterization U.S. Household Refrigeration Industry

ICF International 51 March 2016 refrigerant for new household refrigeration appliances and suitable components are widely available (UNEP 2015 b ). Currently, th ere are an estimated 500 million refrigerators and freezers using R

- 600a worldwide (UNEP 2015 b ). By 2020, an estimated 75 percent of new household refrigerator production will use R

- 600a (UNEP 2015a ). Hydrocarbon refrigerants have been widely used in the m arket in Europe and Asia (GE 2010). Many global manufacturers offer hydrocarbon

- based units outside of the U.S. while selling predominantly HFC

- 134a units in the U.S. Following the SNAP listing of R

- 600a as an acceptable alternative in household refrigerat ors and freezers, GE introduced a refrigerator line in the United States containing R

- 600a refrigerant (GE 2010). Since then, the use of hydrocarbon refrigerants in these appliances has begun to penetrate the market in the United States.
In addition to the ir zero ODP and low GWP, hydrocarbons have other benefits. For instance, R

- 600a is approximately five percent more efficient than HFC

- 134a, equipment using R

- 600a has a lower annual running cost and lifetime cost, and R

- 600a reduces the noise level of the unit (UNEP 2015a ).


## 5.4.2 HFO/HFC Blends

SNAP

- approved HFO/HFC blends include R

- 450A and R

- 513A, which have no ODP and lower GWPs in comparison to HFC

- 134a. R

- 450A is a non
- flammable blend of HFO

- 1234ze and HFC

- 134a that was EPA SNAP listed in 2014 for use in ho usehold refrigerators and freezers in new and retrofit equipment (EPA 2014c). R

- 513A is a non
- flammable blend of HFO

- 1234yf and HFC

- 134a that was EPA SNAP listed in 2015 for household refrigerators and freezers in both new and retrofit equipment (EPA 2015d ).

HFO

- 1234yf and HFO

- 1234ze are two low

- GWP unsaturated HFCs that could become viable for use in household refrigeration pending additional research and development. HFO

- 1234yf has a lower flammability than R

- 600a (ASHRAE 2L), and has the potential for a comparable efficiency to HFC

- 134a. However, costs for equipment using HFO

- 1234yf are expected to be slightly higher that HFC

- 134a equipment due to the refrigerant’s flammability and investment requirements for product development (UNEP 2015a ). This altern ative has not been EPA SNAP approved for this end

- use.
HFO

- 1234ze is a refrigerant in the early exploration phase for household refrigeration. Like HFO

- 1234yf, this refrigerant has a lower flammability than R

- 600a, but higher than HFC

- 134a , but it is not l ikely that this refrigerant will replace R

- 600a or HFC

- 134a in the near future (UNEP 2015a ). Components optimized for HFO

- 1234yf or HFO

- 1234ze in household refrigerators and freezers are not yet widely available (UNEP 2015 b ). This alternative has not been EPA SNAP approved for this end

- use. 

## 5.4.3 Low
- GWP Saturated HFC s
Based in part on a flammability risk assessment, SNAP listed HFC

- 152a as acceptable for new household refrigerator

- freezers in the original 1994 rule. Due to the fact that HFC

- 152a is flammable,
m anufacturers investigating this refrigerant should follow precautions similar to those listed above for hydrocarbons, including labeling and conformance to safety standards. HFC

- 152a has not been pursued by household refrigerator

- freezer manufacturers as a refrigerant for this end

- use, and so is not discussed in any more detail here.Market Characterization U.S. Household Refrigeration Industry

ICF International 52 March 2016 

## 5.4.4 Ammonia Absorption
Ammonia absorption is a NIK alternative household refrigeration technology with a zero ODP and a zero GWP

