[Federal Register: January 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 1)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21-29]
[DOCID:fr02ja09-7]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118; FRL-8758-9]
RIN 2060-AG12

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice 23 for Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Determination of Acceptability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Determination of Acceptability expands the list of
acceptable substitutes for ozone-depleting substances under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) program. The determinations concern new substitutes for
use in the refrigeration and air conditioning, fire suppression and
explosion protection, and foam blowing sectors.

DATES: Effective January 2, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 (continuation of Air Docket A-91-42). All
electronic documents in the docket are listed in the index at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Air Docket (No. A-91-
42), EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Sheppard by telephone at
(202) 343-9163, by facsimile at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail at U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Mail Code 6205J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460. Overnight or courier deliveries should be sent to the office
location at 1310 L Street, NW., 10th floor, Washington, DC 20005.
    For more information on the Agency's process for administering the
SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the
original SNAP rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18,
1994 (59 FR 13044). Notices and rulemakings under the SNAP program, as
well as other EPA publications on protection of stratospheric ozone,
are available at EPA's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site at http://
www.epa.gov/ozone/ including the SNAP portion at http://www.epa.gov/
ozone/snap/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes
    A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
    B. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
    C. Foam Blowing
II. Section 612 Program
    A. Statutory Requirements
    B. Regulatory History
Appendix A--Summary of Decisions for New Acceptable Substitutes

I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes

    This section presents EPA's most recent acceptable listing
decisions for substitutes in the refrigeration and air conditioning,
fire suppression and explosion protection, and foam blowing sectors.
For copies of the full list of ODS substitutes in all industrial
sectors, visit EPA's Ozone Depletion Web site at http://www.epa.gov/
ozone/snap/lists/index.html.
    The sections below discuss each substitute listing in detail.
Appendix A contains a table summarizing today's listing decisions for
new substitutes. The statements in the ``Further Information'' column
in the table provide additional information, but are not legally
binding under section 612 of the Clean Air Act. In addition, the
``further information'' may not be a comprehensive list of other legal
obligations you may need to meet when using the substitute. Although
you are not required to follow recommendations in the ``further
information'' column of the table to use a substitute, EPA strongly
encourages you to apply the information when using these substitutes.
In many instances, the information simply refers to standard operating
practices in existing industry and/or building-code standards. Thus,
many of these statements, if adopted, would not require significant
changes to existing operating practices.
    You can find submissions to EPA for the use of the substitutes
listed in this document and other materials supporting the decisions in
this action in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at http://
www.regulations.gov.

A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

1. R-407A
    EPA's decision:
    R-407A [R-32/125/134a (20.0/40.0/40.0)] is acceptable for use in
new and retrofit equipment as a substitute for hydrochlorofluorocarbon
(HCFC)-22 and HCFC blends including, but not limited to, R-401A, R-
401B, R-402A, and R-402B in:
     Retail food refrigeration.
     Cold storage warehouses.
     Refrigerated transport.
     Residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat
pumps.

R-407A is a blend of 40.0% by weight HFC-125 (pentafluoroethane, CAS ID
354-33-6), 40.0% by weight HFC-134a (1,1,1,2-
tetrafluoroethane, CAS ID 811-97-2), and 20.0% by weight HFC-
32 (difluoromethane, CAS ID 75-10-5). This blend is also known
by the trade names KLEA 60, KLEA 407A, and others. You may find the
submission under Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-0167 at
www.regulations.gov.
    Environmental information:
    The ozone depletion potential (ODP) of R-407A is zero. The global
warming potentials (GWPs) of HFC-125, HFC-134a, and HFC-32 are 3500,
1430, and 675, respectively (relative to carbon dioxide), using a 100-
year time horizon (The International Panel on Climate Change [IPCC],
Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science
Basis). The atmospheric lifetimes of these constituents are 29, 14, and
4.9 years, respectively.
    The contribution of this blend to greenhouse gas emissions will be
reduced given the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the
Clean Air Act. This section and EPA's implementing regulations codified
at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F prohibit the intentional venting or
release of substitutes for class I or class II ODSs used during the
repair, maintenance, service or disposal of refrigeration and air
conditioning equipment (i.e., appliances).
    HFC-125, HFC-134a, and HFC-32 are excluded from the definition of
volatile organic compound (VOC) under Clean Air Act regulations (see 40
CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality
standards.
    Flammability information:
    While one of the blend components, HFC-32, is flammable, the blend
as formulated and under worst case fractionated formulation scenarios
is not flammable.
    Toxicity and exposure data:
    Potential health effects of this substitute at lower concentrations
include dizziness and loss of concentration. The substitute may also
irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high
concentrations, it may cause central nervous system depression,
irregular heart beat, or death. The substitute could cause
asphyxiation, if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These
potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.
    To protect against these potential health risks, HFC-125, HFC-134a,
and HFC-32 have 8 hour/day, 40 hour/week workplace environmental
exposure limits (WEELs) of 1000 ppm established by the American
Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). EPA recommends that users follow
all requirements and recommendations specified in the Material Safety
Data Sheet (MSDS) for the blend and the individual components and other
safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning
industry. We also recommend that users of R-407A adhere to the AIHA's
WEELs. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the WEELs and
will be able to address potential health risks by following
requirements and recommendations in the MSDSs and other safety
precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.
    Comparison to other refrigerants:
    R-407A is not an ozone depleter in contrast to the ozone-depleting
substances which it replaces. R-407A is comparable to other substitutes
for HCFC-22 and its blends in its lack of risk for ozone depletion.
(HCFC-22 has an ODP of 0.05 and a GWP of 1810, according to the
Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2006 prepared by the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO, 2006).) R-407A has a GWP of about
2100, comparable to or lower than that of other substitutes for HCFC-
22. For example, the GWP of R-407C is about 3350, the GWP of R-410A is
about 2100, and the GWP of R-507 is about 4000. Flammability and
toxicity risks are low, as discussed above. Thus, we find that R-407A
is acceptable because it does not pose a greater overall risk to public
health and the environment than the other substitutes acceptable in the
end uses listed above.

2. KDD6
    EPA's decision:
    KDD6 is acceptable for use in new and retrofit equipment as a
substitute for CFC-12 in:
     Chillers (screw, reciprocating).
     Industrial process refrigeration.
     Industrial process air conditioning.
     Retail food refrigeration.
     Cold storage warehouses.
     Refrigerated transport.
     Commercial ice machines.
     Ice skating rinks.
     Household refrigerators and freezers.
     Vending machines.
     Water coolers.
     Residential dehumidifiers.
     Residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat
pumps.
     Non-mechanical heat transfer.

