## INTERNAL **DRAFT**

**MEMORANDUM** To: Luke Hall -Jordan, U.S. EPA Cc: Elizabeth Whitely and David Donaldson , U.S. EPA From: Becca Shopiro, Christine Gajewski, Derina Man, and Jessica Kyle, ICF International Date: November 1 9 , 2014 Re: Public Meeting on the Clean Air Act Sec tion 608 and Substitutes for Ozone Depleting

Substances (EPA Contract Number EP - W - 10 -031 Task Order 404, Task 2 ) On November 12 , 2014, EPA held a public meeting on C lean Air Act (CAA) Section 608 and substitutes for ozone - depleting substances (ODS) at the Twelve & K Hotel in Washington, DC . The goal of the meeting was to hear suggestions from members of the public on potential ways to reduce emissi ons of both high glo bal w arming potential (GWP) substitute refrigerants, including hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), as well as ODS refrigerants, during the service, maintenance, repair and disposal of air conditioning and refrigeration equipment. EPA also sought feedback on which c omponents of the existing CAA Section 608 refrigerant management program work well and which components could be improved. Of the 54 stakeholders who attended the meeting, 19 individuals shared a public comment. Th e purpose of this memorandum is to summar ize the responses and suggestions provided by public comment ers . Specifically, this memorandum is organized as follows:

 Section 1 provides a list of meeting attend ees by organization ; and  Section 2 provides a summary of comments by commenter .  Attachment 1 is the concept note provided by EPA prior to the meeting1 **INTERNAL DRAFT** 

## 1. **Public	Meeting Attendees**  As shown in Table 1 below, a total of 54 stakeholders attended the meeting from 48 unique organizations. Nineteen members of the public provided comment at the public hearing. **Table 1**  **. List of Public Meeting Attendees by Organization Count**  **Name Organization**  **Public Comment** 1 Charles McCrudden Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA)  2 Karim Amrane Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) 3 Kevin Fay Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy  4 Stephen Van Maren 5 Bill Anaya Alston & Bird, LLP 6 Patti Conlan Arkema, Inc. 7 Rob McArver Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) 8 Aaron Lowe Autocare Association 9 Matthew Thiel Bacharach, Inc. 10 Kenneth Welter Baltic Trail Engineering 11 Manfed Staebler BSH Home Appliances Corporation  12 Ken Ponder Choice Refrigerants  13 David Calabrese Daikin U.S. Corporation 14 Mark Menzer Danfoss, Inc. 15 Robert Wilkins  16 Julian de Bullet DeBullet Consulting for Carrier/ McQuay International/FAFCO Thermal Storage Systems 17 Jennifer Thran Department of the Navy 18 Michael Parr DuPont  19 Brad Kivlan Dynatemp International 20 Ted Gartland E. Gartland & Associates, LLC.  21 Alan Thornton Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA)  22 Lowell Chandler 23 Jeff Cohen EOS Climate 24 Jerry Weiss ESCO Institute  25 Stephanie Barnes Food Marketing Institute (FMI)  26 Lowell Randel Gold Cold Chain Alliance/ IIAR 27 Bill Rietz Heather Podesta and Partners on behalf of Hudson Technologies 28 Jonathan Melchi Heating, Air conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI)  29 Dave Stirpe Honeywell  30 Damon Stafford HVAC Investigators (HVACi) 31 Mark Anderson 32 Matt Livingston 33 Matt Tieken ICOR International 34 Kevin Washington Illinois Tool Works (ITW) 35 David Wagger Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI) 2 **INTERNAL DRAFT** 36 David Rule International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration (IIAR) 37 William McQuade Johnson Controls 38 Keilly Witman KW Refrigerant Management Strategy  **Count Name**  **Organization Public Comment**  39 John Hurst Lennox International 40 Douglas Greenhaus National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)  41 Mary Anne Murray National Refrigerants 42 Ben Longstreth Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)  43 Collin Weber Navigant 44 Peter Coll Neutronics  45 Zachary Ziegler 46 Peter Williams New Era Group, Inc.  47 John Lanier North American Technician Excellence (NATE) 48 Julie Brinster Refrigeration Environmental Protection Association (REPA) 49 Harlan Krepcik Refrigeration Service Engineers Society 50 JP Dalton REPA 51 Darrell Garrison Smart ITI 52 Keith A. Oliver The Kroger Co. 53 Rodrigo Jara UA Training  54 Nathan Mouw Whirlpool 