. In absorption chillers, w ater acts as the absorbent while ammonia acts as the refrigerant for new and existing systems. The technology has been used for years in hotels; college dormitories; hotel min

ba r units; mobile, off

- network applications including campers and mobile homes ; and other small spaces (UNEP 2015a ). The advantage of this technology is low noise , while drawbacks include low efficiency and
a very high discharge temperature (Pearson 2003). Barriers to adoption include ammonia’s incompatibility with copper and a lack o f technicians trained to handle ammonia refrigeration systems (ASHRAE 2014) . ASHRAE Standards 34 and 15 classify ammonia as a B2L refrigerant with a high er toxicity and low flammability (ASHRAE 2013 ).ICF International 53 March 2016 

# 6 References Accelerate America. 2015. North American Edition. April 2015. Available online at: http://publication.shecco.com/upload/file/org/142980014170226_472862.pdf

. The Air

- Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration News. 2014. Many HVAC Contractors Unaware of P ending Chiller Standards. Available online at: http://www.achrnews.com/articles/126864

- many
- hvac

- contractors

- unaware
- of

- pending

- chiller

- stand ards

. Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC). 2014. Evaluation of the Amerex Model 775 Wheeled Extinguisher with Novec TM 1230. November 2014. Alpine. 2014. Soft Serve Machines. Available online at: http://www.alpinefreezer.com/soft

- serve
machines/

. American Pacific (AMPAC). 2007. Halotron TM II Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). Available online at: http://www.halotron.com/pdf/halotron_two_msds.pdf

. American Pacific (AMPAC). 2015. Halotron® C lean Fire Extinguishing Agents. Available online at: http://www.halotron.com/index.php

. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air

- Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). 2013. Standard 90.1. Available online at: www.ashrae.org/resources

-- publications/books tore/standard

- 90

- 1

. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air

- Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). 2014. ASHRAE Position Document on Ammonia as a Refrigerant. Available online at: https://www.ashrae.org/about

- ashrae/position

- documents

. Americold Logistics. 2015. Americold Facilities. Available online at: http://www.americold.com/facilities.aspx

. Armstrong & Associates. 2 013. Trends in 3PL/Customer Relationships. Available online at: https://www21.corecommerce.com/~peerlessmedia/files/Customers_of_3PLs_2013.pdf

. Avantco. 2015. R BD33 Triple 3 Gallon Bowl Refrigerated Beverage Dispenser. Available online at: http://www.avantcoequipment.com/product/2587

. Bloomberg Business. 2014. Samsung Wants to be the World’s Biggest App liance Maker by 2015. Available online at: http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014

- 01

- 09/samsung

- wants

- to

- be

the

- worlds

- biggest

- appliance

- maker

- by

- 2015

. BusinessWire. 2015. Ingersoll Rand Introduces the EcoWiseTM Portfolio of Products as Step to Achieve its Global Climate Commitment. January 26, 2015. Available online at: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150126005175/en/Ingersoll

- Rand

- Introduces

EcoWise%E2%84%A2

- Portfolio

- Products

- Step#.VduMIJeK0Xs

. California Energy Commission. 2013. Greenguide for Sustainable Energy Efficient Refrigerated Storage Facilities. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2 013publications/CEC

- 500

- 2013

- 145/CEC

- 500

- 2013

- 145.pdf

.Market Characterization References

ICF International 54 March 2016 Carrier. 2015. Aquaforce® 30XA Air

- Cooled Liquid Chiller with R

- 134a Refrigerant. Available online at: http://w ww.carrier.com/commercial/en/us/products/chillers/chillers/30xa/

. Center for Land Use Interpretation (CLUI). 2014. Refrigerated Nation: The Landscape of Perishable Food in America. Available online at: http://clui.org/newsletter/winter

- 2014/refrigerated

- nation

. Chemours. 2015 a . Opteon TM XP10 Refrigerants. Available online at: https://www.chemours.com/Refrigerants/en_US/products/Opteon/Stationary_Refrigeration/as sets/downloads/Opteon_XP10_prodinfo.pdf

. Chemours. 2015b. DuPont TM Opteon® Refrigerants. Available online at: https://www.chemours.com/Refrigerants/en_US/assets/downloads/k26492_Opteon_refrigeran ts.pdf