The submitter of KDD6 has claimed its composition as confidential
business information. You may find the submission under Docket item
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-0197 at www.regulations.gov.
    Environmental information:
    The ODP of KDD6 is zero. The average 100-year integrated GWP of
this blend is between 2100 and 3350, in the range of the GWPs for R-
407C and R-410A, two other commonly used substitute refrigerants.
    The contribution of this blend to greenhouse gas emissions will be
reduced given the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the
Clean Air Act. This section and EPA's implementing regulations codified
at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F prohibit the intentional venting or
release of substitutes for class I or class II ODSs used during the
repair, maintenance, service or disposal of refrigeration and air
conditioning equipment (i.e., appliances).
    Some components of the blend are VOCs under Clean Air Act
regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs
to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards.
    Flammability information:
    While at least one of the blend components is flammable, the blend
as formulated and under worst-case fractionated formulation scenarios
is not flammable.
    Toxicity and exposure data:
    Potential health effects of this substitute at lower concentrations
include dizziness and loss of concentration. The substitute may also
irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high
concentrations, it may cause central nervous system depression,
irregular heart beat, or death. The substitute could cause
asphyxiation, if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These
potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.
    To protect against these potential health risks, the manufacturer
recommends an 8-hr TWA workplace exposure limit for the blend of 994
ppm. A number of components of the blend have workplace exposure limits
of 1000 ppm set by the manufacturer, the AIHA, or the ACGIH. EPA
anticipates that users will be able to meet the manufacturer's
recommended workplace exposure limit and will be able to address
potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in
the MSDS and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and
air conditioning industry.
    Comparison to other refrigerants:
    KDD6 is not an ozone depleter; thus, it poses a lower risk for
ozone depletion than the ODS it replaces. KDD6 has comparable or lower
risk for ozone depletion than other substitutes for CFC-12. (CFC-12 has
an ODP of 1.0 and a GWP of 10,890 (WMO, 2006).) KDD6 has a GWP
comparable to or lower than that of other substitutes for CFC-12. For
example, the GWP of R-407C is about 3350, the GWP of R-410A is about
2100, and the GWP of R-507 is about 4000. Flammability and toxicity
risks are low, as discussed above. We find that KDD6 is acceptable
because it does not pose a greater overall risk to public health and
the environment than the other substitutes acceptable in the end uses
listed above.
3. R-427A
    EPA's decisions:
    R-427A [R-32/125/143a/134a (15.0/25.0/10.0/50.0)] is acceptable for
use in retrofit equipment as a substitute for HCFC-22 in:
     Retail food refrigeration.
     Industrial process air conditioning.
     Reciprocating chillers.
     Screw chillers.
     Household refrigerators and freezers.
     Residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat
pumps.
     Motor vehicle air conditioning (buses and passenger trains
only).

R-427A is a blend of 25.0% by weight HFC-125 (pentafluoroethane, CAS ID
354-33-6), 50% by weight HFC-134a (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane,
CAS ID 811-97-2), 10.0% by weight HFC-143a (1,1,1,-
trifluoroethane, CAS ID 420-46-2), and 15.0% HFC-32
(difluoromethane, CAS ID 75-10-5). A common trade name for
this refrigerant is Forane 427A. You may find the submission under
Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-0177 at www.regulations.gov.
    Environmental information:
    The ODP of R-427A is zero. The GWPs of HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-143a,
and HFC-32 are 3500, 1430, 4470, and 675, respectively. The atmospheric
lifetimes of these constituents are 29, 14, 52, and 4.9 years,
respectively.
    The contribution of this blend to greenhouse gas emissions will be
reduced given the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the
Clean Air Act. This section and EPA's implementing regulations codified
at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F prohibit the intentional venting or
release of substitutes for class I or class II ODSs used during the
repair, maintenance, service or disposal of refrigeration and air
conditioning equipment (i.e., appliances).
    HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, and HFC-143a are exempt from the
definition of VOC under Clean Air Act regulations concerning the
development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air
quality standards. 40 CFR 51.100(s).
    Flammability information:
    While two components of the blend, HFC-32 and HFC-143a, are
flammable, the blend as formulated and under worst-case fractionated
formulation scenarios is not flammable.
    Toxicity and exposure data:
    Potential health effects of this substitute at lower concentrations
include dizziness and loss of concentration. The substitute may also
irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high
concentrations, it may cause central nervous system depression,
irregular heart beat, or death. The substitute could cause
asphyxiation, if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These
potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.
    To protect against these potential health risks, HFC-125, HFC-134a,
HFC-143a and HFC-32 have 8 hour/day, 40 hour/week WEELs of 1000 ppm
established by the AIHA. EPA recommends that users follow all
requirements and recommendations specified in the MSDS for the blend
and the individual components and other safety precautions common in
the refrigeration and air conditioning industry. EPA also recommends
that users of R-427A adhere to the AIHA's WEELs. EPA anticipates that
users will be able to meet the WEELs and will be able to address
potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in
the MSDSs and other safety precautions common in the

refrigeration and air conditioning industry.
    Comparison to other refrigerants:
    R-427A is not an ozone depleter in contrast to HCFC-22, the ozone
depleting substance which it replaces. R-427A is comparable to other
substitutes for HCFC-22 in its lack of risk for ozone depletion. (HCFC-
22 has an ODP of 0.05 and a GWP of 1810 (WMO, 2006).) R-427A has a GWP
of about 2150, comparable to or lower than that of other substitutes
for HCFC-22. For example, the GWP of R-407C is about 3350, the GWP of
R-410A is about 2100, and the GWP of R-507 is about 4000. The
flammability and toxicity risks are low, as discussed above. Thus, we
find that R-427A is acceptable because it does not pose a greater
overall risk to public health and the environment than the other
substitutes acceptable in the end uses listed above.
4. R-424A (RS-44)
    EPA's decision:
    R-424A [R-125/134a/600a/600/601a (50.5/47.0/0.9/1.0/0.6)] is
acceptable for use in new and retrofit equipment as a substitute for
HCFC-22 in motor vehicle air conditioning (buses and passenger trains
only).
    R-424A is a blend of 50.5% by weight HFC-125 (pentafluoroethane,
CAS ID 354-33-6), 47.0% by weight HFC-134a (1,1,1,2-
tetrafluoroethane, CAS ID 811-97-2), 0.9% by weight R-600a
(isobutane, 2-methyl propane, CAS ID 75-28-5), 1.0% by weight
R-600 (n-butane, CAS ID 106-97-8), and 0.6% by weight R-601a
(isopentane, 2-methylbutane, CAS ID 78-78-4). A common trade
name for this refrigerant is RS-44. This formulation for RS-44 is
different from the first formulation that EPA found acceptable in
several refrigerant end uses (August 21, 2003; 68 FR 50533). EPA
previously found the current formulation of RS-44, also designated as
R-424A, acceptable as a substitute for R-22 in a number of other
refrigeration and air conditioning end uses (September 28, 2006, 71 FR
56884). You may find additional information under Docket item EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0118-0131 at www.regulations.gov.
    Environmental information:
    The ODP of R-424A is zero. The GWPs of HFC-125 and HFC-134a are
3500 and 1430 and their atmospheric lifetimes are 29 and 14 years,
respectively. The GWPs of isobutane, n-butane, and isopentane are not
provided in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, but are generally
believed to be low (less than 10), and their atmospheric lifetimes are
less than one year (see Table 2.8 in Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and
the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and
Perfluorocarbons, prepared by the IPCC and the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol).
    The contribution of this blend to greenhouse gas emissions will be
reduced given the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the
Clean Air Act. This section and EPA's implementing regulations codified
at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F prohibit the intentional venting or
release of substitutes for class I or class II ODSs used during the
repair, maintenance, service or disposal of refrigeration and air
conditioning equipment (i.e., appliances).
    Isobutane, n-butane, and isopentane are VOCs under Clean Air Act
regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) concerning the development of SIPs
to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards. HFC-
125 and HFC-134a are excluded from the definition of VOC under these
regulations.
    Flammability information:
    While three components of the blend are flammable, the blend as
formulated, and under worst-case fractionated formulation scenarios, is
not flammable.
    Toxicity and exposure data:
    Potential health effects of this substitute at lower concentrations
include dizziness and loss of concentration. The substitute may also
irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high
concentrations, it may cause central nervous system depression,
irregular heart beat, or death. The substitute could cause
asphyxiation, if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These
potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.
    To protect against these potential health risks, HFC-125 and HFC-
134a have 8 hour/day, 40 hour/week WEELs of 1000 ppm established by the
AIHA. Isobutane, n-butane and isopentane, have 8 hour/day, 40 hour/week
threshold limit values (TLVs) established by the American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) of 1000 ppm, 800 ppm and 600
ppm, respectively. EPA recommends that users follow all requirements
and recommendations specified in the MSDS for the blend and the
individual components and other safety precautions common in the
refrigeration and air conditioning industry. EPA also recommends that
users of R-424A adhere to the AIHA's WEELs and the ACGIH's TLVs. EPA
anticipates that users will be able to meet the WEELs and TLVs and will
be able to address potential health risks by following requirements and
recommendations in the MSDSs and other safety precautions common in the
refrigeration and air conditioning industry.
    Comparison to other refrigerants:
    R-424A is not an ozone depleter in contrast to HCFC-22 which it
replaces. It is comparable to other substitutes for HCFC-22 in its lack
of risk for ozone depletion. (HCFC-22 has an ODP of 0.05 and a GWP of
1810 (WMO, 2006).) R-424A has a GWP of about 2400, lower than that of
some substitutes for HCFC-22 but higher than others. For example, the
GWP of R-407C is about 3350, the GWP of R-410A is about 2100, and the
GWP of R-507 is about 4000. Flammability and toxicity risks are low, as
discussed above. Thus, we find that R-424A is acceptable because it
does not pose a greater overall risk to public health and the
environment in the end use listed above.
5. R-434A (RS-45)
    EPA's decision:
    R-434A [R-125/143a/134a/600a (63.2/18.0/16.0/2.8)] is acceptable
for use in new and retrofit equipment as a substitute for HCFC-22 in
motor vehicle air conditioning (buses and passenger trains only).
    R-434A is a blend of 18.0% by weight HFC-143a (1,1,1-
trifluoroethane, CAS ID 420-46-2), 63.2% by weight HFC-125
(pentafluoroethane, CAS ID 354-33-6), 16.0% by weight HFC-134a
(1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, CAS ID 811-97-2, and 2.8% by
weight R-600a (isobutane, 2-methyl propane, CAS ID 75-28-5). A
common trade name for this refrigerant is RS-45. Under that trade name,
EPA previously found R-434A acceptable as a substitute for R-22 in a
number of other refrigeration and air conditioning end uses (October 4,
2007, 72 FR 56628). You may find additional information under Docket
item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-0162 at www.regulations.gov.
    Environmental information:
    The ODP of R-434A is zero. The GWPs of HFC-143a, HFC-125, HFC-134a,
and isobutane are 4470, 3500, 1430, and less than 10, respectively. The
atmospheric lifetimes of these constituents are 52, 29, and 14 years,
and less than one year, respectively.
    The contribution of this blend to greenhouse gas emissions will be
reduced given the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the
Clean Air Act. This section and EPA's implementing regulations codified
at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F prohibit the intentional venting or
release of substitutes for class I or class II ODSs used during the
repair, maintenance,