## 2. **Summary	of	Comments** Below is a summary of the 23 comments and suggestions provided by 19 individual members of public . **Michael Parr, DuPont** : Mr. Parr asked about the timing of changing federal preferred purchasing/acquisition regulations . EPA responded that they’re moving quickly to provide technical support and tools for Federal agencies. **David Wagger ,**  **ISRI:** Mr. Wagger asked whether EPA envisions regulations for GSA related to the recycling center . EPA responded that the Office of Federal Environmental Exec utive would be able to speak to the GSA recycling regulations, since EPA was not involved . **Kevin Fay** , **Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy (** **the Alliance)**  : 1 W ith HFCs receiving significant consideration under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and potential ly under the Montreal Protocol , it is critical to have a comprehens ive approach to address their potential climate change contribution , including HFCs already in use in the installed equipment base. The Alliance is aware that t he majority of refrigerant emissions occur during the service, maintenance, repair, and disposal of units . Moreover, that equipment operates most efficiently when properly charged and maintained, minimizing energy consumption and related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. I n January 2014, the Alliance submitted a petition for regulatory backing the phas e down of HFCs. To this end, the Alliance encourages the EPA to move expeditiously to extend the CAA Section 608 regulations to include HFCs , since the regulations have already been effective at limiting ODS emissions . In response to the questions EPA pose d on the 608 policy changes, the Alliance feels that, while it’s important to consider these issues long-term, the Alliance would prefer that EPA move as soon as possible on the parts of the proposal that will finalize quickly rather than waiting until all details of

