# TheAlliance

January 31, 2014



### VIAE-MAIL Administrator GinaMcCarthy EnvironmentalProtectionAgency 1200 PennsylvaniaAvenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460

Re: Petitionto Extendthe Requirements of40 C.F.R. Part 82, SubpartFto HFCs

DearAdministratorMcCarthy:

The Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy ("Alliance"), pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 553(e), respectfully petitions the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to extend the regulations promulgated under Section 608 ofthe Clean Air Act, and codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 82, Subpart F, to hydrofluorocarbons ("HFCs") and other substitutes for class I and class II ozone depleting chemicals. The Alliance is an industry coalition that was organized in 1980 to, among other things, promote policies relating to ozone depleting substances and their substitutes that are reasonable, scientifically sound, and economically, socially and environmentally effective and responsible. The Alliance's members consist ofmanufacturers and businesses in a number of industry sectors, including air conditioning, refrigeration, appliance manufacturing, foam insulation manufacturing, and aerosol manufacturing, which use and rely upon HFCs. A list ofAlliance members is attached (Attachment 1 ). The Alliance works towards its goals by coordinating industry participation in the development of international and U.S. government policies regarding ozone protection and climate change. The Alliance supports a planned, orderly global phase down ofsubstances with high global warming potential ("GWP"), improved application energy efficiency, leakage reduction, and recovery, reuse, ordestructionat applicationend-of-life. Under the Montreal Protocol, production ofclass I Ozone Depleting Chemicals, also known as chlorofluorocarbons ("CFCs"), was phased out by 1996, and production of all class II Ozone Depleting Chemicals, also known as hydrochlorofluorocarbons ("HCFCs"), will be phased out by 2030. As a result ofthese phase-outs, class I and class II substances are being increasingly replaced by the use ofHFCs and other substitutes that have zero ozone-depletion potentials ("ODPs"). The transition away from ozone depleting substances ("ODSs") under the Montreal Protocol, andthe transitionto HFCs, has dramaticallyreduced current and future ozone depletion. However, notwithstanding the success ofthe global phase-out of ODSs, potential emissions from the increased use ofHFCs and other substitutes may have climate impacts, since

a number of HFCs are considered to be potent greenhouse gases ("GHGs") with varying atmospheric lifetimes and high GWPs.

2111 WILSONBOULEVARD, 8THFLOOR, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA22201 Phone: 703-243-0344 •Fax: 703-243-2874 •Web: www.alliancepolicy.orgJanuary 31, 2014 Page2

In response to this concern, the United States, Canada, and Mexico havejointly proposed an amendment to the Montreal Protocol that would establish a gradual phase down of HFC production and consumption. The EPA estimates cumulative benefits ofthe HFC phase down at about 1,900 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTC02eq) through 2020, and about 84,100 MMTC02 eq through 2050. Cumulative benefits simply from HFC-23 byproduct emissions controls are estimated at an additional 11,300 MMTC02 eq through 2050 (See Attachment2). The Section 608 regulations were expressly adopted for the purpose ofreducing class I and class II ODS emissions. Since many of those compounds are also high GWP compounds, theirphase-out has hadthe added benefit ofreducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, analysis has shown that the controls under the Montreal Protocol and Title VI ofthe Clean Air Act have achieved more than 6 times the reduction ofGHG emissions than achieved under the first implementationperiodofthe Kyoto Protocol (SeeAttachment 3). Currently, it is projectedthat approximatelytwo-thirds ofHFC emissions occur as

a result of commercial refrigeration and mobile air conditioning system leaks and service practice. Attachment 4 shows a current analysis between projected HFC emissions and atmospheric observations by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Extending the Section 608 regulations to HFCs would increase the environmental benefits already realized from the Section 608 regulations, through reduced HFC emissions, and would complement the United States' goal ofa globalphase downinHFCproductionandconsumption. Section 608(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act provides that, effective November 15, 1995, the prohibition against knowingly venting or otherwise knowingly releasing or disposing ofany class I or class II substance in Section 608(c)(1) also applies to any substitute substance for a class I or class II substance, which include HFCs, unless EPA were to determine that the venting, releasing, ordisposing ofthe substitute does not threatenthe environment. 42 U.S.C. § 7671g(c)(2). On June 11, 1998, EPA published in the Federal Register a notice ofproposed rulemaking that would have extendedthe Section 608 regulations to HFCs and other substitutes. 63 Fed. Reg. 32,044-32,099 (June 11, 1998) (See Attachment 5.) In that notice ofproposed rulemaking, EPA determined that it has the statutory authority to extend the Section 608 regulations to HFCs. EPA never finalized thatrule. However, in 2004, the EPA formally issued regulations extendingthe "no venting"prohibitionto HFCs and other substitute substances. By this petition, the Alliance requests that EPA revisit this rulemaking and finalize the regulations proposed back in 1998 extending the Section 608 regulations relating to refrigerant sales and distribution restrictions, and the evacuation, certification, reclamation and recovery, leakrepair, reporting andrecordkeepingrequirementsto HFCs. In the 1998 notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA derived its authority for the rulemaking from its Section 608(c)(2) authority to prohibit the venting of substitutes. The Alliance agrees with EPA's reasoning that extending the certification, evacuation, and other requirements to substitute refrigerants would allow it to implement Section 608(c)(2) more effectively. EPApreviouslyproposedto define the exceptionfor de minimis releases such that it would only apply if a person complied with the proposed recapture, recycling, and disposal requirements. As a result, compliance with the venting prohibition would require compliance with the proposed requirements. EPA believed that it had "sufficient authority under sectionsJanuary 31,2014 Page 3