service or disposal of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment
(i.e., appliances).
    HFC-143a, HFC-125 and HFC-134a are excluded from the definition of
VOC under Clean Air Act regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing
the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air
quality standards. Isobutane is a VOC under Clean Air Act regulations.
    Flammability information:
    While two of the blend components, isobutane and HFC-143a, are
flammable, the blend as formulated and under worst case fractionated
formulation scenarios is not flammable.
    Toxicity and exposure data:
    Potential health effects of this substitute at lower concentrations
include dizziness and loss of concentration. The substitute may also
irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high
concentrations, it may cause central nervous system depression,
irregular heart beat, or death. The substitute could cause
asphyxiation, if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These
potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.
    To protect against these potential health risks, HFC-143a has an 8
hour/day, 40 hour/week recommended acceptable exposure limit for the
workplace from the manufacturer of 1000 ppm. HFC-125 and HFC-134a have
8 hour/day, 40 hour/week WEELs of 1000 ppm established by the AIHA.
Isobutane has an 8 hour/day, 40 hour/week TLV established by the ACGIH
of 1000 ppm. EPA recommends that users follow all requirements and
recommendations specified in the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for
the blend and the individual components and other safety precautions
common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry. EPA also
recommends that users of R-434A adhere to the AIHA's WEELs and the
ACGIH's TLV. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the WEELs
and the TLV and will be able to address potential health risks by
following requirements and recommendations in the MSDS and other safety
precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.
    Comparison to other refrigerants:
    R-434A is not an ozone depleter in contrast to HCFC-22, the ozone-
depleting substance which it replaces. R-434A is comparable to other
substitutes for HCFC-22 in its lack of risk for ozone depletion. (HCFC-
22 has an ODP of 0.05 and a GWP of 1810 (WMO, 2006).) R-434A has a GWP
of about 3200, lower than that of some substitutes for HCFC-22, but
higher than others. For example, the GWP of R-407C is about 3350, the
GWP of R-410A is about 2100, and the GWP of R-507 is about 4000.
Flammability and toxicity risks are low, as discussed above. Thus, we
find that R-434A is acceptable because it does not pose a greater
overall risk to public health and the environment than the other
substitutes acceptable in the end use listed above.

B. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection

1. Victaulic Vortex System
    EPA's decision:
    The Victaulic Vortex System is acceptable as a halon 1301
substitute for total flooding uses in both occupied and unoccupied
areas.
    The Victaulic Vortex System is a fire suppression system that uses
fine water vapor droplets and nitrogen gas (N2, CAS ID
7727-37-9). It is designed for use with Class A and Class B
fires. You may find the submission under Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-
0118-0172 at www.regulations.gov.
    Environmental information:
    The ozone depletion potential (ODP) and the global warming
potential (GWP) of each of the constituents of the Victaulic Vortex
System is zero.
    The Victaulic Vortex System does not contain volatile organic
compounds (VOC) as defined under Clean Air Act regulations (see 40 CFR
51.100(s)) addressing the development of State implementation plans
(SIPs) to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality
standards.
    Flammability information:
    The Victaulic Vortex System is non-flammable.
    Toxicity and exposure data:
    The potential health risks of the Victaulic Vortex System come from
N2, an inert gas that at sufficiently high levels can cause
asphyxiation. The Victaulic Vortex System can be designed to ensure
that the oxygen concentration in any protected space will not fall
below 12 percent over the 5 minute discharge period, consistent with
the health criteria in National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) Standard
2001 for Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems. EPA recommends that
use of this system should be in accordance with the safe exposure
guidelines for inert gas systems in the latest edition of NFPA 2001,
specifically the requirements for residual oxygen levels, and that use
should be in accordance with the relevant operational requirements in
NFPA 750 Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems. EPA also
recommends that Section VIII of the Occupational Safety & Health
Administration (OSHA) Technical Manual be consulted for information on
selecting the appropriate types of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
recommended.
    Comparison to other fire suppressants:
    The Victaulic Vortex System is not an ozone depleter in contrast to
the ozone depleting substance which it replaces. The Victaulic Vortex
System has comparable or lower risk for ozone depletion than other
substitutes for halon 1301. (Halon 1301 has an ODP of 16 and a GWP of
7140 (WMO, 2006).) The Victaulic Vortex System has a GWP of zero,
comparable to or lower than that of other substitutes for halon 1301.
For example, the GWP of HFC-227ea is 3220, the GWP of HFC-125 is 3500,
and the GWP of HFC-236fa is 9810. The flammability and toxicity risks
are low and are comparable or lower than for other acceptable fire
suppressants such as IG-100 (N2), as discussed above. Thus,
we find that the Victaulic Vortex System is acceptable because it does
not pose a greater overall risk to public health and the environment
than the other substitutes acceptable in the end use listed above.
2. ATK OS-10
    EPA's decision:
    The ATK OS-10 system is acceptable as a halon 1301 substitute for
total flooding uses in both occupied and unoccupied areas.
    The OS-10 system is a fire suppression system that uses gas
generators, either singly or several grouped together in a casing, to
suppress fires through production mainly of water vapor and nitrogen
(N2, CAS ID 7727-37-9). You may find the submission
under Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-0198 at www.regulations.gov.
    Environmental information:
    The ODP of each of the gaseous post-activation products of the OS-
10 system is zero. The GWPs of the gaseous post-activation products of
OS-10 are 1 or less.
    The OS-10 system does not contain VOCs as defined under Clean Air
Act regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of
State implementation plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the national
ambient air quality standards.
    Flammability information:
    The OS-10 system is non-flammable.
    Toxicity and exposure data:
    Upon activation, OS-10 system produces post-activation products
mainly consisting of gases and some