. Cole, R. 2004. Cold Storage Warehouses

– An Engineering Overview. Availab le online at: http://seagrant.uaf.edu/map/workshops/cold

- storage/Cole

- sm.pdf

. Colliers International. 2011. Market Report: Metro Vancouver, BC. Available online at: http://www.colliersteams.com/prod/ccbrkr.nsf/publish/FF2BA46516D38561852578240061173 4/$File/Q4

- 10+Industrial+Rpt_PO11024_Email.pdf

. Cushman & Wakefield, Ltd. 2013. Marketbeat Industrial Snapshot: Vancouver, BC. Available online at: http://www.cushmanwakefield.com/~/media/marketbeat/2014/01/Vancouver_AMERICAS_Mar ketBeat_Industrial_Q42013.pdf

. Electro Freeze. 2015. Equipment. Availa ble online at: http://www.electrofreeze.com/Equipment.aspx

. Emerson Climate. 2014. Cold storage warehouse improves efficiency with ammonia/pumped CO 2 system. Available online at: www.emersonclimate.com/Documents/Vilter/Product_Brochures/Cold

- Storage

- 2013VM

- 15

- R1

- C.pdf

. Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA). 2012. HFC

- free technologie s area available in the U.S. market for the supermarket

- retail refrigeration sector. Available online at: http://eia

global.org/images/uploads/HFC

- Free_Tech_Availabl e_in_the_US.pdf

. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2015. Advisory Circular: Air Cargo Operations. Available online at: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_120

- 85A.pdf

. Fire Equipment Manufacturers’ Association (FEMA). 2015. Portable Fire Extinguishers. Available online at: http://femalifesafety .org/about.html

. Fire Protection Research Foundation. 2010. Measuring Impact of Fire Extinguisher Agents on Cultural Resource Materials. Prepared by Hughes Associates, Inc. February 2010. Available online at: http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/research/research%20foundation/research%20foundation %20reports/suppression/extinguishentscultural resourcecollections.pdf

. Furcare.com. 2015. Fur Storage. Available online at: http://www.furcare.org/fur

- storage/

.Market Characteri zation References

ICF International 55 March 2016 General Electric (GE). 2010. GE Brings Cleaner Home Refrigeration to the U.S. in 2010. Available online at: http://pressroom.geappliances.com/news/ge

- brings

- cleaner

- home

- refrigeration

- 179750

. General Electric (GE). 2015. GE Refrigerators. Available online at: http://www.geappliances.com/ge/refrigerators.htm

. Global Cold Chain Alliance (GCCA). 2015. Global Cold Chain Alliance Dire ctory. Available online at: https://gcca.connext.io/#/search

. Accessed September 25, 2015. Gottlieb, Mark S. 2006. Refrigerated Warehousing: An Industry Study. Available online at: http://www.msgcpa.com/files/Refrigerated%20Warehousing.pdf

. Hansen Harps, L. 2003. Fast Food: SCM Feeds the Need. Available online at: http://www.inboundlogistics.com/cms/article/fast

- food

- scm
- feeds

- the

- need/

. Honeywell. 2012. Solstice TM ze (HFO

- 1234ze) Refrigerant. Available online at: http://www.honeywell

refrigerants.com/india/?document=solstice

- ze
- hfo

- 1234ze

- brochure

- 2012&download=1

. Honeywell. 2015a. Solstice® N13 (R

- 450). Available online at: http://www.honeywell

refrigerants.com/europe/product/solstice

- n13/

. Honeywell. 2015b. Solstice® zd. Available online at: http://www.honeywell

refrigerants.com/americas/product/solstice

- zd/

. Honeywell. 2015 c . Honeywell Solstice® N40 (R

- 448A) Refrigerant. Available online at: http://www.honeywell

- refrigerants.com/americas/?document=solstice

- n40

- data

sheet&download=1

. Hughes Associates, Inc. and ICF Consulting. 2004. Review of the Transition Away from Halons in U.S. Civil Aviation Applications. September 2004. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/fire/FinalCivilAviationReport_21_Sept04.pdf

