Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector
Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC-12, HCFC-22, and R-502 in Retail Food Refrigeration
                              Substitute: R-441A
This risk screen is restricted to retail food refrigeration applications covered under UL 471: Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers.

This risk screen does not contain Clean Air Act (CAA) Confidential Business Information (CBI) and, therefore, may be disclosed to the public.
1. 	INTRODUCTION
Ozone-depleting substances (ODS) are being phased out of production in response to a series of diplomatic and legislative efforts that have taken place over the past two decades, including the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA).  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as authorized by Section 612 of the CAAA, administers the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program, which identifies acceptable and unacceptable substitutes for ODS in specific end-uses based on assessment of their health and environmental impacts.
EPA's decision on the acceptability of a substitute is based on the findings of a screening assessment of potential human health and environmental risks posed by the substitute in specific applications.  EPA has already screened a large number of substitutes in many end-use applications within all of the major ODS-using sectors including: refrigeration and air conditioning, solvent cleaning, foam blowing, aerosols, fire suppression, adhesives, coatings and inks, and sterilization. The results of these risk screens are presented in a series of Background Documents that are available in EPA's docket.
The purpose of this risk screen is to supplement EPA's Background Document on the refrigeration and air conditioning sector (EPA 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the Background Document). This risk screen evaluates the potential use of R-441A as a substitute for CFC-12, HCFC-22, and R-502 in the retail refrigeration end-use, specifically for stand-alone commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerated display cases. Table 1 presents the composition of the proposed substitute.
                        Table 1.  Composition of R-441A
                                  Constituent
                               Chemical Formula
                                  CAS Number
                                 Concentration
                              (Weight Percent)[a]
                                    Propane
                                     C3H8
                                    74-98-6
                                      55%
                                   n-Butane
                                     C4H10
                                   106-97-8
                                      36%
                                   Isobutane
                                     C4H10
                                    75-28-5
                                      6%
                                    Ethane
                                     C6H14
                                    74-84-0
                                      3%
     [a] There are no impurities of toxicological or ecological significance anticipated for this formulation. Isomers of hydrocarbons present in formulation mixture will exist, but are not considered to be an impurity, contaminant or byproduct.
Section 2 summarizes the results of the risk screen for the proposed substitute blend listed in Table 1.  The remainder of the risk screen is organized into the following sections:

         * Section 3: Atmospheric Assessment
         * Section 4: Volatile Organic Compound Assessment
         * Section 5: Discussion of End-Use Scenario Modeled
         * Section 6: Potential Health Effects
         * Section 7:  Flammability Assessment
         * Section 8: Asphyxiation Assessment
         * Section 9: End-Use Exposure Assessment
         * Section 10: Occupational Exposure Assessment
         * Section 11: General Population Exposure Assessment
         * Section 12: References
2.	 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
R-441A is recommended for SNAP approval for the retail food refrigeration end-use for stand-alone refrigeration equipment that comply with Underwriters Laboratory (UL) Standard 471: Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers.  EPA's risk screen indicates that the use of the proposed substitute will be less harmful to the atmosphere than the continued use of CFC-12, R-502, and HCFC-22 as it is less harmful to the ozone layer, has lower climate impact, and a shorter atmospheric lifetime. Three of the four components of R-441A -- propane, n-butane, and isobutane -- are subject to volatile organic compound (VOC) regulations under the CAA (40 CFR 51.100(s)). Based on analysis of potential impacts of hydrocarbon refrigerant emissions on ground-level ozone concentrations, VOC emissions from the use of R-441A in retail food refrigeration end-use for stand-alone refrigeration equipment are not anticipated to contribute significantly to ground level ozone concentrations in the United States. It is expected that the material safety data sheet (MSDS) for R-441A and good manufacturing practices will be adhered to. Additionally, it is expected that the appropriate safety and personal protective equipment (PPE) (e.g., protective gloves, tightly sealed goggles, protective work clothing, and suitable respiratory protection in case of leakage or insufficient ventilation) consistent with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines will be used during manufacture, installation and servicing, and disposal of retail food refrigeration systems using R-441A. Because retail food refrigeration systems are to be installed in locations with adequate space and/or ventilation in accordance with EPA recommendations and the equipment maintenance manual for R-441A, significant toxicity or flammability risk to consumers is also unlikely. Additional safeguards, including specified refrigerant concentration limits (RCL) of R-441A components, are also provided by adherence to industry standards including American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standards 15, 34, and 62 and Underwriters Laboratory (UL) Standard 471.[4]
3. 	ATMOSPHERIC ASSESSMENT
This section presents an assessment of the potential risks to atmospheric integrity posed by the use of R-441A in commercial refrigeration and freezers.  The ozone depletion potential (ODP), global warming potential (GWP), and atmospheric lifetime (ALT) of the proposed substitute are presented in Table 2.
The proposed substitute is substantially less harmful to the ozone layer, has lower climate impact, and a shorter atmospheric lifetime when compared to CFC-12, R-502, and HCFC-22. In addition, R-441A also has lower climate impact and a shorter atmospheric lifetime than those predicted for other substitutes examined in the Background Document as well as commonly utilized substitutes R-410A and R-404A. Thus, EPA believes that the use of R-441A would result in substantially less harm to the climate and ozone layer than the continued use of ODS and commonly used ODS substitutes.
Table 2.  Atmospheric Impacts of R-441A Components Compared to Other Retail Food Refrigerants
                                  Refrigerant
                           Ozone Depleting Potential
                                   (ODP)[a]
                           Global Warming Potential
                                    (GWP)[b]
                     Atmospheric Lifetime in Years (ALT)
                                    Propane
                                       0
                                      3.3
                                    0.03[a]
                                   n-Butane
                                       0
                                      4.0
                                   0.018[c]
                                   Isobutane
                                       0
                                      ~4
                                   0.016[a]
                                    Ethane
                                       0
                                      5.5
                                   0.21[c]
                                    CFC-12
                                     0.82
                                    10,900
                                    100[b]
                                   R-502[d]
                                      0.2
                                     4,650
                                     NA[e]
                                    HCFC-22
                                     0.13
                                     1,810
                                     12[a]
                                   HFC-134a
                                       0
                                     1,430
                                    14[b]
                                   R-404A[f]
                                       0
                                     3,922
                                     NA[g]
[a] WMO 2010 Scientific Assessment Report (2011)
[b] IPCC 4th Assessment Report (Forster et al. 2007)
[c] IPCC/TEAP (2005)
[d] R-502 is a blend consisting of HCFC-22 (49%) and CFC-115 (51%).
[e] Atmospheric lifetimes are not given for blends, because the components separate in the atmosphere. The ALT for HCFC-22 is 12 years and the ALT for CFC-115 is 1,700 years (IPCC 4th Assessment Report [Forster et al. 2007]).
[f] R-404A is a blend consisting of HFC-143a (52%), HFC-125 (44%) and HFC-134a (4%).
[g] Atmospheric lifetimes are not given for blends, because the components separate in the atmosphere. The ALT for HFC-143a is 52 years, the ALT for HFC-125 is 29 years, and the ALT for HFC-134a is 14 years.
4.	VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ANALYSIS
Three of the four components of R-441A -- propane, n-butane, and isobutane  - - are regulated as VOCs under the CAA (40 CFR 51.000), and as such, emissions of R-441A should be controlled.  A separate analysis was prepared by EPA (2014) to evaluate the potential impact of the use of hydrocarbon refrigerants on ground level ozone concentrations in the United States. The analysis estimated refrigerant emissions from refrigeration and air conditioning equipment, which were assumed to contain propylene, isobutane, and/or propane  under different scenarios.  Under the most conservative scenario it was assumed that propylene was used in all refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. In the most realistic scenario, all three hydrocarbons were assumed to be used in certain types of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment, depending on the proposed use of each alternative under submissions received by the SNAP Program at the time of the analysis. End-uses included in the evaluation included self-contained refrigeration units, for which SNAP hydrocarbon applications have been received and/or UL Standards covering flammable refrigerants exist.  The hydrocarbon emissions from these scenarios were estimated based on U.S. EPA's Vintaging Model, and their potential contributions to ozone concentrations were assessed using U.S. EPA's Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model.
CMAQ modeling was performed for April through the end of September, as these months presented the largest releases of hydrocarbon refrigerant as well as weather conditions favorable for ozone formation. The ozone concentrations were estimated for the Atlanta, Houston and Los Angeles regions, due to their distinctive geographic setting and chronic high levels of ground level ozone, and then scaled for national emission estimates. The results of the CMAQ modeling indicated that under the most realistic scenario, hydrocarbon refrigerants could potentially increase the maximum 8-hour average ground level ozone by lesson more than 0.15 ppb in Los Angeles, the city with the greatest ozone problem. This is roughly 0.2 percent of the current National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone of 75 ppb. In the most conservative case which assumed that the most reactive hydrocarbon, propylene, was used in all refrigeration and air conditioning equipment, there could be an incremental maximum increase of the 8-hour average as high as 6.61 ppb ozone, or an increase of up to 9 percent of the NAAQS. However, this upper bound level of increase is not likely, as most ozone nonattainment areas are not VOC-limited (i.e., the formation of ozone in these areas are not by limited by VOC emissions, but by other compounds such as nitrogen oxides [NOx]). In addition, the analysis assumed no use of VOC-exempt refrigerants which may be used in the refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses. Based on the results of this analysis, VOC emissions from the use of R-441A in self-contained retail food refrigeration equipment are not anticipated to contribute significantly to ground level ozone concentrations in the United States.
5.	DISCUSSION OF END-USE SCENARIOS MODELED
R-441A has been proposed for the retail food refrigeration end-use, specifically for stand-alone commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerated display cases. The submission states that R-441A retail food refrigeration equipment will have a typical charge size of 103 grams for commercial refrigerators, 150 grams for commercial freezers, and 135 grams for refrigerated display cases; however, UL Standard 471: Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers states that commercial refrigeration equipment containing a flammable refrigerant may have a charge size up to 150 grams of A3 refrigerant.
To represent a reasonable worst-case scenario, it is assumed that a catastrophic leak of refrigerant occurs while a commercial freezer is installed at the end-use. To account for retail food refrigeration models which could utilize the maximum amount of refrigerant allowed under UL 471, the reasonable worst-case scenario is modeled using a charge size of 150 grams. Because retail refrigeration equipment can be installed in a wide range of locations with varying room volumes, the analysis in this risk screen conservatively assumes that the commercial refrigeration unit is located in the kitchen of a small fast food restaurant with a volume of 50 m[3] that is connected to a customer area of 100 m[3] (A.S. Trust & Holdings, Inc. 2012). Under the reasonable worst-case scenario, the full charge of the unit is assumed to be emitted over the course of one minute, into the food preparation area (50 m[3]) with a conservative ventilation rate of 1.5 air changes per hour (A.S. Trust & Holdings, Inc. 2012 citing Turk, et. al. 1989). A vertical concentration gradient is also assumed since R-441A is denser than air (specific gravity of R-441A relative to air is 1.67 [air = 1]) and will settle in higher concentrations closer to the ground. In order to simulate the vertical concentration gradient, it is assumed that 95 percent of the leaked refrigerant mixes evenly into the bottom 0.4 meter of the room, and the rest of the refrigerant mixes evenly in the remaining volume (Kataoka 2000). Table 3 details the end-use modeling assumptions used throughout the risk screen (i.e., in Sections 7, 8, and 9).
                 Table 3. End-Use Scenario Model Assumptions
Parameter
                                  Assumption
Refrigeration Unit
                              Commercial Freezer
Room
              Food Preparation Area of Small Fast Food Restaurant
Charge Size (g)
                                      150
Length of Release (minutes)
                                       1
Room Size (volume - m[3])
                                      50
Room Ventilation (air changes per hour)
                                      1.5
Vertical Concentration Gradient
                                      Yes