particulates. The main post-activation gaseous products are water and
N2, an inert gas that at sufficiently high levels can cause
asphyxiation. The OS-10 system can be designed to ensure that the
oxygen concentration in any protected space will not fall below 12
percent over the 5 minute discharge period, consistent with the health
criteria in National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) Standard 2001 for
Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems. Testing data provided by the
submitter indicate that there will not be a significant amount of
particulate left in the room after discharge. Thus, EPA believes that
potential toxicity and nuisance dust effects from exposure to the
particulate matter should not be detrimental to human health within the
five-minute egress timeframe established for total flooding fire
extinguishing systems by the NFPA Standard 2001 (NFPA 2008). EPA
recommends that use of this system should be in accordance with the
safe exposure guidelines for inert gas systems in the latest edition of
NFPA 2001, specifically the requirements for residual oxygen levels,
and that use should be in accordance with the relevant operational
requirements in NFPA Standard 2010 for Aerosol Extinguishing Systems.
    Installation and maintenance personnel should receive training in
order to minimize the risk for accidental discharge of the system while
performing installation or maintenance activities. Exposure of
personnel during cleanup should be minimized by increasing the air
exchange rate in the room prior to cleanup in order to aerate the space
and reduce humidity. In addition, EPA recommends that all workers
entering the protected volume to clean up after activation should wear
appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). We recommend
consulting section VIII of the Occupational Safety & Health
Administration (OSHA) Technical Manual (OSHA 1999) as well as all
information from the manufacturer for information on selecting
appropriate types of PPE to be worn by personnel involved in the
manufacture, installation, maintenance, or clean up of OS-10.
    Comparison to other fire suppressants:
    The OS-10 system is not an ozone depleter in contrast to the ozone
depleting substance which it replaces. OS-10 has comparable or lower
risk for ozone depletion than other substitutes for halon 1301. (Halon
1301 has an ODP of 16 and a GWP of 7140 (WMO, 2006).) The gaseous post-
activation products of OS-10 have GWPs well below those of other
substitutes for halon 1301. For example, the GWPs of all of the OS-10
gases are less than 1 compared to the GWP of HFC-227ea at 3220, the GWP
of HFC-125 at 3500, and the GWP of HFC-236fa at 9810. The flammability
and toxicity risks are low and are comparable or lower than for other
acceptable fire suppressants such as IG-100 (N2), as
discussed above. Thus, we find that the OS-10 system is acceptable
because it does not pose a greater overall risk to public health and
the environment than the other substitutes acceptable in the end use
listed above.

C. Foam Blowing

1. Formacel[supreg] B
    EPA's decision:
    Formacel[supreg] B is acceptable as a substitute for HCFC-22 and
HCFC-142b in polystyrene, extruded boardstock and billet.
    Formacel[supreg] B is a series of blends of the same component
compounds. The submitter has claimed its composition as confidential
business information. You may find the submission under Docket item
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-0179 at www.regulations.gov.
    Environmental information:
    Formacel[supreg] B has no ODP. Formacel[supreg] B blends range in
global warming potential (GWP) from approximately 140 to 1500.
Formacel[supreg] B does not contain volatile organic compounds (VOC) as
defined under Clean Air Act regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s))
addressing the development of State implementation plans (SIPs) to
attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards.
    Flammability information:
    Some components of the Formacel[supreg] B blends are flammable.
Some specific blends are flammable as formulated and should be handled
with proper precautions. EPA recommends that users follow all
requirements and recommendations specified in the Material Safety Data
Sheet (MSDS) and other safety precautions for use of flammable blowing
agents used in the foam blowing industry. Use of Formacel[supreg] B
will require safe handling and shipping as prescribed by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Department
of Transportation (for example, using personal safety equipment and
following requirements for shipping hazardous materials at 49 CFR parts
170 through 173).
    Toxicity and exposure data:
    Potential health effects of this substitute include nausea,
headache, weakness, or central nervous system depression with effects
such as dizziness, headache, or confusion. The substitute may also
irritate the lungs, skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At high
concentrations, the substitute may also cause irregular heart beat,
abnormal kidney function, loss of consciousness, or death. The
substitute could cause asphyxiation, if air is displaced by vapors in a
confined space. These potential health effects are common to many foam
blowing agents.
    EPA anticipates that Formacel[supreg] B will be used consistent
with the recommendations specified in the manufacturers' Material
Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs). The manufacturer recommends a workplace
exposure limit of 1000 ppm for Formacel[supreg] B. EPA anticipates that
users will be able to meet the manufacturer's recommended workplace
exposure limits and will be able to address potential health risks by
following requirements and recommendations in the MSDSs and other
safety precautions common in the foam blowing industry.
    Comparison to other foam blowing agents:
    Formacel[supreg] B is not ozone depleting in contrast to the ozone
depleting substances which it replaces. Formacel[supreg] B has
comparable or lower risk for ozone depletion than other substitutes for
HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b. (HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b have ODPs of 0.05 and
0.07 and GWPs of 1810 and 2310, respectively (WMO, 2006).)
Formacel[supreg] B blends range in GWP from 140 to 1500, comparable to
or lower than that of other substitutes for HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b. For
example, the GWP of HFC-134a is about 1430 and the GWP of HFC-245fa is
about 1030. Flammability risks can be addressed by procedures common in
the industry. The toxicity risks are low, as discussed above. Thus, we
find that Formacel[supreg] B is acceptable because it does not pose a
greater overall risk to public health and the environment than the
other substitutes acceptable in the end use listed above.

II. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

    Section 612 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to develop a
program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. We
refer to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP)
program. The major provisions of section 612 are:
     Rulemaking--Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate
rules making it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon,
halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and

hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance
with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present
adverse effects to human health or the environment where the
Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the
overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is currently
or potentially available.
     Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes--Section
612(c) also requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes
unacceptable for specific uses. We must publish a corresponding list of
acceptable alternatives for specific uses.
     Petition Process--Section 612(d) grants the right to any
person to petition EPA to add a substance to or delete a substance from
the lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has
90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the
petition, it must publish the revised lists within an additional six
months.
     90-day Notification--Section 612(e) directs EPA to require
any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance
to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing
chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new
uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also
provide the Agency with the producer's unpublished health and safety
studies on such substitutes.
     Outreach--Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator
shall seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and
resources to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying
and developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key
commercial applications.
     Clearinghouse--Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to
set up a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product
substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are available
for products and manufacturing processes which use class I and II
substances.

B. Regulatory History

    On March 18, 1994, EPA published the final rulemaking (59 FR 13044)
that described the process for administering the SNAP program and
issued our first acceptability lists for substitutes in the major
industrial use sectors. These sectors include:
     Refrigeration and air conditioning;
     Foam blowing;
     Solvents cleaning;
     Fire suppression and explosion protection;
     Sterilants;
     Aerosols;
     Adhesives, coatings and inks; and
     Tobacco expansion.

