## Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO

12866 and EO 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Interagency Comments on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft final rule titled, “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program,” (RIN 2060

‐ AS18)

1. From the commenting agency’s perspective, this rule is a very helpful driver in our efforts to secure an HFC amendment in 2016 by showing that HFC alternatives are available, and th at the US is delivering domestically to reduce HFC use and emissions. This rule would significantly help the negotiations if the proposal is out by mid

- March, this would be far enough in advance of the April 4

- 8 Open

- ended working group meeting that other countries would be aware of it and we can speak to the prop osal at the meeting. Second, the commenting agency would ask that we make utmost efforts to finalize the rule by mid

- September, in advance of the October

10

- 14 Meeting of t he Parties where the co mmenting agency hope s to adopt an HFC amendment.

2. Has EPA considered including window air conditioning units? Or are there other categories of equipment that EPA thinks should be included as well ?

3. Table numbers refer to tables in the screening analysis for the following comments:

a. Aggregation in the screening analysis

- EPA should not be considering the aggregated impacts on small entities to support its RFA certification. This rule is a series of separable provisions that do not interact with each othe r, so aggregation masks significant economic effects. In particular, working from table 19 of the screening analysis, if considered separately, two of the product/uses regulated here appear to lead to significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities.

b. Annualization in the screening analysis

- While annualization may be appropriate in

cost

- benefit analyses, it should not be used in screening analyses. Annualization assumes that a small business can effect a loan for the purposes of re gulatory compliance at a rate of 7% over the annualization period. (In one case, EPA uses 20 years. In another case, it uses 25 years. Neither would be available to a small business, even for productive investment in facilities.) Please express compliance costs in terms of capital (or one

- time) costs and operating costs to help evaluate the likely economic impacts.

c. Energy Efficiency Standards

- The interaction between the DOE energy efficiency standards and this proposed rule are more significant than discussed and has the potential to significantly increase costs. It appears that the cost estimates in the screening analysis assumes that replace ment with 450 and 513 will have no energy efficiency impacts. Are there any other sources for the assertion that 450 and 513 are drop

- in replacements that require no upfront re

- engineering or changes to maintain energy efficiency?

For small entities, a s hort gap between energy efficiency standards and SNAP standards means that they either have to go through two engineering cycles on their products in a very short period of time or their compliance date for SNAP would, in effect, be the

earlier date for en ergy efficiency standards. If the practical effect of the two rulestogether is an earlier compliance date, how does that affect EPA’s finding that there is enough time to meet the technical challenges of adopting substitutes? If engineering for both regu lation has to be combined, then it would increase the costs.

d. Cold Storage

– The commenter has concerns about the certification for this sector. This section leaves the impression that the universe of small entities that produce packaged systems with fluor inated refrigerants would be significantly affected (i.e, 4 of 4). Table 19 implies that all four of these entities would experience a significant economic impact. Advocacy encourages EPA to consider alternatives that would significantly reduce th e burde n on these four entities.

e. Spray

– The commenter has significant concerns about the certification for this industry. Even though the number of small entities in the NAICS code is several hundred, the whole NAICS code is not the appropriate number against which to compare for the purposes of determining a “substantial number.” Considered as a separable part of this rulemaking, table 19 would imply that almost half of the small entities affected would experience significant impacts. Since these impacts are presented as annualized over 25 years, this may be a significant understatement of costs.

f. Repair and Maintenance

- I’m not completely sure how this rule would impact repair and maintenance of equipment manufactured before the effective dates. Would a part ial replacement of refrigerator parts and recharge with phased out HFC still be allowed? How are these service providers regulated? Are there any estimates of the size of this kind of repair market and the extent to which it extends the useful life of regu lated products?

4. The commenter conducts research and operations across a wide spectrum of technical areas

and levels of readiness. In general, the commenter uses HFCs as replacements for ozone

depleting substances (ODSs) in numerous applications, includin g certain mission

- critical applications for which appropriate substitutes have not been identified. These uses can include precision cleaning, foam blowing, and possibly other applications. Because of the dynamic nature of our Agency’s work, particularly as regards space flight programs currently being developed, it is not possible to identify all possible mission

- critical uses of high

- GWP substances, even the limited subset of materials and applications addressed in the proposed Significant New Alternati ves Policy (SNAP) Program rule.

Two proposed provisions are of particular concern, as detailed below.

a. Extension of the proposed narrowed use limit for spray foams by three years, to expire on January 1, 2025. EPA is proposing to list as unacceptable s everal HFC and HFC blend foam blowing agents for certain spray foam applications. EPA is also proposing an exception to this listing for military or space

- and aeronautics

- related applications when used in low pressure two

- component and high pressure two

- c omponent spray foams. This exception would be a narrowed use limit expiring on January 1, 2022.