To address the variability in installation locations and room volumes for retail food equipment, this risk screen incorporates threshold analyses in addition to the worst-case scenario modeling, in order to determine the room size and charge size requirements to ensure that use of R-441A in retail food refrigeration does not present risk to consumers or servicing technicians.
6.	POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS
To assess potential health risks from exposure to the proposed substitute in retail food refrigeration, EPA identified the relevant toxicity threshold values for comparison to modeled exposure concentrations for different scenarios. To protect consumers from the potential dangers of a catastrophic leak from the refrigeration unit,  ASHRAE Standard 34 determined refrigerant concentration limits (RCLs) for the components of R-441A which are intended to reduce the risks of acute toxicity, asphyxiation, and flammability hazards in normally occupied, enclosed spaces during refrigerant use (ASHRAE 2010b). ASHRAE Standard 15 implements the aforementioned standard, requiring that "the concentration of refrigerant in an enclosed space following a complete discharge of a high-probability system shall not exceed the RCL" (ASHRAE 2010a). As such, this risk screen references the RCL of the R-441A components in addition to the lower flammability limit, hypoxia NOAEL, and exposure limits, as an additional, conservative limit to ensure that significant flammability, asphyxiation, and end-use exposure risks, respectively, do not occur.

For the occupational exposure analysis, potential risks from chronic and acute worker exposure were evaluated by comparing exposure concentrations to available occupational exposure limits.  Potential risks of chronic worker exposure were evaluated using workplace guidance levels (WGL). Risks from potential short-term consumer exposures were evaluated by comparing exposure concentrations to emergency guidance levels (EGL). In the absence of an established short-term exposure limit (STEL), acute exposure guideline level (AEGL), or emergency response planning guideline (ERPG), potential short-term, end-use exposures were compared to an excursion limit, which was calculated according to the methodology described in ACGIH (2004).  Table 4 lists the relevant toxicity limits of each component of R-441A, and is followed by Table 5, which provides an explanation of each toxicity limit.  EPA's approach for identifying or developing these values is discussed in Chapter 3 of the Background Document.
                Table 4.  Exposure Limits of R-441A Components
                               R-441A Component
                         8-hr WGL (Long-term Exposure)
                                      ppm
                           EGL (Short-term Exposure)
                                      ppm
                     Refrigerant Concentration Limit (RCL)
                                      ppm
                                    Propane
                                    1,000a
                                  (OSHA PEL)
                           10,000c,d (10 min AEGL-1)
                            6,900d (30 min AEGL-1)
                                   5,300[g]
                                   n-Butane
                             1,000[b]  (ACGIH TLV)
                           6,900[e]  (30 min AEGL-1)
                                   4,000[g]
                                   Isobutane
                             1,000[b]  (ACGIH TLV)
                                   6,900[f]
                                   4,000[g]
                                    Ethane
                             1,000[b]  (ACGIH TLV)
                    3,000h (30 min ACGIH Excursion Limit)
                           2,900[i] (15-min TEEL-1)
                                   7,000[g]
[a] OSHA PEL available at: http://www.cdc.gov/Niosh/npg/npgd0524.html
[b] ACGIH TLV for aliphatic hydrocarbon gases: alkane (C1 - C4) is 1,000 ppm TWA (ACGIH 2012)
[c] An IDLH of 2,100 ppm has been established for propane.  However, NIOSH (1996) states that "[b]ased on acute inhalation toxicity data in humans (ACGIH 1991; Braker 1980), a value much greater than 10,000 ppm would have been appropriate. However, the revised IDLH for propane is 2,100 ppm based strictly on safety considerations (i.e., being 10% of the lower explosive limit of 2.1%)."  Therefore, as this IDLH value is based on flammability concerns and not toxicity concerns, it is not used in the evaluation of toxicity risks in this risk screen.
[d] AEGL-1 available at: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/aegl/pubs/tsd96.pdf
[e] AEGL-1 available at: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/aegl/pubs/tsd102.pdf
[f] Because n-Butane and isobutane have the same molecular formula, EGL for isobutane is conservatively assumed to be that for n-Butane. However, OSHA (2004) notes the following regarding isobutane: "OSHA does not have a PEL for isobutane, which is affirmed as "generally recognized as safe" as a direct human food ingredient (21 CFR 184.1165). No toxic effects reported below 18,000 ppm."
[g] ASHRAE (2010b)
[h] Calculated as three times the TLV-TWA (ACGIH 2004).
[i] DOE (2008)
         Table 5. Explanation of Exposure Limit-Related Terminology[a]
Organization
Definition
OSHA
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
NIOSH
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
ACGIH
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
AIHA
American Industrial Hygiene Association
Exposure Limit
Definition
Explanation
Short-Term Exposure
RCL
Refrigerant Concentration Limit
The RCL for a refrigerant is intended to reduce the risks of acute toxicity, asphyxiation, and flammability hazards in normally occupied, enclosed spaces. The RCL for each refrigerant is the lowest of the Acute-Toxicity Exposure Limit (ATEL), Oxygen Deprivation Limit (ODL), and Flammable Concentration Limit (FCL). Determination assumes full vaporization with no removal by ventilation, dissolution, reaction, or decomposition and complete mixing of refrigerant in the space to which it is released.
STEL
Short-Term Exposure Limit
A 15-minute time-weighted average (TWA) exposure that should not be exceeded at any time during a workday, even if the 8-hour TWA is within the TLV - TWA, set by ACGIH.
AEGL[b,c]
Acute Exposure Guideline Level 1
AEGL-1 is the airborne concentration of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure.