. IBIS World. 2014. Fire Extinguisher Manufacturing in the US: Market Research R eport. Available online at: http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/fire

- extinguisher

- manufacturing.html

. ICF International. 1997. Physiological Effects of Alternative Fire P rotection Agents

- Hypoxic Atmospheres Conference. Stephanie Skaggs prepared the proceedings of the conference held May 22, 1997 in New London, CT. International Association of Refrigerated Warehouses (IARW). 2014. Low Ammonia Charge Refrigeration Systems for Cold Storage. Available online at: www.danfoss.us/workarea/downloadasset.aspx?id=17179919178

. International Association of Refrigerated Warehouses (IARW). 2015. IARW Nor th American Top 25 List of Refrigerated Warehousing and Logistics Providers. Available online at: www.gcca.org/resources/industry

- topics/cold

- chain

- market

- research

- trends/iarw

- top

- 25

- list

- of

largest

- refrigerated

- warehousing

- and

- logistics

- companies/iarw

- north

- american

- top

- 25/

.Market Characterization References

ICF International 56 March 2016 Intergovernmental Panel on Climat e Change (IPCC)/ Technical and Economical Assessment Panel (TEAP). 2005. IPCC/TEAP Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System. Chapter 5: Residential and Commercial Air Conditioning and Heating. Aguiar Peixoto, R. Available online at: www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/_safeguarding_the_ozone_layer.htm

. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland. 2007. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Mil ler (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. JBS USA. 2013. JBS Opens Modern Beef Distribution Center in Grand Island, Nebraska. Available online at: http://jbssa.com/about/news/2013/10

- 01/#.VeW_0_lViko

. JENSEN HUGHES, Inc. 2015. Personal communication with Dan Verdonik of Jensen Hughes, Inc. August 11, 2015.
Johnson Controls. 2015. York® Water

- Cooled Centrifugal Chillers. Available online at: http://www.johnso ncontrols.com/content/us/en/products/building_efficiency/products

- and

systems/integrated_hvac_systems/Industrial___Commercial_HVAC_Equipment/chiller_systems /hvac_chillers/water_cooled_centrifugal.html

. Jones Lange LaSalle (JLL). 2014. Perspectives on cold storage investment opportunities. Available online at: http://www.us.jll.com/united

- states/en

- us/R esearch/cold

- storage

- investment

- perspectives

jll

- nov2014.pdf?9c8bf36c

- a6b5

- 4432

- 87e5

- 5149186c1c26

. Kenmore. 2015. Refrigerators & Freezers. Available online at: www.kenmore.com/kitchen

- refrigerators

freezers/b

- 1040176?intcmp=ken_globalnav_refrigerators_freezers_image_081814

. Li, Y . and D.J. Wuebbles. 2006. Potential impacts of CF 3 I on ozone as a replacement for CF 3 Br in aircraft applications. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 6, 4559

– 4568. The Linde Group. 2013. Hydrocarbon refrigerants. Available online at: http://www.linde

gas.com/internet.global.lindegas.global/en/images/Hydrocarbon%20Refrigerants%20Leaflet17_ 108810.pdf

. The Li nde Group. 2015 a . Natural Refrigerants. Available online at: http://www.linde

gas.com/en/products_and_supply/refrigerants/natural_refrigerants/inde x.html

. The Linde Group. 2015b. R600A Refrigerant Grade Isobutane. Available online at: http://www.linde

gas .com/internet.global.lindegas.global/en/images/R600a%20Refrigerant%20Grade%20Isobuta ne%20Brochure17_110860.pdf

. The Linde Group. 2015c. R449A

– Opteon® XP40. Available online at: http://www.linde

gas.com/internet.global.lindegas.global/en/images/BAMPG_Refrigerants_R449A17_140677.pdf