As currently written, th e proposed rule would allow the commenting agency to use through Calendar Year (CY) 2021 mission

- critical HFC 245fa

- based cryoinsulati on spray foams being qualified for use on space flight hardware. These foams replaceHCFC 141b

- blown foams, which in turn replaced CFC 11

- blown foams in similar applications. Each of these successive foam replacement efforts took several years

due to the challenging operational environment and the lengthy requalification process associated with human rating. The commenting agency has begun planning a research program for our human

- rated systems that would screen numerous foam chemistries as possible subs titutes. However, since no single chemistry has yet been identified that can meet the rigorous technical and safety requirements of

human

- rated space flight systems, it could take several years to complete replacement work. Considering the length of the federal budgetary cycle and the length of time the commenter anticipate s being needed to identify, develop, test and implement substitutes, the commenter does not expect to be able to deploy replacement foams in the proposed timeframe. Although the commen ter is not certain how much time will be required for substitution work, the commenter

believe s an additional three years for this narrowed use limit should be adequate.

b. Exemption of spaceflight hardware and related support equipment from the proposed import ban on products composed of or incorporating closed cell foams made with unacceptable blowing agents.

EPA is proposing to apply the unacceptability determinations in this action for foam blowing agents, as well as all listings for foam blowing agen ts codified in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G, to closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foam. This would mean that closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams manufactured abroad and imported coul d not be used in the United States if the foam blowing agent was listed as unacceptable.

The commenting agency uses parts and components made abroad to meet challenging mission requirements and, in some cases, as part of international agreements with partners such as Japan, Canada, Russia, and the European Union. These components may comprise or incorporate close d cell foam products or products containing closed cell foams made with blowing agents listed as

unaccep table. It is critical that the commenting agency be allowed to use parts and components that are qualified for spaceflight applications to minimize ris k to our crews, vehicles and overall mission.

We request that EPA consider exempting spaceflight hardware and related support equipment from this proposed provision. This would allow continued use of parts and components needed for mission safety and to meet th e technical requirements

of the commenter ’s partners.

In addition, NASA has reviewed the recently updated draft language providing “narrowed use limits for military or space

- and aeronautics

- related applications” through CY 2024 for certain refrige rants used in centrifugal chillers and positive displacement chillers. We concur with this updated draft language.

5. Much of the supporting analysis referenced by EPA as contained within contracted research reports was not available to the commenting agen cy and thus, we were unable to determine theunderlying assumptions that went into t he analysis. From the commenting agencies’

perspective, there are several areas where it appears (under cursory review) that the occupational exposure perspective may have been insufficiently and/or inappropriately considered. For example:

a. In many instances, the EPA analysis relies on AEGL values for short

- term exposure and does not use NIOSH IDLH values. This occurs in both occupational and non

- occupational analysis bu t given that many workers commute or work in affected vehicles for significant time periods, th e “consumer” analysis needs to also consider occupational exposure criterion.

b. EPA’s occupational exposure analysis was consistently limited to service technic ians and apparently did not consider the potential occupational exposures that could result to workers in numerous industries affected by the proposed rule, but most notably workers in transportation, public (to include fire/rescue/police), healthcare and service

sectors.

c. When considering flammability issues, they rely on Lower Flammability Levels (LFL) (and apparent assumptions of even mixing throughout spaces) as opposed to the traditional 10% of Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) criteria.

d. EPA needs to add m inimum enclosure volume requirements as a proposed use condition for placement of new equipment that uses flammable refrigerants. Ice machines, vending machines and water coolers are often placed within custom wall

cubicles that would exacerbate the flamm ability hazards associated with potential leaks and these size restrictions do not appear to have been adequately considered within EPA’s analysis.

e. Combustion byproduct analysis for HFO

- 1234yf only focused on hydrogen fluoride whereas recent research (( http://www.en.uni

muenchen.de/news/newsarchiv/2014/kornath_refrigerant.html ) seems to indicates carbonyl fluoride (much more toxic) should also be considered.

f. In the combustion byproduct analysis, AEGL values were again referenced for potential occupational exposure scenarios where ILDH values are more applicable and in this case, would likely have led to a different conclusion.

g. Low

- to

- no repetition data points (with insufficient information provided regarding sample protocol, collection point, etc.) appear to have been used to make definitive risk conclusions without considering statistical variability and the impact it could have on subsequent safety conclusion s.

h. There is a strong reliance upon UL listing requirements (especially as they relate to refrigerant charge limits) without providing the details of assumptions made by the UL in determining that such limits were safe. We cannot verify the accuracy of this

a pproach. Our own calculations identified very plausible scenarios where the proposed refrigerant charge limits could create atmospheres in excess of 10% of LEL under catastrophic release scenarios discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking.6. T he provision concerning the 2022 phase

- out of HFC

- 134a in centrifugal and positive

displacement compressor chillers will adversely impact national s ecurity unless narrowed use

limits are crafted for our mission

- critical applications in marine vessels. The commenting agency is working closely with industry partners that produce this mission

- critical hardware to identify and eventually qualify suitable lower

- GWP alternatives. However, the lower

- GWP alternatives currently being offered or proposed for use in commercial chillers either do not meet the commenting agency 's military

- unique requirements or will require longer timeframes to test for military suitability, and then redesign, qualify, a nd procure new chillers for the agency’s shipbuilding programs.