## 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: Proposed New Listings of Substitutes; Changes of Listing Status; and Reinterpretation of Unacceptability for Closed Cell Foam Products under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program; and Revision of Clean Air Act Section 608’s Venting Prohibition for Propane ,” (RIN 2060

‐ AS80 )

1. 3/23 Comment: Will EPA ad d a reference in the New Cold Storage Warehouse section that discusses DOE regulatory efforts regarding Walk

- In Coolers and Walk

- In Freezers? The following language was paraphrased from DOE’s technical amendments final rule 80 FR 69837 (November 12, 2015) that was issued in response to litigation on DOE’ s final rule from June 3, 2014. The compliance timing of the reconsideration rule has not yet been publicly announced, but DOE indicated that the compliance date would likely be at the end of 2019.

DOE issued a final rulemaking on June 3, 2014 (79 FR 32049) that set nineteen energy conservation standards for walk

- in coolers and walk

- in freezers with a compliance date of June 5, 2017

. Due to litigation regarding this rulemaking, DOE vacated six of thos e standards for refrigeration systems and is currently engaged in a negotiated rulemaking to address the standards as referenced in the agency’s technical amendments final rulemaking 80 FR 69837 (November 12, 2015)

.
EPA Response : EPA is adding this lang uage to the preamble in the section discussing the relationship between this rule and other federal rules:

DOE issued a final rulemaking on June 3, 2014 (79 FR 32049) that set nineteen energy conservation standards for walk

- in coolers and walk

- in freezers with a compliance date of June 5, 2017. Due to litigation regarding this rulemaking, DOE vacated six of those standards for refrigeration systems and is currently engaged in a negotiated rulemaking to address the standards as referenced in the agency’s te chnical amendments final rulemaking 80 FR 69837 (November 12, 2015). Consistent with DOE’s rule, which defines walk

- in coolers and walk

- in freezers as having a total chilled storage area of less than 3,000 square feet, EPA considers such equipment to fit w ithin the retail food refrigeration end

- use, rather than the cold storage warehouse end

- use. Thus, we consider there to be no regulatory overlap between this proposed rule and the DOE energy conservation standards for walk

- in coolers and freezers.

3/24 I nteragency Comment :

Commenting agency notes that the definition of a walk

- in cooler and freezer is set by statute at 42 U.S.C. 6311(20):

(A) In general.

— The terms "walk

- in cooler" and "walk

- in freezer" mean an enclosed storage space refrigerated
to temperatures, respectively, above, and at or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit that can be walked into, and has a total chilled storage area of less than 3,000 square feet. (B) Exclusion.

—2

The terms "walk

- in cooler" and "walk

- in freezer" do not include products designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes.

In the commenting agency ’s view, except in certain limited cases

– such as with food preparation rooms or facilities involving blast chillers/freezers

– any equipment that m eets this defin ition would be considered by the commenting agency as a walk

- in.

The commenting agency also note s that DOE’s regulations for walk

- ins are equipment

- based while EPA’s are end

- use application

- based. If a given refrigerant that EPA is propo sing to address is designed for use in walk

- in equipment with a total chilled storage area of less than 3000 square feet as well as retail storage facilities with a total chilled storage area of 3,000 square feet or more, that fact would seem to suggest th at there is a potential risk of regulatory overlap between this proposed SNAP action and DOE’s already

- established regulatory framework for walk

- ins.

3/25 EPA Response: EPA will make the following edits to the preamble text

.

DOE issued a final rulemakin g on June 3, 2014 (79 FR 32049) that set nineteen energy conservation standards for walk

- in coolers and walk

- in freezers with a compliance date of June 5, 2017. Due to litigation regarding this rulemaking, DOE vacated six of those standards for refrigerati on systems and is currently engaged in a negotiated rulemaking to address the standards as referenced in the agency’s technical amendments final rulemaking 80 FR 69837 (November 12, 2015). For purposes of the DOE regulations, the Energy Conservation Act 42 U.S.C. 6311(20) defines walk

- in coolers and walk

- in freezers as having a total chilled storage area of less than 3,000 square feet

. EPA considers the vast majority of such equipment to fit within the retail food refrigeration end