Acute Exposure Guideline Level 2
AEGL-2 is the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm or mg/m3) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to escape.

Acute Exposure Guideline Level 3
AEGL-3 is the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm or mg/m3) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience life-threatening health effects or death.
ERPG
Emergency Response Planning Guideline 1
The maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild transient health effects or perceiving a clearly defined, objectionable odor according to AIHA.

Emergency Response Planning Guideline 2
The maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability to take protective action according to AIHA.

Emergency Response Planning Guideline 3
The maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing or developing life-threatening health effects according to AIHA.
Excursion Limit [d]
Excursion Limit
Because methane (and other short-chain alkane gases through butane) does not have a TLV-short-term exposure limit, an excursion limit may be applied. Excursions in worker exposure levels may exceed 3 times the TLV-TWA for no more than a total of 30 minutes during a workday, and under no circumstances should they exceed 5 times the TLV-TWA, provided that the TLV-TWA is not exceeded according to ACGIH.
IDLH
Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health
If exposed to this concentration, room occupants are expected to be able to escape the room within 30 minutes without experiencing escape-impairing or irreversible health effects.
Long-Term Exposure
PEL
Permissible Exposure Limit
This is an 8-hour time-weighted average exposure limit set by OSHA.
TLV-TWA
Threshold Limit Value  - Time-Weighted Average
The TWA concentration for a conventional 8-hour workday and a 40-hour workweek, to which it is believed that nearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed, day after day, for a working lifetime without adverse effect according to ACGIH.
[a] All information in this table taken from EPA (1994) except where otherwise noted.
[b] EPA (2012)
[c] Applicable to emergency exposure periods ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.
[d] ACGIH (2004)

According to the MSDS, exposure to R-441A may be hazardous if inhalation, skin contact, or eye contact with R-441A occurs. The most likely pathway of exposure is through inhalation. R-441A can cause symptoms of asphyxiation when present in concentrations high enough to significantly lower oxygen concentrations below 19.5 percent by volume, such as headaches, ringing in ears, dizziness, drowsiness, nausea, vomiting, depression of all senses, and also unconsciousness. Under some circumstances of over-exposure (i.e., oxygen levels fall below 6 percent by volume), death may occur. In addition, at high concentrations, propane, a major component of the R-441A blend, can act as a narcotic and cause central nervous system depression, including dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches.
If R-441A is inhaled, person(s) should be immediately removed and exposed to fresh air. In accordance with the MSDS, EPA further recommends that if breathing is difficult, person(s) be given oxygen, provided a qualified operator is present, and medical attention be sought.  Rescuers should not attempt to retrieve victims of exposure to R-441A without adequate PPE. At a minimum, a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) should be worn. Exposures of R-441A to the skin may cause frostbite. In the case of dermal exposure, the MSDS for R-441A recommends that person(s) immediately wash the affected area with water and remove all contaminated clothing; if frostbite occurs, bathe (not rub) the affected area with lukewarm, not hot, water. If water is not available, cover the affected area with a clean, soft cloth. Alternatively, if the fingers or hands are frostbitten, warm the affected area by placing it in the armpit; gently exercise the affected part while being warmed, and seek medical attention immediately. Exposures of R-441A to the eyes could cause eye irritation. In case of ocular exposure, the MSDS for R-441A recommends that person(s) immediately flush the eyes, including under the eyelids, with copious amounts of water for 15 minutes.
EPA's review of the human health impacts of this proposed substitute is contained in the public docket for this decision. The potential health effects of R-441A can be minimized by following the exposure guidelines and ventilation and PPE recommendations outlined in the MSDS for R-441A and this risk screen.
7.	FLAMMABILITY ASSESSMENT
ASHRAE Standard 34 classifies R-441A as a Class A3 refrigerant. R-441A is flammable when its concentration in air is in the range of 2.05 percent and 9.25 percent by volume (20,500 ppm to 92,500 ppm). In the presence of an ignition source (e.g., static electricity, a spark resulting from a switch malfunction, or a cigarette), an explosion or a fire could occur if the concentration of R-441A were to exceed the lower flammability limit (LFL) of 20,500 ppm.  As such, R-441A may pose a significant safety concern for workers and consumers if it is not handled carefully.  The remainder of this section assesses flammability risks and summarizes the recommended measures to ensure safe handling and use of the refrigerant during manufacture, servicing, and end-use.