These sectors comprise the principal industrial sectors that
historically consumed the largest volumes of ozone-depleting compounds.
    As described in this original rule for the SNAP program, EPA does
not believe that rulemaking procedures are required to list
alternatives as acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do not
impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior license to use a
substance. Therefore, by this notice we are adding substances to the
list of acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new
listings.
    However, we do believe that notice-and-comment rulemaking is
required to place any substance on the list of prohibited substitutes,
to list a substance as acceptable only under certain conditions, to
list substances as acceptable only for certain uses, or to remove a
substance from the lists of prohibited or acceptable substitutes. We
publish updates to these lists as separate notices of rulemaking in the
Federal Register.
    The Agency defines a ``substitute'' as any chemical, product
substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or
new, intended for use as a replacement for a class I or class II
substance. Anyone who plans to market or produces a substitute for an
ODS in one of the eight major industrial use sectors must provide EPA
with health and safety studies on the substitute at least 90 days
before introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use
as an alternative. This requirement applies to substitute
manufacturers, but may include importers, formulators, or end-users,
when they are responsible for introducing a substitute into commerce.
    You can find a complete chronology of SNAP decisions and the
appropriate Federal Register citations from the SNAP section of EPA's
Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/
chron.html. This information is also available from the Air Docket (see
ADDRESSES section above for contact information).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 22, 2008.
Dina Kruger,
Acting Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.

Appendix A: Summary of Acceptable Decisions

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             End-use                     Substitute             Decision              Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screw chillers (retrofit).......  R-427A as a substitute   Acceptable........
                                   for HCFC-22.
Screw chillers (retrofit and      KDD6 as a substitute     Acceptable........
 new).                             for CFC-12.
Reciprocating chillers            R-427A as a substitute   Acceptable........
 (retrofit).                       for HCFC-22.
Reciprocating chillers (retrofit  KDD6 as a substitute     Acceptable........
 and new).                         for CFC-12.
Industrial process refrigeration  KDD6 as a substitute     Acceptable........
 (retrofit and new).               for CFC-12.
Industrial process air            R-427A as a substitute   Acceptable........
 conditioning (retrofit).          for HCFC-22.
Industrial process air            KDD6 as a substitute     Acceptable........
 conditioning (retrofit and new).  for CFC-12.
Retail food refrigeration         R-427A as a substitute   Acceptable........
 (retrofit).                       for HCFC-22.
Retail food refrigeration         KDD6 as a substitute     Acceptable........
 (retrofit and new).               for CFC-12.

                                  R-407A as a substitute   Acceptable........
                                   for HCFC-22 and HCFC
                                   blends including R-
                                   401A, R-401B, R-402A,
                                   and R-402B.
Cold storage warehouses           KDD6 as a substitute     Acceptable........
 (retrofit and new).               for CFC-12.
                                  R-407A as a substitute   Acceptable........
                                   for HCFC-22 and HCFC
                                   blends including R-
                                   401A, R-401B, R-402A,
                                   and R-402B.
Refrigerated transport (retrofit  KDD6 as a substitute     Acceptable........
 and new).                         for CFC-12.
                                  R-407A as a substitute   Acceptable........
                                   for HCFC-22 and HCFC
                                   blends including R-
                                   401A, R-401B, R-402A,
                                   and R-402B.
Commercial ice machines           KDD6 as a substitute     Acceptable........
 (retrofit and new).               for CFC-12.
Ice skating rinks (retrofit and   KDD6 as a substitute     Acceptable........
 new).                             for CFC-12.
Household refrigerators and       R-427A as a substitute   Acceptable........
 freezers (retrofit).              for HCFC-22.
Household refrigerators and       KDD6 as a substitute     Acceptable........
 freezers (retrofit and new).      for CFC-12.
Vending machines (retrofit and    KDD6 as a substitute     Acceptable........
 new).                             for CFC-12.
Water coolers (retrofit and new)  KDD6 as a substitute     Acceptable........
                                   for CFC-12.
Residential dehumidifiers         KDD6 as a substitute     Acceptable........
 (retrofit and new).               for CFC-12.
Residential and light commercial  R-427A as a substitute   Acceptable........
 air conditioning and heat pumps   for HCFC-22.
 (retrofit).
Residential and light commercial  R-407A as a substitute   Acceptable........
 air conditioning and heat pumps   for HCFC-22 and HCFC
 (retrofit and new).               blends including R-
                                   401A, R-401B, R-402A,
                                   and R-402B.
                                  KDD6 as a substitute     Acceptable........
                                   for CFC-12.
Motor vehicle air conditioning    R-427A as a substitute   Acceptable........
 for buses and passenger trains    for HCFC-22.
 only (retrofit).
Motor vehicle air conditioning    R-424A (RS-44, new       Acceptable........
 for buses and passenger trains    formulation) as a
 only (retrofit and new).          substitute for HCFC-22.
                                  R-434A (RS-45) as a      Acceptable........
                                   substitute for HCFC-22.
Non-mechanical heat transfer      KDD6 as a substitute     Acceptable........
 (retrofit and new).               for CFC-12.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Foam Blowing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polystyrene, Extruded Boardstock  Formace[supreg] B as a   Acceptable........  Observe recommendations in the
 & Billet.                         substitute for HCFC-22                       manufacturer's MSDS and guidance
                                   and HCFC-142b.                               for using these blends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total flooding..................  Victaulic Vortex System  Acceptable........  EPA recommends that users consult
                                   as a substitute for                          Section VIII of the Occupational
                                   halon 1301.                                  Safety & Health Administration
                                                                                (OSHA) Technical Manual for
                                                                                information on selecting the
                                                                                appropriate types of Personal
                                                                                Protective Equipment (PPE).
                                                                               EPA recommends that use of this
                                                                                system should be in accordance
                                                                                with the safe exposure
                                                                                guidelines for inert gas systems
                                                                                in the latest edition of NFPA
                                                                                2001, specifically the
                                                                                requirements for residual oxygen
                                                                                levels, and should be in
                                                                                accordance with the relevant
                                                                                operational requirements in NFPA
                                                                                750 Standard on Water Mist Fire
                                                                                Protection Systems.
                                                                               Use should conform with relevant
                                                                                OSHA requirements, including 29
                                                                                CFR part 1910, subpart L,
                                                                                sections 1910.160 and 1910.162.

                                                                               EPA has no intention of
                                                                                duplicating or displacing OSHA
                                                                                coverage related to the use of
                                                                                personal protection equipment
                                                                                (e.g., respiratory protection),
                                                                                fire protection, hazard
                                                                                communication, worker training
                                                                                or any other occupational safety
                                                                                and health standard with respect
                                                                                to halon substitutes.
Total flooding..................  ATK OS-10 as a           Acceptable........  EPA recommends that users consult
                                   substitute for halon                         Section VIII of the Occupational
                                   1301.                                        Safety & Health Administration
                                                                                (OSHA) Technical Manual for
                                                                                information on selecting the
                                                                                appropriate types of Personal
                                                                                Protective Equipment (PPE).
                                                                               EPA recommends that use of this
                                                                                system should be in accordance
                                                                                with the safe exposure
                                                                                guidelines for inert gas systems
                                                                                in the latest edition of NFPA
                                                                                2001, specifically the
                                                                                requirements for residual oxygen
                                                                                levels, and should be in
                                                                                accordance with the relevant
                                                                                operational requirements in NFPA
                                                                                Standard 2010 for Aerosol
                                                                                Extinguishing Systems.
                                                                               Use should conform with relevant
                                                                                OSHA requirements, including 29
                                                                                CFR part 1910, subpart L,
                                                                                sections 1910.160 and 1910.162.
                                                                               EPA has no intention of
                                                                                duplicating or displacing OSHA
                                                                                coverage related to the use of
                                                                                personal protection equipment
                                                                                (e.g., respiratory protection),
                                                                                fire protection, hazard
                                                                                communication, worker training
                                                                                or any other occupational safety
                                                                                and health standard with respect
                                                                                to halon substitutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E8-31225 Filed 12-31-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


This proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive
Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because this proposed rule
would not result in additional cost.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA, because this action does not impose any regulatory
requirements.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, because this action does not impose any regulatory
requirements.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the Federal Government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, since this
action imposes no regulatory requirements.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because this action imposes no regulatory
requirements. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children,
since this action imposes no regulatory requirements.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy, since this action imposes no regulatory
requirements.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order
12898 because it does not establish an environmental health or safety
standard, since this action imposes no regulatory requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 320

    Environmental protection, Electric power, Financial responsibility,
Hazardous substances.