.Market Characterization References

ICF International 57 March 2016 The Linde Group. 2015d. R290 Refrigerant Grade Propane. Available online at: http://www.linde

gas.com/internet.global.lindegas.global/en/images/R290%20Refrigerants%20Grade%20Propane %20Brochure17_110859.pdf
Maytag . 2015. Refrigerators. Available online at: http://www.maytag.com/kitchen

- 1/refrigeration

2/side

-- by

-- side

- 3/102120031/

. McQuay International. 2015. Fact Sheet: McQuay’s Positive Approach to HFC Refrigerants in Centrifugal Chillers. Available online at: http://www.georgia.dai kinmcquay.com/McQuay/DesignSolutions/RefrigerantResourceCenter

. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 2013. NFPA 10: Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers. Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OHSA). 1974. Standard 1910: Occupational S afety and Health Standards. 39 FR 23502, June 27, 1974. Available online at: https://www.osha.gov/

. Orkin, V. L. 2004. Photochemical Properties of 2

- bromo

- 3,3,3

- trfluoropropene and semi

- empirical kinetic estimates of i ts Global Impacts on the Atmosphere. Prepared by the National Institute of Standards and Technology Physical and Chemical Properties Division for American Pacific Corporation. July 2004. Partridge, A. 2012. An Appetite for Refrigerated Warehousing Improvem ent. Available online at: http://www.inboundlogistics.com/cms/article/an

- appetite

- for

- refrigerated

- warehousing

improvement/

. Patten, K. O., V . G. Khamaganov, V. L. Orkin, S. L. Baughcum, and D. J. Wuebbles. 2012. Correction to “OH reaction rate constant, IR absorption spectrum, ozone depletion potentials and global warming potentials of 2

- bromo

- 3,3,3

- trifluoropropene,” J. Geophys. Res., 117, D2 2301. Pearson, Andy, "Ammonia as a Replacement for Medium Sized Modular R

- 22 Systems" (2010). International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference. Paper 1112. Available online at: http://docs.li b.purdue.edu/iracc/1112

. Pearson, S.F. 2003. New Natural and Alternative Refrigerants. Available online at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/product ion/files/documents/New_Natural_and_Alternative_Refrige rants.pdf

. Reid, M.S. and T.A. Nell. 2004. Three C’s of Floral Success

– ‘Cooling’. Available online at: http://hort.ifas .ufl.edu/flowerpostharvest/pubs/Cooling.pdf

. Robin, L. Mark. 2011. A Short History of Clean Fire Suppression Agents. Fire Detection and Suppression. FS

- World.com Fire and Safety Magazine. Spring 2011 Edition. Available online at: https://www.chemours.com/FE/en_US/assets/downloads/pdf/Chemours_Reprint_FSWorld_Spr ing2011.pdf

. Shafaat, K., A. Hussain, B. Kumar, R. ul Hasan, P. Prabbat, V. K. Yadav. 2013. An Overview: Storage of Pharmaceutical Products. World Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences . 2(5): 2499

- 2515.Mar ket Characterization References

ICF International 58 March 2016 Shecco. 2013. Examples of NH3/CO 2 secondary systems for cold store operators. Available online at: http://www.shecco.com/files/news/guide_nh3

- final.pdf

. Stoelting. 2015. Counter

- top Frozen Beverage Dispenser. Available online at: http://stoeltingfoodservice.com/Stoelting

- Counter

- top

- Frozen

- Beverage

- Dispenser

- A118.htm

. Taylor Company. 2015. Model C723 Soft Serve Freezer. Available online at: http://www.taylor

company.com/product

- details/soft

- serve_landr_frozen

- yogurt/multi_flavor/model

- c723

. Trane. 2015 a . Cold GeneratorTM Scroll Chillers. Available online at: http://www.trane.com/commercial/north