7.1	Flammability Risks at Manufacture
As indicated by the submitter, the manufacture of R-441A refrigerant (i.e., formulation mixing) and the charging of R-441A retail food refrigeration equipment (receiving, blending. and filling operations) occurs in a closed system; all units are completely sealed before delivery and installation. As a result, releases of R-441A during these manufacturing and installation operations in the presence of an ignition source are not anticipated.
All R-441A storage and transport equipment should be installed with safety devices that minimize the likelihood of catastrophic releases. For example, NFPA 58 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code (NFPA 2014) for liquefied propane requires the use of overfill protection devices (OPD) on cylinders to minimize the likelihood of leaks.  The NPFA 58 Code also contains propane storage and transportation requirements/guidelines.  Similar equipment safety and procedural requirements should be developed for R-441A and other flammable refrigerants. EPA believes that because workers follow relevant safety standards in manufacturing facilities, the MSDS for isobutane, and OSHA requirements under 29 CFR 1910 (e.g., proper ventilation and storage practices within manufacturing facilities to prevent fire and explosion), flammability during manufacture is not expected to be of concern.

7.2	Flammability Risk at Servicing and End-Use
The risk of flammability during servicing and end-use for the reasonable worst-case scenario and typical scenario (see Section 5) was investigated for R-441A. Both servicing and end-use of R-441A retail food refrigeration equipment are expected to take place in the same space (i.e., the place of installation and use). In order to determine the potential flammability risks during servicing or end-use in case of a catastrophic release of refrigerant in a food preparation area (see Section 5), concentrations of R-441A immediately following the release of refrigerant were compared to the LFL for R-441A. The maximum instantaneous concentration of R-441A in the lower 0.4 meters of the room at a charge size of 150 grams would be approximately 8,490 ppm, which is 41 percent of the proposed substitute's LFL (see Table 6).  The maximum instantaneous concentration in the upper portion of the room for both modeled charge sizes is much lower, as only 5 percent of the leaked refrigerant is present in this area, which also has a greater volume than the lower 0.4 meters of the room. Table 6 presents the results of the analysis.

                     Table 6.  Flammability Assessment[a]
                                   Scenario
                                Charge Size (g)
                          Effective Room Size (m[3])
                      Maximum Instantaneous Concentration
                                 (ppm) [b][,c]
                             Reasonable Worst-Case
                                      150
                              50.0 (1,770 ft[3])
                                    8,490
                       Threshold Analysis 1: Charge Size
                                      354
                              50.0 (1,770 ft[3])
                                    20,050
                        Threshold Analysis 2: Room Size
                                      150
                               21.2 (749 ft[3])
                                    20,050
 Bold font indicates modeling results.
  [a] Cells highlighted in green are the scenarios with exposure levels deemed acceptable given various modeling assumption options
 [b] Lower Flammability Limit of R-441A is equal to 20,500 ppm
 [c] Values provided in these columns refer to the concentration in the lower 0.4 meters of the room