    Dated: July 2, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-15094 Filed 7-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 57140]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22284]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9110-01-R6]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection
to State Operating Permit for Phillips 66 Company, Borger Refinery,
Hutchinson County, Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final Order on Petition for objection to Clean Air
Act title V operating permit.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed
an Order dated September 22, 2021, granting in part and denying in part
a Petition dated September 12, 2017 from the Environmental Integrity
Project and Sierra Club. The Petition requested that the EPA object to
a Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating permit issued by the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to Phillips 66 Company
(Phillips) for its Borger Refinery located in Hutchinson County, Texas.

ADDRESSES: The EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view copies of the final
Order, the Petition, and other supporting information. Out of an
abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA
Region 6 office is currently closed to the public to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. Please call or email the contact listed below if
you need alternative access to the final Order and Petition, which are
available electronically at: https://www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/title-v-petition-database.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aimee Wilson, EPA Region 6 Office, Air
Permits Section,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to
review and object to, as appropriate, operating permits proposed by
state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA. Section
505(b)(2) of the CAA authorizes any person to petition the EPA
Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days
after the expiration of the EPA's 45-day review period if the EPA has
not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on
objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity
during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the
petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues
during the comment period or unless the grounds for the issue arose
after this period.
    The EPA received the Petition from the Environmental Integrity
Project and Sierra Club dated September 12, 2017, requesting that the
EPA object to the issuance of operating permit no. O1440, issued by
TCEQ to the Borger Refinery in Hutchinson County, Texas. The Petition
claims the proposed permit improperly incorporated a State-only major
source flexible permit, the proposed permit failed to specify
monitoring sufficient to assure compliance with permits by rule (PBRs),
flexible permit emission limits, and monitoring during maintenance,
startup, and shutdown (MSS), the proposed permit did not properly
incorporate by reference requirements from certified PBRs, and the
proposed permit does not identify which emission units are subject to
requirements in a minor NSR permit for MSS activities.
    On September 22, 2021, the EPA Administrator issued an Order
granting in part and denying in part the Petition. The Order explains
the basis for EPA's decision.

    Dated: October 6, 2021.
David Garcia,
Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2021-22284 Filed 10-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Appendix A to Subpart DDDDD   Methodology and Criteria for Demonstrating Eligibility for the Risk Based Compliance Alternatives Specified for the Large Solid Fuel Subcategory 1. Purpose/ Introduction This appendix provides the methodology and criteria for demonstrating that your affected source is eligible for the alternative compliance option for the HCl emission limit and/ or excluding manganese from the total selected metals emission limit. This appendix specifies emissions testing methods that you must use to determine HCl, chlorine, manganese, and other HAP emissions from the affected sources and what parts of the affected source facility must be included in the eligibility demonstration. You must determine if your facility is eligible for the risk based provisions using either a look up table analysis ( based on the look up tables included in this appendix)

or site specific risk assessment performed according to the criteria specified in this appendix. This appendix also specifies how and when you file any eligibility demonstrations for your affected source and how to show that your affected source remains eligible for the risk based compliance alternatives in the future.

2. Who is eligible to demonstrate that they qualify for the riskbased compliance alternatives? Each new, reconstructed, or existing affected source may demonstrate that they are eligible for the risk based provisions.

Section 63.7490 of subpart DDDDD defines the affected source and explains which affected sources are new, existing, or reconstructed.

3. What parts of my facility have to be included in the riskbased eligibility demonstration?

If you are attempting to determine your eligibility for the alternative compliance option for HCl, you must include every appropriate emission point within the affected source facility that emits one or more of the following HAP, which are referred to as respiratory toxicants, in the eligibility demonstration:

Respiratory Toxicants Pollutant CAS Number Chlorine 7782 50 5 Propylene oxide 75 56 9 Styrene oxide 96 09 3 Acrolein 107 02 8 Titanium tetrachloride 7550 45 0 Triethylamine 121 44 8 Bis( 2 ethylhexyl) phthalate 117 81 7 2,4 Toluene diisocyanate 26471 62 5 Acrylic acid 79 10 7 Acrylonitrile 107 13 1 Vinyl acetate 108 05 4 Toluene 108 88 3 Methyl isocyanate 624 83 9 n Hexane 110 54 3 Nickel compounds Antimony compounds Beryllium compounds Hexavalent Chromium compounds If you are attempting to determine your eligibility for the alternative compliance option for manganese, you must include every appropriate emission point within the affected source facility that emits one or more of the following HAP, which are referred to as central nervous system toxicants, in the eligibility demonstration.

Central nervous system toxicants Pollutant CAS Number Dichlorvos 62 73 7 Cresols ( mixed) 1319 77 3 Benzidine 92 87 5 Allyl chloride 107 05 1 Acrylamide 79 06 1 Carbon disulfide 75 15 0 1,1,1 Trichloroethane 71 55 6 Ethylene oxide 75 21 8 Styrene 100 42 5 Tetrachloroethene 127 18 4 Methyl chloride 74 87 3 n Hexane 110 54 3 Xylenes ( mixed) 1330 20 7 Toluene 108 88 3 Cyanide compounds Selenium compounds Mercury compounds Manganese compounds 4. How do I determine HAP emissions from my affected source?

( a) You must conduct HAP emissions tests for every appropriate emission point within the affected source facility that emits HAP according to the requirements in paragraphs ( b)

through ( f) of this section and the methods specified in Table 1 of this appendix. You must test the units at your facility for each of the appropriate pollutants listed in section 3 above.

( b) Periods when emissions tests must be conducted.

( 1) You must not conduct emissions tests during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in § 63.7( e)( 1).

( 2) You must test under worst case operating conditions as defined in this appendix. You must describe your worst case operating conditions in your performance test report for the process and control systems ( if applicable) and explain why the conditions are worst case.

( c) Number of test runs. You must conduct three separate test runs for each test required in this section, as specified in § 63.7( e)( 3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour.

( d) Sampling locations. Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.

( e) Collection of monitoring data for HAP control devices.

During the emissions test, you must collect operating parameter monitoring system or continuous emissions monitoring system ( CEMS) data at least every 15 minutes during the entire emissions test and establish the site specific operating requirements in Table 2 of subpart DDDDD using data from the monitoring system and the procedures specified in § 63.7530 of subpart DDDDD.

( f) Nondetect data. You may treat emissions of an individual HAP as zero if all of the test runs result in a nondetect measurement and the condition in paragraph ( 1) is met for the manganese test method. Otherwise nondetect data for individual HAP must be treated as one half of the method detection limit.

( 1) For manganese measured using Method 29 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, you analyze samples using atomic absorption spectroscopy ( AAS). MaxHourlyEmissions ER Hm = × ( g) You must determine the maximum hourly emission rate for each appropriate emission point according to equation 1.

( Eq. 1 )

Where:

MaxHourly = Maximum hourly emissions for Emissions hydrogen chloride, chlorine, manganese,

or other HAP, in units of pounds per hour.

Er = Emission rate ( as calculated according to Table 1 of this appendix) for hydrogen chloride, chlorine, manganese,

or other HAP, in units of pounds per million Btu of heat input.

Hm = Maximum rated heat input capacity of appropriate emission point, in units of million Btu per hour.