- america/us/en/products

systems/equipment/chillers/water

- cooled

- chiller/scroll

- water.html

. Trane. 2015b. Trane® SintesisTM Air

- cooled Chillers. Available online at: http://www.trane.com/content/dam/ Trane/Commercial/global/products

systems/equipment/chillers/air

- cooled/TRANE_Sintesis_Brochure.pdf

. TRJ Refrigeration. 2015. Industrial Refrigeration. Accessed September 1, 2015. Available online at: http://www.trj

- inc.com/indusrefrig.html

. Underwriters Laboratories (UL). 2004. UL 711: Rating and Fire Testing of Fire Extinguishers. United Laboratories (UL). 2014. UL 471 Standard for Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers. Available online at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=471_10

. Underwriters Laboratories (UL). 2015. UL 250 Household Refrigerators and Freezers. Available online at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=250

. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) . 2004. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) Chiller Task Force. Nairobi, Kenya. Avail able online at: http://montreal

protocol.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/Other_Task_Force/teap_chiller_report_May20 04.pdf

. Unit ed Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2012. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, Additional Information on Alternatives to Ozone Depleting Substances. Available online at: http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/TEAP_Reports/teap

- task

- force

- XXIII

9

- report

- may2012.pdf

. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2014. Report of the Halons Technical O ptions Committee. December 2014. Fire Protection Alternatives to Halons. Technical Note #1

– Revision 4. Available online at: http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/HTOC/Technical%20Note%201

- %20Revision%204%20

- %20Fire%20Protection%20Alternatives%20To%20Halon%20

- %202014.pdf

. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2015a . 2014 Report of the Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee. Available online at:Market Characterization References

ICF International 59 March 2016 http://conf.montreal

- protocol.org/meeting/oewg/oewg

35/presession/Background%20Documents%20are%20available%20in%20English%20only/RTOC

Assessment

- Report

- 2014.pdf

. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2015 b . Fact Sheet 3: Domestic Refrigeration. UNEP Ozone Secretariat Workshop on HFC management: technical issues. Bangkok, 20 and 21 April 2015. Available online at: http://conf.montreal

protocol.org/meeting/workshops/hfc_management

02/presession/English/FS%203%20Domestic%20Refrigeration%20final.pdf

. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2015 c . Fact S heet 5: Industrial Refrigeration. Available online at: http://conf.montreal

- protocol.org/meeting/worksh ops/hfc_management

02/presession/English/FS%205%20Industrial%20Refrigeration%20final.pdf

. United Nations Environment Programme ( UNEP ) . 2015 d . Fact Sheet 10: Water chillers for air

conditioning. Available online at: http://conf.montreal

protocol.org/meeting/workshops/hfc_management

02/presession/English/FS%2010%20Water%20chillers%20for%20ai r
- conditioning%20final.pdf

. United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI). 2014a. Distribution Centers. Accessed September 1, 2015. Available online at: https://www.unfi.com/Pages/default.aspx

. United Natural F oods, Inc. (UNFI). 2014b. LEED Certified Projects. Accessed September 1, 2015. Available online at: https://www.unfi.com/Sustainability/Pages/LEEDProjects.aspx

. U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) Data Web. Available online at: http://dataweb.usitc.gov

. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2014. Capacity of Refrigerated Warehouses 2013 Summary. Available online at: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/u sda/current/CapaRefrWa/CapaRefrWa

- 01

- 24

- 2014.pdf

. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2011. Commercial Heating, Air Conditioning, and Water Heating Equipment (i.e., ASHRAE Equipment) Final Rule Rulemaking Technical Support Document. Chapter 2. Available onlin e at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE

- 2011

- BT

STD

- 0029

- 0039

. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2015. Covered Product Category: Air

- Cooled Elec tric Chillers. Available online at: http://energy.gov/eere/femp/covered

- product

- category

- air

- cooled

- electric

- chillers

. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2013. Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS). 2009 RECS Survey Data: Housing characteristics tables. Available online at: http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/20 09/