The results of the threshold analysis indicate that the charge size would have to be significantly larger, or the room size smaller, than what is assumed in the worst-case scenario (see Section 5) for a flammability risk to occur. As shown in Threshold Analysis 1, for flammability to be of concern within a room size of 50 m[3] (1,770 ft[3]) (see Table 6), the charge size released would have to be at least 354 grams. As shown in Threshold Analysis 2, for flammability to be of concern for commercial freezers with a charge size of 150 grams, the volume of the room would have to be 21.2 m3 (749 ft[3]) (see Table 6).
It is unlikely that a store or restaurant as small as that determined in the flammability threshold analysis would exist and it is further unlikely that the entire refrigerant charge would accidentally release into the convenience store. In addition, R-441A is likely to be dispersed into the air evenly and almost instantaneously upon accidental release; the retail food refrigeration unit compressor is pressurized between 135 and 160 psi, which will cause R-441 to be released into the room (assumed to be at atmospheric pressure of approximately 14.7 psi) under high pressure, resulting in the refrigerant's quick and turbulent release, and subsequent mixing into the air (A.S. Trust & Holdings, Inc. 2011). EPA recommends that the ventilation requirements outlined in the MSDS for R-441A are followed to mitigate the risk of fire or explosion during catastrophic leak during end-use or when servicing equipment using R-441A.  In addition, EPA recommends that retail food refrigeration equipment with charge sizes of 150 grams are not installed in enclosed areas with volumes smaller than 21.2 m3 (749 ft[3]) in order to mitigate flammability risk.
Catastrophic releases of large quantities of refrigerant, especially in areas where refrigerant is stored, could result in an explosion in the presence of an ignition source.  For this reason, it is important that only properly trained and certified technicians handle R-441A.  The submitter has provided safety guidelines for handling R-441A, which should be followed.  As a further precaution, certification requirements and training programs for technicians that handle R-441A should be developed using these guidelines.  During servicing operations, technicians should ensure that proper ventilation is in place through the use of fans (or other mechanical ventilation devices) and portable refrigerant detectors should be used to alert technicians to the presence of flammable gases in the area. Furthermore, EPA recommends that consumers should not be present during servicing activities.
It is recommended that retail food refrigeration equipment not be installed in small, poorly ventilated spaces such as very small enclosed areas or storage closets (especially as other equipment or appliances in the space would reduce the effective volume of the room).  For retail food refrigeration equipment installed in larger areas, the risk of fire and explosion is minimal. Retail food refrigeration equipment installed with R-441A should be clearly labeled as containing a flammable refrigerant and designed to prevent catastrophic leaks.  The installation of leak prevention devices would further protect against the very limited risk of explosion. Because relevant safety standards and the MSDS for isobutane are followed by service technicians and because isobutane refrigeration units will be installed in areas with adequate space and ventilation, EPA believes that flammability during servicing and end-use is not expected to be of concern.
8.	ASPHYXIATION ASSESSMENT
The risk of asphyxiation for the reasonable worst-case scenario was investigated for R-441A. In this section, risk of asphyxiation is assessed in three ways: 1) modeling the oxygen concentration under the charge size and room size specified in the worst-case scenario, 2) performing a threshold analysis of minimum charge size needed to cause an asphyxiation risk in the room size specified in the worst-case scenario 3) performing a threshold analysis of the maximum room size needed to cause an asphyxiation risk with the charge size specified in the worst-case scenario.  This analysis does not consider ventilation or conditions that are likely to occur that would increase oxygen levels to which individuals would be exposed, such as open doors or windows, fans operating, conditioned airflow (either heated or cooled), or even openings at the bottom of doors that allow air to flow in and out. As specified in Section 5, the reasonable worst-case scenario assumes a vertical concentration gradient. If the proposed substitute passes the screening analysis with these restrictive assumptions in place, it can be reasonably assumed that no risks of asphyxiation will be present under real-world conditions. The results of the asphyxiation assessment are summarized in Table 7 below.
                     Table 7.  Asphyxiation Assessment[a]
                                   Scenario
                              Charge Size (g)[a]
                          Effective Room Size (m[3])
               Percent Oxygen Concentration in Lower 0.4 Meters
                             Reasonable Worst-Case
                                      150
                              50.0  (1770  ft[3])
                                      21
                       Threshold Analysis 1: Charge Size
                                     7,242
                              50.0  (1770  ft[3])
                                      12
                        Threshold Analysis 2: Room Size
                                      150
                               1.0 (36.6 ft[3])
                                      12
     Bold font indicates modeling results.
       [a] Cells highlighted in green are the scenarios with acceptable exposure levels given various modeling assumption options.
  [b] The typical concentration of oxygen in air is considered to be 21 percent (Mackenzie & Mackenzie 1995).

In order for a risk of asphyxiation to occur, the normal concentration of oxygen in air (21 percent) in the lower 0.4 meters of the room must be reduced to 12 percent. Based on the worst-case scenario modeling assumptions, R-441A in retail food refrigeration equipment does not present a significant risk of asphyxiation. As shown in Threshold Analysis 1, the minimum charge of R-441A necessary to reduce the oxygen levels to 12 percent in air in the lower 0.4 meters of a room of volume 50 m[3] (1,770 ft[3]) was calculated to be 7,242 grams assuming that 1) nitrogen and oxygen retain the same relative volumes in the rooms with the balance composed entirely of R-441A, and 2) the pressure of the room does not increase significantly with the addition of the refrigerant. This amount represents nearly 50 times the intended charge of approximately 150 grams for a single R-441A retail food refrigeration unit.  Because this threshold modeling does not take into account any ventilation which is likely to occur, such as conditioned airflow, open doors, or even openings at the bottom of doors that allow air to flow in and out, as mentioned above, the actual asphyxiation risk to consumers is likely to be smaller than modeled.
For the Asphyxiation Threshold Scenario, the room size at which an asphyxiation concern would exist (i.e., when the oxygen concentration in the lower 0.4 meters of the room is 12 percent) was determined. For asphyxiation to be of concern with the maximum charge size of 150 grams, the volume of the food preparation area would have to be about 1.0 m[3] (36.6 ft[3]) (see Threshold Analysis 2 in Table 7).  Based on the worst-case modeling results and threshold analysis, EPA does not believe that the use of R-441A in commercial freezers poses a significant risk of asphyxiation or impaired coordination to personnel.

9.	END-USE EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
This section presents estimates of potential end-user exposures to R-441A and each of its chemical constituents in the event of a catastrophic release from the proposed substitute's use in retail food refrigeration. An end-use exposure analysis was performed to examine potential catastrophic releases of R-441A under the reasonable worst-case scenario outlined in Section 5.
For the end-use exposure assessment scenario, 30-min TWA exposures for the proposed substitute were calculated using the box model described in the Background Document, which was adapted to estimate concentrations on a minute-by-minute basis. Estimates for acute/short-term end-use exposures resulting from catastrophic leakage of refrigerant from commercial freezers were examined. The analysis was undertaken to determine the 30-minute exposures for each component of R-441A, which were then compared to the standard toxicity limits presented in Table 4 to assess the risk to end-users. However, the TWA values are fairly conservative as the analysis does not consider opened windows, fans operating, conditioned airflow (either heated or cooled) and other variables that would reduce the levels to which individuals would be exposed.
                   Table 8.  End-Use Exposure Assessment[a]
                               R-441A Component
                     30-minute TWA End-Use Exposure (ppm)
                 Short-term (30-min) Exposure Limits (ppm)[b]
                                    Propane
                                     4,390
                                     6,900
                                   n-Butane
                                     2,180
                                     6,900
                                   Isobutane
                                      360
                                     6,900
                                    Ethane
                                      350
                                      NA
      [a] Cells highlighted in green are the scenarios with acceptable exposure levels given various modeling assumption options.
      [b] See Table 4 for more information.