5. What are the criteria for determining if my facility is eligible for a risk based alternative compliance option?

( a) Determine the HAP emissions from each appropriate emission point within the affected source facility using the procedures specified in section 4 of this appendix.

( b) Determine if your facility is eligible for either of the risk based alternative compliance options by conducting a chronic noncancer risk assessment for your facility using one of the methods described in either section 6 of this appendix ( look up table analysis) or section 7 of this appendix ( site specific risk assessment).

( c) Your facility is eligible for the risk based alternative compliance option for HCl if 1 of the following 2 statements is true:

( 1) The calculated HCl equivalent emissions for your entire facility is below the appropriate value in the look up table;

( 2) Your site specific risk assessment indicates that your total facility maximum respiratory HI is less than 1.0;

( d) Your facility is eligible for the risk based alternative compliance option for manganese if 1 of the following 2 statements is true:

( 1) The calculated manganese equivalent emissions for your entire facility is below the appropriate value in the lookup table;

( 2) Your site specific risk assessment indicates that your total facility maximum central nervous system HI is less than 1.0;

6. How do I conduct a look up table analysis?

You may use look up tables to determine if your facility is eligible for either the alternative compliance option for the HCl emission limit or the alternative compliance option for manganese.

( a) HCl risk based compliance alternative. Determine the total toxicity weighted HCl equivalent emission rate for your facility. Develop the total facility emission rate of HCl by summing the maximum hourly HClL emission rates from all sources within the facility boundary line. Similarly, develop the totalfacility emission rate for Cl2. Now, develop the total facility emission rate for each of the respiratory toxicants emitted by your facility by summing the emissions across all emission points within the facility boundary line except those covered by subpart DDDDD. A toxicity weighted emission rate expressed in HCl equivalents is then calculated according to equation 1 of this appendix.

ERtw =

( ERi x ( RfCHCl/ RfCi)) Eq. 1 where: ERtw is toxicity weighted emission rate ERi is the emission rate of HAP i in lbs/ hr RfCi is the reference concentration of HAP i RfCHCl is the reference concentration of HCl ( RfCs and other appropriate dose response values can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ atw/ toxsource/ summary. html)

Calculated toxicity weighted emission rates will then be compared to the appropriate allowable toxicity weighted emission rate in Table 2 of this appendix. To determine the correct value from the table, a facility wide average value should be used for stack height and the minimum distance between any stack at the facility and the closest boundary of the nearest residential ( or residentially zoned) area should be used for fenceline distance.

If one or both of these values do not match the values in the lookup tables then use the next lowest table value. Your facility is eligible for alternative compliance with the HCl emission limit if your toxicity weighted emission rate, determined using the methods specified in this appendix, does not exceed the appropriate value in Table 2 of this appendix.

( b) Manganese Exclusion. Determine the total toxicityweighted manganese equivalent emission rate for your affected source by summing the maximum hourly manganese emission rates for all sources within the facility boundary line and the maximum hourly emission rates of any additional central nervous system toxicants from all emission points within the facility boundary line except those covered by subpart DDDDD. A toxicity weighted emission rate expressed in manganese equivalents is then calculated according to equation 2 of this appendix.

ERtw =

( ERi x ( RfCMn/ RfCi)) Eq. 2 where: ERtw is toxicity weighted emission rate ERi is the emission rate of HAP i in lbs/ hr RfCi is the reference concentration of HAP i RfCMn is the reference concentration of manganese ( RfCs and other appropriate dose response values can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ atw/ toxsource/ summary. html)

Calculated toxicity weighted emission rates will then be compared to the appropriate allowable toxicity weighted emission rate in the table. To determine the correct value from the table, a facility wide average value should be used for stack height and the minimum distance between any stack at the facility and the closest boundary of the nearest residential ( or residentiallyzoned area should be used for fenceline distance. If one or both of these values do not match the values in the lookup tables then use the next lowest table value. Your facility may exclude manganese when demonstrating compliance with the total selected metals emission limit if your toxicity weighted emission rate,

determined using the methods specified in this appendix, does not exceed the values specified in Table 3 of this appendix.

7. How do I conduct a site specific risk assessment?

If you fail to demonstrate that your facility is low risk using the lookup table approach, you may choose to perform a site specific risk assessment for your entire facility. You may use any scientifically accepted peer reviewed assessment methodology for your site specific risk assessment. An example approach to performing a site specific assessment for air toxics is provided in the " Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library", which may be obtained through the EPA's Air Toxics Website at www. epa. gov/ ttn/ atw.

( 1) Your facility is eligible for the HCl alternative compliance option if your site specific risk assessment demonstrates that the HI from respiratory HAP is less than 1.0.

( 2) Your facility is eligible for the manganese alternative compliance option if your site specific risk assessment demonstrates the risk from manganese emissions is less than 1.0.

( b) Your site specific risk assessment should:

( 1) focus on estimating long term inhalation exposures through the estimation of annual or multi year average ambient concentrations; ( 2) focus on estimating the inhalation exposure of the individual most exposed to the facility's emissions;

( 3) not assume any attenuation of exposure concentrations due to the penetration of outdoor pollutants into indoor exposure areas;

( 4) not assume any reaction or deposition of the emitted pollutants during transport from the emission point to the point of exposure;

( 5) use site specific, quality assured data wherever possible;

( 6) use health protective default assumptions wherever sitespecific data are not available, and;

( 7) contain adequate documentation of the data and methods used for the assessment that it can be reproduced by an experienced risk assessor.

8. What must my risk based eligibility demonstration contain?

( a) Your risk based eligibility demonstration must contain the information specified in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 6) of this section.

( 1) Identification of each appropriate emission point at the affected source.

( 2) Stack parameters for each appropriate emission point including, but not limited to, the parameters listed in ( a)( 2)( i) through ( iv) below:

( i) Emission release type ( ii) Stack height, stack area, stack gas temperature, and stack gas exit velocity ( iii) Plot plan showing all emission points, nearby residences, and fenceline.

( iv) Identification of any control devices used to reduce emissions from each appropriate emission point.

( 3) Emission test reports for each appropriate emission point based on the test methods specified in Table 1 of this appendix, including a description of the process parameters identified as being worst case.

( 4) Identification of the RfC values used in your sitespecific risk assessment, according to section 5( b) of this appendix.

( 5) Calculations used to determine the toxicity weighted emission rates expressed in HCl equivalents according to section 6( a) of this appendix.

( 6) Identification of the controlling process factors ( including, but not limited to, fuel type, heat input rate, type of control devices, process parameters documented as worst case conditions during the emissions testing used for your eligibility demonstration) that will become Federally enforceable permit conditions used to show that your facility remains eligible for the risk based provisions. ( b) If you use the look up table analysis in section 5 of this appendix to demonstrate that your facility is eligible for either the risk based exemption or the risk based exclusion, your eligibility demonstration must contain the information in paragraphs ( a) and ( b)( 1) through ( 3) of this section.

( 1) Calculations used to determine the average stack height of the appropriate emission points.

( 2) Identification of the appropriate emission point with the nearest distance to the closest boundary of the nearest residential ( or residentially zoned) area used for fenceline distance.

( 3) Comparison of the values in the look up tables ( Tables 2 and 3 of this appendix) to your maximum toxicity weighted hourly emission rates.

( c) If you are using a site specific risk assessment as described in section 7 of this appendix to demonstrate that your facility is eligible, your eligibility demonstration must contain the information in paragraphs ( a) and ( c)( 1) through ( 7) of this section:

( 1) Identification of the risk assessment methodology used.

( 2) Documentation of the fate and transport model used.

( 3) Documentation of the fate and transport model inputs,

including the information described in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 5) of this section converted to the dimensions required for the model and all of the following that apply: meteorological data; building, land use, and terrain data; receptor locations and population data; and other facility specific parameters input into the model.