1 Written comment.3 **INTERNAL DRAFT** implementation are settled. Once the rule is settled, the Alliance offered to partner in working to resolve any remaining details. **Jonathan Melchi ,**  **HARDI :**  **2** HARDI applaud s EPA for holding a public meeting and for ex ploring the extension of 608 requirements to cover HFCs. HARDI also appreciates EPA and the Department of Justice ( DOJ ) for taking stro ng action against Costco and Safeway for violating the CAA and appreciates the outreach by EPA’s Stratospheric Protection Division to make public aware of the CAA violation s . With regards to Section 608 , the regulations should be extended to HFCs as well as other substitutes for class I and II . As a company with a large membership base of small businesses, HARDI believes that this extension would impose little to no additional burden on small businesses . To answer some of the questions posed by EPA, some components of Section 608 are more relevant to HFCs than others ; that it would be reasonable to apply 608 leak rates to HFCs ; that it would it be reason able to apply the existing standards for recovery equipment and reclaimed ODS refrigerants to HFCs ; and that HARDI does not have suggestions to improve Section 608’s technical certification program but would be open to future discussions. **Ben Longstreth** , **NRDC:** It is a critically important to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including emissions from HFCs. NRDC support s extending the Section 608 regulation to HFCs and believes that EPA has the necessary authority under the CAA . EPA should consider tigh tening 608 rules to ensure leak rates are as low as possible. Currently, leak rates are too high . EPA’s suggestions for leak rate repair and recertification requirements make sense; however EPA should make sure technician certifications are up to date . NRD C encourages EPA to consider other ways to incentivize recycling . It makes a big difference if you can sell recycled products. Another related issue NRDC mentioned, which the organization included in its comments to the SNAP status change rule , is the idea that EPA should reclassify motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) as an emission control device. 3 HFCs are considered a GHG pollutant under S ection 202 of the CAA, and therefore, MVAC system s should prevent leaks and associated emissions. **Keilly Witm an, KW Refrigerant Management Strategy**  **:** Ms. Witman clarifies that her comments apply to the supermarket sector only. Supermarkets use approximately 4,000 pounds of refrigerant per store and leak approximately 25%, which is significant. Currently, Section 6 08 encompasses an array of refrigeration sectors, including commercial and domestic refrigeration. Using one set of standards to regulate such a variety of sectors is not logical . Therefore, e xpanding Section 608 to HFCs is just expanding ineffective regul ation to cover more substances . If EPA is planning to modify Section 608, E PA should consider s hift ing the emphasis from leak repair to leak prevention . The technician certification has also been out of date for decades, and many technicians are often cert ified in - house. EPA is the least qualified organization to determine certification and should outsource to people who know more about leak tightness . With regards to recordkeeping, supermarkets are already keeping records for leak repair of all substances, including ODS and ODS substitutes . S upermarkets should be keeping records on a corporate level, as opposed to a store - by- store basis . EPA should focus on leak rates that are higher than 15%. Section 608 is not effectively enforced and has no teeth. Ms. Witman questions why we would spend time talking about a rule that is not enforced. **Alan Thornton, EIA:**  EIA strongly supports extending Section 608 to cover HFCs and agrees that EPA has the authority to do so . HFCs have potent GWPs and emissions are increasing. Regulations will encourage the transition to alternatives that align with President Obama’s Climate Action Plan. Alternatives are currently available and are both better for the environment and reduce energy consumption. For example, more than 300 CO 2 transcritical systems were produced this year. The extension is logical and necessary since air- conditioners and refrigerators currently have banks of HFCs, which
2 Written comment. 3 ICF can provide this comment upon request.4 **INTERNAL DRAFT** represent a significant unseen contribution to climate change. Addressing banks by controlling ODS production used to work, but now applications bank HFCs for years and these banks are increasing. These HFC banks could become a huge problem. Section 608 could help regulate the current HFC banks and prevent emissions from contributing to climate change through leak prevention and repair and proper recovery or disposal. EPA should consider financial incentives to destroy banks. T he c ost of end - of- life disposal will become a financial incenti ve to transition to low - GWP altern atives and to retrofit existing equipment, which are already on the market. **Rodrigo Jara, UA Training :**  Mr. Jara supports the extension of Section 608 to cover HFCs, though believes that, from a technician’s point of view, the regulations need to be cleaned up . Some regulations are useless. Specifically, t he requirement to register recovery equipment was once needed but is now obsolete . With regards to leak rates, EPA needs to better communicate the value of leak repair and technical expertise to the consumer. Currently, the companies and small businesses with technician training are the main drivers promoting the safe and correct use of refrigerants . To this end, EPA should support this effort and educate customers on the importance of safe disposal a nd leak repairs . EPA should inform the consumer so that the consumer can demand environmental responsibility from service technicians. Further, there should be a shift in the emphasis of Section 608 regulation from recordkeeping t o managing disposal of ref rigerated systems. EPA has the ability to value not releasing refrigerants into the atmosphere. **Jerry Weiss, ESCO Institute:** If we get rid of recordkeeping, how do we enforce the regulations or know how much our equipment is leaking? W hile recordkeeping s hould remain mandatory, EPA should evaluate what should be recorded and standardized across the industry . For example, Section 608 currently requires leak rate records for equipment as opposed to the overall refrigeration system of an establishment . For a hotel, it makes more sense to require records for leaks in the overall air- conditioning system rather than individual packaged terminal air- conditioning units in hotel rooms . M inor leaks from individual units could seem much more significant if the y are qu antified across the entire hotel . Leak rates are currently high, which also means the equipment is consuming more energy due to the reduced efficiency . Incorrect charge wears out the system and increases the need for servicing. To address this, EPA should support consumer education. While Mr. Weiss has n o objection to extending Section 608 to cover HFCs, the change in regulation could be problematic with the number of people certified already. One way to address this would be for EPA to only require a suppl emental exam for technicians already certified in Section 608, which could be an online, open - book exam similar to the Section 609 exam . **Charles McCrudden, ACCA:** ACCA generally supports the Alliance petition and extension of Section 