Under the reasonable worst-case scenario described in Section 5, catastrophic releases of R-441A from a commercial freezer with a charge size of 150 grams was modeled. For a charge size of 150 grams, the estimated 30-min TWA exposures of the components of R-441A do not exceed 64 percent of the respective STELs. As such, use of R-441A in commercial freezers is not anticipated to present a significant risk to end-users. Furthermore, these exposures were derived using fairly conservative assumptions (e.g., minimum room volume, low ventilation rate [1.5 ACH], maximum charge size) that do not necessarily reflect the typical location for R-441A retail food refrigeration equipment installations (e.g., retail food refrigeration equipment will be installed in large food and drink establishments and supermarkets [A.S. Trust & Holdings, Inc. 2012]). To prevent exposure and potential serious side effects during larger releases, EPA proposes that the charge size for an R-441A commercial refrigeration unit to require compliance with UL 471 in any space containing a commercial refrigeration unit, unless proper leak protection devises are in place in order to prevent exposures of isobutane beyond the recommended limits. Proper leak protection devices and engineering control requirements and adherence to the MSDS will further ensure that exposure limits are maintained below those described in Table 8.
10.	OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
This section assesses potential exposures to workers during manufacture, installation, servicing, and disposal of R-441A. As indicated by the submitter, the manufacture of R-441A refrigerant (i.e., formulation mixing) and the charging of R-441A retail food refrigeration equipment (receiving, blending. and filling operations) occurs in a closed system; all units are completely sealed before delivery and installation. As a result, exposure during these manufacturing and installation operations is not anticipated.
To ensure that use of the proposed substitute in retail food refrigeration does not pose an unacceptable risk to workers during servicing and disposal, occupational exposure modeling was performed using a box-model approach.  For a detailed description of the methodology used for this screening assessment, the reader is referred the occupational exposure and hazard analysis described in Chapter 5 of the Background Document. Estimates of refrigerant release per event for various release scenarios and data on number of events in 2010 were obtained from the Vintaging Model.  To determine the estimated level of occupational exposure for a constituent in a blend, the total anticipated release rate of the refrigerant is multiplied by the weight percent composition of each compound in the blend. For the retail food refrigeration end use, the release per event was conservatively assumed to be 0.25 percent of the equipment charge during servicing and 35 percent of the equipment charge during disposal. Additionally, EPA is proposing to allow intentional venting or release of R-441A as a refrigerant during installation, servicing, maintenance and disposal from stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment. If venting does occur, EPA recommends that it is done in a well-ventilated area (i.e. outdoors). Therefore, scenarios in which 100 percent of the equipment charge was released during servicing and disposal were also considered. The release rate per event was multiplied by the number of events estimated to occur over a workday.  For equipment servicing, the number of events per workday was assumed to equal the maximum number of units anticipated to be serviced in one day (i.e., eight units [A.S. Trust & Holdings, Inc. 2011]) divided by eight hours per workday.  These assumptions result in approximately 1 event per hour.  For disposal, it was conservatively assumed that 10 units are disposed during an 8-hour work day. The modeled exposure concentrations were compared to short-term occupational exposure limits at installation and servicing and long-term exposure limits at disposal.

10.1	Occupational Exposure at Servicing
As indicated by the submitter, when R-441A retail food refrigeration equipment is serviced, the used refrigerant is pumped into a canister, where it is stored until it is recycled (i.e., filtered and reused) (A.S. Trust & Holdings, Inc. 2011). During the transfer to the initial canister, incidental refrigerant releases may occur during connection and disconnection of the recharging hose fittings, which should last approximately 30 seconds per unit (A.S. Trust & Holdings, Inc. 2011).
The maximum 30-minute time weighted average (TWA) exposure for each R-441A constituent were estimated for the servicing exposure scenario and  compared to their respective short term exposure limits (see Table 9).  The modeling results indicate that the maximum anticipated occupational exposure concentrations at no point exceed 0.3 percent of the short-term exposure limits for retail food refrigeration units with a 150-gram charge size during the 0.25 percent or 100 percent release scenarios.  Because the exposure concentrations modeled under the conservative assumptions is significantly lower than the exposure limits for each constituent, occupational exposure to the proposed substitute during servicing is not considered a significant risk to workers. Further, the estimated exposures were derived using conservative assumptions, and represent a worst-case scenario with a low probability of occurrence. These types of systems are typically serviced by trained personnel using proper industrial hygiene techniques.

            Table 9.  Occupational Risk Assessment at Servicing[a]
                               R-441A Component
                   30-minute TWA Occupational Exposure (ppm)
                    30-min Short Term Exposure Limits (ppm)

                                 0.25% Release
                                 100% Release

                                    Propane
                                     0.05
                                     19.2
                                   6,900[b]
                                   n-Butane
                                     0.02
                                      9.6
                                   6,900[b]
                                    Ethane
                                     0.004
                                      1.5
                                   3,000[c]
                                   Isobutane
                                     0.004
                                      1.6
                                   6,900[b]
[a] Cells highlighted in green are the scenarios that are deemed to be acceptable given various modeling assumption options.
 	[b] 30 min AEGL-1
 	[c] ACGIH (2004)