- use, rather than the co ld storage warehouse end

- use. As described in the July 20, 2015 SNAP final rule, walk

- in coolers and walk

- in freezers as pertaining to DOE regulations could fall in the SNAP retail food refrigeration end

- use category “supermarket system” (i.e., where refri gerant from a multi

- compressor rack was supplied to the evaporator(s) in the walk

- in enclosed storage space), “remote condensing unit” (where a dedicated one

- or two

- compressor system installed in the field supplied the refrigerant to the walk

- in enclosed storage space) or “stand

- alone equipment” (where the enclosed storage space is manufactured and delivered with all components including the refrigerant). Thus, we consider there to be no regulatory overlap between the vast majority of equipment to provide cooling to cold storage warehouses, which is addressed by this proposed rule and the DOE energy conservation standards for walk

- in coolers and freezers. One exception might be where a refrigeration system (that does not otherwise fit into the SNAP end

- use categories of supermarket system or remote condensing units) supplied refrigerant to an enclosed storage space with an area less than 3,000 square foot. This enclosed storage space would be required to meet both this proposed rule and the DOE requirements. On the other hand, if this refrigeration system supplied refrigerant to two enclosed storage spaces, one with an area greater than 3,000 square foot and one with an area less than that amount, both spaces would be covered by this proposed rule as cold sto rage warehouses while only the smaller room is covered by the DOE requirements.3

2. 3/23 Comment : NASA requests that EPA add spacecraft applications as “acceptable subject to narrowed use limits” after January 1, 2025 for centrifugal chiller and positive displacement chiller end uses of HFC 134a and R

- 404A. We appreciate EPA’s flexibility to consider unique NASA mission

- critical applications. Below is the justification language provided by NASA concerning their Orion mission. Will EPA include and request comment as they may revise their request prior to issuing the final rule?

NASA has recently ide ntified an additional issue related to EPA’s proposed provisions limiting the use of coolants, including HFC 134a and R

- 404A, in chillers. The agency anticipates being able to transition chillers to acceptable coolants for most uses. However, NASA plans to use HFC 134a and R

- 404A to provide cooling to human

- rated spacecraft during ground

- based assembly, integration and test operations, and launch. The cooling of sensitive human

- rated electrical equipment is critical to the spacecraft technical performanc e and crew safety. NASA programs use specialized ground coolant systems to provide heat transfer during certain ground operations. These coolant circulation systems use HFC 134a and R

- 404A to meet the program’s stringent performance and material compatib ility requirements. Alternate substances listed as acceptable under the SNAP program may not provide appropriate heat transfer, material compatibility, stability in the test environment, and other critical properties. Considering that identification, tes ting, and implementation of materials to be used in human

rated spaceflight programs routinely take several years due to the challenging operational environment, lengthy qualification process associated with human rating, and the federal budgetary cycle, N ASA does not expect to be able to deploy substitute coolants in EPA’s proposed timeframe.

EPA Response: EPA will propose a narrowed use limit for R

- 134a and R

- 404A in new centrifugal chillers and positive displacement chillers for use in human

- rate spacec raft.

3/24 Interagency Comment: Currently, the EPA language says “acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, for human

- rated spacecraft”

To address the specific equipme nt that provides for safety, the commenting agency request s that EPA add “and related support equipment” in the narrow use exemption to read

“

... acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, for human

- rated spacecraft and related support equipment”

This specific language is to ensure that the targeted narrowed use exemption covers the launch and spacecraft equipment functions discussed in our justification that protect the safety of our human spaceflight crews and the spacecraft.

3/25 EPA Response: EPA will add “and related support equipment” to the relevant discussion in the preamble and the regulatory text.

3. 2/25 Comment: Much of the supporting analysis referenced by EPA as contained within contracted research reports was not available to the commenting agency and thus, we were unable to determine the underlying assumptions that went into t he analysis. From the4

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 examp le:

a. EPA needs to add minimum 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 wo uld exacerbate the flammability hazards associated with potential leaks and these size restrictions do not appear to have been adequately considered within EPA’s analysis.