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995. Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Acceptable Substitutes for the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program. Notice of acceptability. Vol. 60, No. 145. Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 1995

- 07

- 28/pdf/95

- 18617.pdf

.Market Characterization References

ICF International 60 March 2016 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Ozone

- Depleting Substances. 67 FR 77931. December 20, 2002. Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2002

- 12

- 20/pdf/02

- 32130.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Ozone

- Depleting Substances. 68 FR 4004. September 27, 2006. Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2003

- 01

- 27/pdf/03

- 1623.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes fo r Ozone

- Depleting Substances

— Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection. 71 FR 56359. January 27, 2003. Available online at: Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009 a . Vintaging Model

. Version 4. 3, dated 02

- 26

- 09. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice 24 for Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 74 FR No. 188. September 30, 2009. Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2012

- 09

- 19/pdf/2012

- 23138.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Transitioning to Low

- GWP Alternatives in Domestic Refrigeration. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/downloads/EPA_HFC_DomRef.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Ozone

- Depleting Subs tances

— Hydrocarbon Refrigerants. Final Rule. Vol. 76, No. 244. Available online at: Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2011

- 12

- 20/pdf/2011

- 32175.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012a. Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Determination 27 for Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 77 FR 47768. August 10, 2012. Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2012

- 08

- 10/pdf/2012

- 19688.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012b. Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Ozo ne Depleting Substances

— Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection. 77 FR 58035. September 19, 2012. Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2012

- 09

- 19/pdf/2012

- 23138 .pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 201 4a. EPA Vintaging Model. VM IO file_V4.4_10.13.14.xlsx. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014b. Global Warming Potentials and Ozone Depletion Potentials of Some Ozone

- Depleting Substances and Alternatives Listed by the SNAP Program. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/subsgwps.html

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014c. Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: D etermination 29 for Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. Vol. 79, No. 203. Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 10

- 21/pdf/2014

- 24989.pdf

.Market Characterization References

ICF International 61 March 2016 U.S. Envir onmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015 a . Acceptable Substitutes for Centrifugal Chillers

. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/snap/acceptable

- substitutes

- centrifugal

- chillers

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015 b . Acceptable Substitutes in Stand

- Alone Units. Available online at: http://www2.epa.gov/snap/acceptable

- substitutes

- stand

- alone

- units

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). 2015 c . Acceptable Substitutes in Household Refrigerators and Freezers. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/lists/fridge.html

. U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency (EPA). 2015 d . Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Determination 30 for Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. Vol. 80, No. 136. Available online at: http ://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2015

- 07

- 16/pdf/2015

- 17469.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015 e . Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Refrigeration and Air Conditioning and Revision of the Venting Prohibition for Cert ain Refrigerant Substitutes. Vol. 80; No. 69. Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2015

- 04

- 10/pdf/2015

- 07895.pdf

. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. 2010. Amendment No. 8 to Form S

- 11 for Registration under the Securities Act of 1933 of Securities of Certain Real Estate Companies. Americold Realty Trust. Registration No. 333

- 163703. Available online at: www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1455863/000104746910004799/a2198481zs

- 11a.htm

. Watson, M., Cacioppi, P., Jayaraman, J., and Lewis, S. 2012. The Value of Supply Chain Network Design. Available online at: http://www.ftpress.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1941208&seqNum=3

. Whirlpool. 2015. Refrigerators. Available online at: http://www.whirlpool.com/kitchen

- 1/refrigeration

2/refrigerators

- 3/102110023/

. Wickham, Robert T. 2002. Status of Industry Efforts to Replace Halon Fire Extinguishing Agents. March 16, 2002. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/fire/status.pdf

. Wickham, Robert T. 2003. Review of the Use of Carbon Dioxide Total Flooding Fire Extinguishing Systems. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/fire/co2/co2report2.pdf

. WMO (World Meteorological Organization). 2011. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project

- Report No. 52, 516 p p., Geneva, Switzerland.

## blank page