608 regulations to HFC s ; however, ACCA believes that the technician exams need updating . EPA should consider a recertification process to allow for contractors and technician s to stay up -to - date. With regards to e nforcement, c onsistent and public enforcement is critical for con sumer and contract or awareness. T here is no t enough enforcement for the current regulation , particularly in the residential sector . Th e playing field is tipped towards n on - compliant technician s, since they can make more money by simply venting. ACCA requests more regulation and believes without enforcement, there is no point in having the program. **Ken Ponder, Choice Refrigerants** : Choice Refrigerants supports extending Section 608 but believes that the lack of enforcement for recordkeeping and leak rates make the regulation ineffective. Although the regulations have good intentions, they need more teeth. With t echnicians typically return ing refrigerant into wholesale, and with significantly less refrigerant being reclaimed, the difference is most likely ve nted . Mr. Ponder also voiced confusion about the lack of regulations against venting HFCs, to which EPA responded that venting HFCs is prohibited under the current regulations.5 **INTERNAL DRAFT David Wagger,**  **ISRI :**  In s ubpart B of Section 609 , the regulation s apply to ODS refrigerants and substitutes . Mr. Wagger questions why this language is missing from Section 608 and why there are differences between Sections 608 and 609 for MVACs . EPA responded agreeing that Section 609 has very clear requirements that apply to ODS an d substitutes, and that Section 608 does not include the same language. EPA is considering whether Section 608 should be revised to be more similar to Section 609 . **Rodrigo Jara, UA Training :**  Mr. Ja ra notes that, based on his understanding, the Section 608 regulations have never been updated. Mr. Jara states that EPA needs to change the goal of the regulations to address global warming, and in particular, the climate impacts of HFCs . **Michael Parr, DuPont** : DuPont believes that the Section 608 regulations lay a good foundation, but need to be extended to HFCs. I ndustry is getting more complex, thus there is also the challenge of enforcement and education. DuPont believes that Section 608 regulations should apply to all refrigerants and alternatives uniforml y, including the venting prohibition and safe disposal requirements . Individual technicians should be required to certify that the job was done properly. R equiring varying technician certifications places undue burden on the technician s . **Manfed Staebler, BSH Home Appliances Corporation:**  Recovery of no GWP, no ODP R - 600a doesn’t make sense. You have to drive, transport and do detriment on the environment to recover it. Give a clear signal to the tech by equipment (i.e. label, red tubes on R - 600) letting the m know what they can vent. **Robert Wilkins, Danfoss, Inc. :**  Mr. Wilkins believes that EPA needs to give t echnician s clearer instruction on what can and cannot be vented. S ince low - GWP alternatives (e.g., hydrocarbons ) pose virtually no harm to the environmen t, a venting restriction on hydrocarbons would be unreasonable and would place an undue burden on manufacturers looking to sell low - GWP alternatives . O ther countries currently do not have venting requirements for hydrocarbons and equipment for hydrocarbon refrigerant recovery is not available . Treating all refrige rants the same is ill - conceived. It would add cost and would not make sense for some refrigerants. Thus, EPA should tailor regulations as appropriate to each refrigerant. **Dave Stirpe, Honeywell:** Ho neywell believes that compound s that can cause environm ental harm should be prohibited from being vented. Extending Section 608 to HFCs would demonstrate leadership. **Jerry Weiss, ESCO Institute:** To help enforce Section 608, Mr. Weiss suggested to EPA that the Agency could use a c entral , national database to keep track of refrigerant licenses. Through this database, EPA could suspend or revoke licenses for regulatory violations. **Peter Williams**, **New Era Group, Inc.:** New Era Group s upport s the extension of Se ction 608 but would recommend increasing enforcement of the regulation . R ecordkeeping should be required for the reclamation industry . Also, facilities claiming to be “separation facilities” are, in reality, venting refrigerant, and to discourage venting v iolations, EPA needs to convey the perception of enforcement. Separation facilities are currently flying under the enforcement radar. Leak rates and leak repair should be considered for all systems under the regulation, as opposed to just systems with 50 p ounds of refrigerant or more . Think about how many systems contain less than 50 pounds of refrigerant that are leaking. In terms of measuring pressure, taking the equipment down to zero gauge is not enough to mitigate environmental impacts . Th e refore, the focus of the regulation should be on getting the substance completely out of units and the regulation should be supported by proper and visible enforcement. Technicians do not have to worry, so no one is complying. EPA should reevaluate the regulations an d increase enforcement.6 **INTERNAL DRAFT Ted Gartland, E. Gartland & Associates, LLC.:**  Mr. Gartland notes that recordkeeping is essential to the regulation, since it gives companies an understanding of how much refrigerant they are using and how much money they are saving . A 15% leak rate would be very challenging to meet, as opposed to the industry rate of about 35 %. EPA should incorporate a concept similar to California requirements where refrigerant additions require documentation that the system was fixed down to zero. **Douglas Greenhaus, NADA**  **:** NADA does not feel that low - GWP alternatives should be regulated under most provisions, including Sections 608 and 609 . If EPA were to have less regulation on these low - GWP alternatives, the agency could send a positive message to the industry . S ince these substitutes are beneficial to the environment relative to ODS and HFCs, they should have less burdensome regulations . T he cost of substitutes creates enough incentive to recover and recycle the substances without regulation. **Pete r Coll, Neutronics**  : Neutronics noted that the subject of venting low - GWP alternatives, like HFO 1234yf, should not be oversimplified to the issues of GWP and ODP. T here is currently no way to en sure that only the low - GWP substances are vented without venting other substances (e.g., used oil ) . Neutronics also questioned how well technicians are educated on venting, and given this scrutiny, the company would support b lanket prohibitions on venting. Neutronics also corrected an earlier comment that t here is equipment available to recover hydrocarbons. S imilar to Section 609, Section 608 should apply similar specifications for amount of refrigerant of HFO - 1234yf that can be left in a vehicle to minimize leakage and unintentional venting. To this end, Neutro nics recommends somehow streamlining Section 609 into 608 , since MVAC alternatives will probably be used in other equipment in the future. There should not be different rules for different sectors. **Stephanie Barnes**, **FMI** : FMI supports the points made by Ke illy Witman. FMI believes that a voluntary program could help EPA focus their resources. EPA closed the meeting by stating that the agency would k eep conversations moving forward on a more individual basis.7 **INTERNAL DRAFT** Attachment 1 