( 4) Documentation of the fate and transport model outputs.

( 5) Documentation of any exposure assessment and risk characterization calculations ( 6) Comparison of the maximum chronic HI to the HI limit of 1.0.( 1 or 0.5, .

9. When do I have to complete and submit my risk based eligibility demonstration?

( a) If you have an existing affected source, you must complete and submit your low risk demonstration to your permitting authority, along with a signed certification that the demonstration is an accurate depiction of your facility, no later than the date one year after the effective date of subpart DDDDD.

( b) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source that starts up before the effective date of subpart DDDDD, or an affected source that is an area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP before the effective date of subpart DDDDD, then you must comply with the requirements of subpart DDDDD until your eligibility demonstration is completed and submitted to your permitting authority. ( c) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source that starts up after the effective date for subpart DDDDD, or an affected source that is an area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP after the effective date for subpart DDDDD, then you must follow the schedule in paragraphs ( 1) and ( 2) of this section.

( 1) You must complete and submit for approval a preliminary eligibility demonstration based on the information ( e. g.,

equipment types, estimated emission rates, etc.) used to obtain your title V permit. You must base your preliminary eligibility demonstration on the maximum emissions allowed under your title V permit. If EPA concludes that your affected source facility appears to be eligible for either risk based compliance alternative based on this preliminary eligibility demonstration,

then your may start up your new affected source without either complying with the HCl emission limit and corresponding compliance requirements in subpart DDDDD or including manganese in your total selected metals calculations.

( 2) You must conduct the emission tests specified in section 4 of this appendix upon initial startup and use the results of these emissions tests to complete and submit your eligibility demonstration within 180 days following your initial startup date. To be eligible, you must meet the criteria in section 11 of this appendix within 18 months following initial startup of your affected source.

10. When do I become eligible for the risk based alternative compliance options?

To be eligible for either the risk based alternative compliance option for HCl or manganese , you must meet the criteria in paragraphs ( a) and ( b) of this section. If you do not meet these criteria, then your affected source is subject to the applicable emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards in Subpart DDDDD.

( b) The parameters that defined your affected source as eligible for the risk based provisions ( including, but not limited to, fuel type, type of control devices, process parameters documented as worst case conditions during the emissions testing used for your eligibility demonstration) must be incorporated as Federally enforceable limits into your title V permit.

11. How do I ensure that my facility remains eligible for the risk based provisions?

( a) You must update your eligibility demonstration and resubmit it to EPA for re approval each time you have a process change, such that any of the parameters that defined your affected source changes in a way that could result in increased HAP emissions ( including, but not limited to, fuel type, change in type of control device, changes in process parameters documented as worst case conditions during the emissions testing used for your approved eligibility demonstration).

( b) If you are updating your eligibility demonstration to account for an action in paragraph ( a) of this section, then you must perform emission testing according to section 4 of this appendix for the appropriate emission points that may have increased HAP emissions beyond the levels reflected in your previously approved eligibility demonstration due to the process change. You must submit your revised eligibility demonstration to EPA prior to revising your permit to incorporate the process change. If your updated eligibility demonstration indicates that your affected source is no longer eligible for the risk based provisions, then you must comply with the applicable emission limits, compliance options, and operating requirements in Subpart DDDDD prior to making the process change and revising your permit.

12. What records must I keep?

( a) You must keep records of the information used in developing the eligibility demonstration for your affected source, including all of the information specified in section 8 of this appendix.

13. Definitions.

The definitions in § 63.7575 of subpart DDDDD apply to this appendix. Additional definitions applicable for this appendix are as follows:

Appropriate emission point means a process unit that is reasonably expected to emit the HAP of concern ( HCl, chlorine, or manganese).

Hazard Index ( HI) means the sum of more than one hazard quotient for multiple substances and/ or multiple exposure pathways.

Hazard Quotient ( HQ) means the ratio of the predicted media concentration of a pollutant to the media concentratation at which no adverse effects are expected. adverse effects are expected. For inhalation exposures, the HQ is calculated as the air concentration divided by the RfC.

Look up table analysis means a risk screening analysis based on comparing the HAP emission rate ( or toxicity weighted HAP emission rate) from the affected source to the maximum allowable HAP emission rates specified in Tables 3 and 4 of this appendix.

Reference Concentration ( RfC) means an estimate ( with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population ( including sensitive subgroups that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. It can be derived from various types of human or animal data, with uncertainty factors generally applied to reflect limitations of the data used.

Worst case operating conditions means operation of a process unit during emissions testing under the conditions that result in the highest HAP emissions or that result in the emissions stream composition ( including HAP and non HAP) that is most challenging for the control device if a control device is used. For example, worst case conditions could include operation of the process unit at maximum throughput with the wood species mix likely to produce the most HAP. Table 1 to Appendix B of Subpart DDDD. Emission Test Methods.

For... You must... Using...

( 1) each emission point select sampling ports' location and the number of traverse points Method 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.

( 2) each emission point determine velocity and volumetric flow rate; Method 2, 2F, or 2G in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.

( 3) each emission point conduct gas molecular weight analysis Method 3A or 3B in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.

( 4) each emission point measure moisture content of the stack gas Method 4 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.

( 5) each emission point measure the hydrogen chloride and chlorine emission concentrations Method 26 or 26A in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.

( 6) each emission point measure the manganese emission concentration Method 29 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.

( 7) each emission point convert emissions concentration to lb per MMBtu emission rates. Method 19 F factor methodology in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. Table 2 to Appendix A of Subpart DDDDD. Allowable toxicity weighted emission rate expressed in HCl equivalents ( lbs/ hr)

fenceline ( m)

Stack ht.( m) 50 100 150 200 250 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 5000 5 114.9 114.9 114.9 114.9 114.9 144.3 287.3 373.0 373.0 373.0 373.0 10 188.5 188.5 188.5 188.5 188.5 195.3 328.0 453.5 434.4 434.4 434.4 20 386.1 386.1 386.1 386.1 386.1 386.1 425.4 580.0 602.7 602.7 602.7 30 396.1 396.1 396.1 396.1 396.1 396.1 436.3 596.2 690.6 807.8 816.5 40 408.1 408.1 408.1 408.1 408.1 408.1 448.2 613.3 715.5 832.2 966.0 50 421.4 421.4 421.4 421.4 421.4 421.4 460.6 631.0 746.3 858.2 1002.8 60 435.5 435.5 435.5 435.5 435.5 435.5 473.4 649.0 778.6 885.0 1043.4 70 450.2 450.2 450.2 450.2 450.2 450.2 486.6 667.4 813.8 912.4 1087.4 80 465.5 465.5 465.5 465.5 465.5 465.5 500.0 685.9 849.8 940.9 1134.8 100 497.5 497.5 497.5 497.5 497.5 497.5 527.4 723.6 917.1 1001.2 1241.3 200 677.3 677.3 677.3 677.3 677.3 677.3 682.3 919.8 1167.1 1390.4 1924.6 Table 3 to Appendix A of Subpart DDDDD. Allowable Manganese Emission Rates ( lbs/ hr)

fenceline ( m)

Stack ht.( m) 50 100 150 200 250 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 5000 5 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.36 0.72 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 10 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.49 0.82 1.13 1.09 1.09 1.09 20 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.06 1.45 1.51 1.51 1.51 30 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.09 1.49 1.73 2.02 2.04 40 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.12 1.53 1.79 2.08 2.42 50 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.15 1.58 1.87 2.15 2.51 60 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.18 1.62 1.95 2.21 2.61 70 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.22 1.67 2.03 2.28 2.72 80 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.25 1.71 2.12 2.35 2.84 100 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.32 1.81 2.29 2.50 3.10 200 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.71 2.30 2.92 3.48 4.81