EPA Response : Rather than proposing to add a use condition, EPA will take comment in the preamble on the risk screens and their assumptions. Based on currently available information, we think that the room sizes used in our risk screen indicate there would not be an unacceptable risk of fire or explosion provided that the charge size is limited to 150 g. However, if further information becomes available during the public comment period that might cause us to change our assumptions, we may consider setting a use condition.

3/17 Interagency follow

- up comment: We appreciate the concurrence. Upon additional reflection, the minimum enclosure volume requirements should also probably be based on a “per piece of equipment” ratio since many such areas could have multiple pieces of equipment using the same refrigera nt.

Given these assumptions, sq

- ft of floor area seems to be a more applicable criteria than room volume. Nevertheless, our calculations, following the EPA

- provided assumptions, determined that this may not be a sufficiently large space. (Please see sam ple calculation for minimum room volume below)”.

Regarding “... or at least 15 m 3 for equipment with a charge of 100 g or less ,” similar concerns exist for this Room volume: charge size ratio as to those stated immediately above

Sample Calculation for Min imum Room Volume (Floor Area) Discussion: Given: (1) EPA/NOPR proposed limit of room volume of 22 m3 (2) EPA/NOPR assumption that 95% of propane charge will settle in lowest 0.4 meters of
floor area (3) LEL for propane = 21000 ppm (NIOSH pocket guide

- http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0524.html ) (4) 1 ppm propane/air = 1.8 mg/m3 propane/air (NIOSH pocket guide)

Assumption: Commented [A1]: 3/24 Interagency Comment: The commenter provided suggested requests for comment in the preamble. The requests for com ment provide sufficient clarity such that the public can determine and subsequently evaluate exactly what assumptions EPA had made in conducting their risk analysis. Commented [EPA2R1]: 3/25 EPA response: As discussed, EPA will take comment in the preamble on the risk screen s and their assumptions. Commented [A3]: 3/24 Interagency Comment: Given recent discussions and shared calculations between EPA and the commenting agency on this issue, the commenting agency is concerned that the removal of a minimum floor space use condition would onl y serve to exacerbate the hazard potential. Commented [EPA4R3]: 3/25 EPA response: As discussed, EPA will remove this requirement from the proposed use condition and will seek comment in the preamble on the risk

screen s and their assumptions

.5 (1) Room height in EPA/NOPR proposed room volume is 2.44m (8’) [Note: A taller room height would be an even worse scenario)

Calculations: (1) Floor area = V/h = 22 m 3 / 2.44m = 9m 2 (2) Vol of propane

- contaminated atmosphere = 9m 2 x 0.4m = 3.6 m 3 (3) 95% of 150g charge = .95x150x1000 = 142500 mg of propane (4) Conc of propane in lower rom volume = 142500 mg/ 3 .6 m3 = 39583 mg/m 3 (5) 39583 mg/m 3 / ((1.8 mg/m3)/ppm) = 21991 ppm of propane**

** This value is above the LEL for propane, over 4 times the 25% of LEL (5250 ppm) criterion and over 10 times the 10% of LEL criterion. The NIOSH reviewers recommend that the

m inimum floor volume per piece of propane refrigerant equipment be increased to at least comply with the 25% of LEL criterion. However, even this increase may not be sufficient (see additional comment below). Additional Comment : While it is an informati ve exercise, a potential fault in this approach is the assumption that the propane will dissipate across the entire floor area. As we know, this equipment tends to be placed into wall cubicles, under countertops, between cabinets and/or between other piec es of equipment (that may not have similar UL protections as the refrigeration compressors that use flammable refrigerants). Under these real

- world installation conditions

– the resulting propane concentration under the identified release scenario would b e even higher and a serious potential hazard given all of the ignition sources in these areas.

EPA Response : EPA will take comment in the preamble on the risk screens and their assumptions. Commented [A5]: 3/24 Interagency Comment : Will EPA go out for comment with the specific question: “Is the EPA’s use of 100% of the LFL an appropriate criterion for determination of an acceptably safe environment within the EPA risk screens?” Commented [EPA6R5]: 3/25 EPA response: As discussed, EPA will post the risk screen to the docket and take comment in the preamble on the risk screens and their assumptions.