### Concept Note: Public Meeting on **Clean Air Act Section 608 and Substitutes for Ozone** **- Depleting Substances**  **Twelve & K Hotel ,**  **1201 K Street, NW , Washington, DC** 

**November 12**  **, 2014 , 9 a.m. ET**  **Background: Climate Action Plan and Hydrofluorocarbons** In June 2013, President Obama announced the Climate Action Plan (CAP), including a broad set of initial steps designed to slow the effects of climate change. Among the many actions called for, the President directed the United States to lead through both international diplomacy and domestic action to address hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) 4 

### . In the United States, emissions of HFCs are expected to double from current levels of 1.5 percent of total annual greenhouse gas emissions to 3 percent by 2020 and nearly triple by 2030. 5 

### HFCs are rapidly accumulating in the atmosphere. For example, the atmospheric concentration of HFC - 134a, the most abundant HFC, has increased by about 10 percent per year from 2006 to 2012, and the concentrations of HFC - 143a and HFC - 125 have risen over 13 percent and 16 percent per year from 2007 -2011, respectively. 6 , 7 

### Current EPA Efforts to Reduce HFC Emissions Since the announcement of the Climate Action Plan, EPA has taken a number of steps designed to curb emissions of HFCs. Specifically, and consistent with the direction announced in the President’s CAP, EPA has used its authority

through the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program to encourage private sector investment in climate - friendly chemicals for use in specific end uses. EPA has also proposed the prohibition of certain uses of the most climate - damaging chemicals. As part of the CAP, the President directed the Federal government to lead by example in reducing emissions of HFCs through the purchase of lower- global warming potential (GWP) alternatives to HFCs whenever feasible and transition over time to equipment that uses safer and more sustainable alternatives. The change to federal procurement practices is led by the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive (OFEE), and EPA has been working with OFEE and other parts of the Federal government to change existing procurement regulations, improve agencies’ annual GHG reporting of HFCs and practices to reduce emissions, and provide current information on low- GWP alternatives listed by SNAP. These activities are still underway. **Additional Efforts to Reduce HFC Emissions and Public Meeting** To highlight the broad scope of efforts to address HFCs, the White House announced new private sector commitments and executive actions to reduce HFC emissions on September 16, 2014. During the related roundtable discussion, participants discussed