608(c)(2) and 301(a) [which allows the Administrator to prescribe regulations as necessary to carry out his or her functions under the Act] to implement section 608(c)(2) by requiring compliance with the proposed provisions, as a matter of law, without in each instance first requiring a demonstrationthatthe person's activities have actuallyreleasedrefrigerant." 63 Fed. Reg. 32,060. The Alliance also agrees with EPA's reasoning that its authority to promulgate regulations regarding class I and II substances, including the requirement to use alternatives, is "sufficiently broad to include requirements on how to use alternatives, where this is needed to reduce emissions andmaximizerecycling ofclass I and II substances." 63 Fed. Reg. 32,046. The Section 608 regulations were promulgated for the purpose ofreducing "the emissions ofclass I and class II refrigerants and their substitutes to the lowest achievable level by maximizing the recapture and recycling ofsuch refrigerants during the service, maintenance, repair, and disposal ofappliances and restrictingthe sale ofrefrigerants consisting in whole orin part ofa class I and class II ODS in accordance withTitleVI oftheCleanAirAct." Despite this broad regulatory agenda and the clear path the Agency has set forth for accomplishing these goals, the regulations remain insufficiently robust to reduce emissions of class I and class II substitutes, including HFCs, to their lowest achievable level. There are several reasons why imposingthe evacuation, certification, and otherrequirements to HFCs will loweremissions:

• Extendingrecovery and evacuationrequirements to HFCs will help ensure they are not vented to the atmosphere during servicing and repair and that they will be recovered for further use, and minimizing the need to replace HFCs lostto the atmosphere.

• Extending the technician certification requirements, along with the sales restriction, to HFCs, would ensure that persons lacking the appropriate expertise do not release or contaminate class I and class II substances while using substitutes to recharge or perform other work on systems containing class I and class II substances.

• Extending the reclamation and recovery requirements to HFCs would prevent refrigerant releases and refrigerant contamination, and ensure a viable marketfor usedrefrigerants.

• Extending the leak repair requirements to HFCs would lower HFC emissionsresultingfrom equipmentand appliance leaks.

• Extending the recovery and recycling equipment certification requirements to equipment used with HFCs would provide reliable information on recovery and recycling equipment and would also maximizerecycling and minimize emissions ofHFCs.

• Extending the reporting and recordkeeping requirements to HFCs would help ensurethatthe required servicepractices are consistentlyfollowed.January 31, 2014 Page 4

In conclusion, EPA should exercise its regulatory authority to enforce Section 608(c)(2) ofthe Clean Air Act by extending to HFCs the regulations set forth in 40 C.F.R. Part 82, Subpart F. The Alliance strongly believes that a more robust regulatory framework that includes HFCs as well as class I and class II substances is necessaryto ensure betterenforcement ofthe statutory prohibition against the knowing release or disposal of HFCs. In addition, a stronger regulatory framework would also support a global phase down of HFCs under the Montreal Protocol.

Sincerely

, 

# /G

# f--;

KevinFay ExecutiveDirector

Attachments:

1. Members ofthe Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy 2. Benefits ofAddressing HFCs underthe Montreal Protocol 3. The Importance ofthe MontrealProtocol in ProtectingClimate 4. HFC Global Emissions and Measurements 5. EPANotice ofProposed Rulemaking, Protection ofStratospheric Ozone; RefrigerantRecycling; SubstituteRefrigerants (June 11, 1998)

cc: JanetMcCabe, ActingAssistantAdministrator, EPA Sarah Dunham, Director, Office ofAtmospheric Programs, EPA DrusillaHufford, Director, StratosphericProtectionDivision, EPA