– and EPA acknowledged

– that refrigerant management is an important way

to reduce climate - damaging emissions from equipment used for air- conditioning and refrigeration, and EPA committed to further engage with stakeholders on this issue.

4 HFCs were introduced as alternatives to ozone - depleting substances and are commonly used as refrigerants, foam - blowing agents, solvents, and aerosol propellants . They do not significantly deplete the stratosphe ric ozone layer, but are greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change . Some HFCs have a global warming potential thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide. 5 http://www.whitehouse.gov/share/climate
- action - pla n 6 Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts, ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012 7 NOAA data at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/hfcs/8 **INTERNAL DRAFT** 

### As a next step, the agency is holding a public meeting on November 12, 2014 to discuss opportunities to achieve further HFC emissions reductions through enhanced efforts in the area of refrigerant management. The primary goal of the meeting is to hear individual suggestions from members of the public on potential ways to reduce emissions of both high- GWP substitute refrigerants, including HFCs, as well as ozone - depleting refrigerants, during the servic e , maintenance, repair and disposal of air conditioning and refrigeration equipment . As noted at the September 16 event, the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy has petitioned EPA to create consistent refrigerant management regulations by applying the same rules that already exist for ozone depleting refrigerants to HFCs. 8 

### Accordingly, at the public meeting, EPA will seek individual ideas and feedback from members of the public on the possible expansion of existing refrigerant management rules to HFCs. We will seek feedback on which components of the existing Clean Air Act S ection 608 refrigerant management program work well , and which components could be improved. We will also seek input on whether existing regulatory requirements are appropriate for HFCs. To help facilitate a more informed discussion, background information on the existing refrigerant management program is available online at www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/. In addition, we have developed a list of questions that we are considering as we assess potential actions to reduce emissions of ozone - depleting refrigerants, HFCs, and other substitutes for ozone - depleting refrigerants :

 Should EPA extend the Section 608 regulations to HFCs?  Are some components of Section 608 more relevant to HFCs than others?  Should EPA consider including other climate - damaging substitutes within any Section 608 extension (e . g . , PFCs)? For all components or only some components?  Would it be reasonable to apply the 608 leak rates to HFCs?  Are there other ways to incentivize lower leak rates?  Would it be reasonable to apply the existing standards for recovery equipment and reclaimed ozone depleting refrigerants to HFCs ?  How can the Section 608 technician certification program be improved?  Is there a better way

to ensure refrigerant is recovered from small appliances at end- of - life ?  Should EPA consider using this effort as an opportunity to simplify

/improve/update the Section 608 rules? If so, what components might be simplified/improved/updated? **Participation** EPA recognizes that a diverse set of stakeholders could be affected by any change to the Section 608 regulations. We appreciate the importance of stakeholder views, and a primary purpose of this concept note and meeting is to share our current approach and to enable stakeholders to provide focused input on the Section 608 refrigerant management program. We encourage anyone who is interested to provide individual advice and suggestions during the meeting. Toward that end, we encourage stakeholders to share this note with others who
8 A copy of the petition is available at www2. epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014
- 05/documents/alliance
- petition - 31jan2014-v2 - 2.pdf9 **INTERNAL DRAFT** 

### may be interested in this opportunity. A copy of this concept note will be available at www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/ and www.regulations.gov (search for EPA- HQ - OAR-2014 - 0786). We ask that you please RSVP to Altan Gabbay at gabbay.altan@epa.gov by November 5, 2014, if you plan on attending the meeting. The meeting will be held at 9 a.m. ET on November 12 , 2014 at Twelve & K Hotel, 1201 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005 .