10.2	Occupational Exposure at Disposal
Disposal of R-441A retail food refrigeration equipment is expected to occur with limited frequency (up to approximately ten disposal events per day) at disposal facilities and with limited duration of exposure to the refrigerant charge. Potential exposures to the refrigerant during recovery and disposal are expected to occur during activities related to draining the refrigerant from the refrigeration units into cylinders (e.g., connecting of pipes). Such activities and related exposure is anticipated to occur within 15-30 minutes (per event/day).
Table 10 displays the maximum estimated 8-hour TWA occupational exposure levels of the components of R-441A during disposal. Based on the assumptions described in the beginning of Section 10, the modeling indicates that 8-hour worker exposure concentrations for each of the R-441A blend components will at no point exceed 23 percent of their respective long-term exposure limits during disposal of R-441A for retail food refrigeration units with a 150 gram charge size during the 35 percent and 100 percent release scenarios. Table 10 displays the maximum estimated 8-hour TWA occupational exposure levels of the R-441A constituents during disposal. Because each value is significantly lower than the exposure guidelines for each constituent, occupational exposure to the proposed substitute during disposal is not considered a toxicity threat.  Further, the estimated exposures were derived using conservative assumptions, and represent a worst-case scenario with a low probability of occurrence. These types of systems are typically disposed of by trained personnel using proper industrial hygiene techniques.
            Table 10.  Occupational Risk Assessment at Disposal[a]
                               R-441A Component
                    8-Hour TWA Occupational Exposure (ppm)
                    8-Hour Long Term Exposure Limits (ppm)

                                  35% Release
                                 100% Release

                                    Propane
                                     81.7
                                     233.3
                                    1,000b
                                   n-Butane
                                     40.6
                                     115.9
                                   1,000[c]
                                    Ethane
                                      6.5
                                     18.7
                                   1,000[c]
                                   Isobutane
                                      6.8
                                     19.3
                                   1,000[c]
      	[a] Cells highlighted in green are the scenarios with exposure levels deemed to be acceptable given various modeling assumption options.
      	[b] OSHA PEL
                          [c] ACGIH TLV

Although anticipated occupational exposures are well below the exposure limits for each of the components of R-441A, the recommendations for proper engineering controls and PPE in the MSDS for R-441A should be followed. Adequate ventilation should always be established during any use, handling, or storage of R-441A. Engineering controls should include vapor-in air detection systems and local exhaust ventilation during use of R-441A to prevent dispersion throughout the work place. In addition, an eye wash and safety shower should be near the manufacturing facility and locations where R-441A is stored and ready for use. In general, use of OSHA Category B or higher PPE is recommended, such as splash goggles, mechanically-resistance gloves when handling cylinders and chemically-resistant gloves when handling the gas mixture (e.g., butyl rubber, chlorinated polyethylene, or neoprene). SCBA and fire retardant protective clothing should be worn in case of an accidental release or spill (A.S. Trust & Holdings, Inc. 2011). EPA believes that if proper handling and disposal guidelines are followed in accordance with good industrial hygiene and manufacturing practices and the MSDS for R-441A, there is no significant risk to workers during the manufacturing, installation, servicing, and disposal of R-441A in retail food refrigeration units.
11.  	GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
R-441A is not expected to cause a threat to human health in the general population when manufactured for use and used as a refrigerant in retail food refrigeration. The proposed substitute will be manufactured in a closed process and is proposed for use in closed systems, and thus, significant releases are not anticipated. At room temperature, R-441A is a gas and, therefore, releases to ground or surface water are not anticipated, as R-441A is anticipated to dissipate into the atmosphere upon release to outside air (i.e., because natural ventilation rates would be higher and there is no enclosed space to keep R-441A concentrated). Should air releases during manufacturing operations occur, engineering controls should be used (e.g. carbon absorption scrubbers) to collect R-441A and prevent the release of R-441A to the atmosphere. EPA believes that by using proper engineering controls and by following disposal and containment recommendations outlined in the proposed substitute's MSDS, exposure to R-441A is not expected to pose a significant toxicity risk to the general population.

12.  	REFERENCES
Armines. 2009. Inventory of Direct and Indirect GHG Emissions from Stationary Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Sources, with Special Emphasis on Retail Food Refrigeration and Unitary Air Conditioning. CARB Agreement No. 06-325.
ACGIH. 2012. Guide to Occupational Exposure Values. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

ANSI/ASHRAE. 2010a. Standard 15: Safety Standard for Refrigeration Systems. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

ANSI/ASHRAE. 2010b. Standard 34: Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
ANSI/ASHRAE. 2013a. Standard 62: Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
A.S. Trust & Holdings, Inc.  2012. HCR-188C/R-441A for Use in New Commercial Refrigerators, Commercial Freezers and Stand-Alone Refrigerated Display Cases. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program Submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. March 2012.
Braker W, Mossman AL. 1980. Matheson gas data book. 6th ed. Secaucus, NJ: Matheson Gas Products, pp. 615 - 623.
U.S. EPA 1994.  Significant New Alternatives Policy Technical Background Document:  Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-depleting Substances: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning.  Stratospheric Protection Division.  March, 1994.

Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland. 2007.  Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007:The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
ICF. 1997. Physiological Effects of Alternative Fire Protection Agents - Hypoxic Atmospheres Conference. Stephanie Skaggs prepared the proceedings of the conference held May 22, 1997 in New London, CT.

IPCC/TEAP. 2005. Bert Metz, Lambert Kuijpers, Susan Solomon, Stephen O. Andersen, Ogunlade Davidson, José Pons, David de Jager, Tahl Kestin, Martin Manning, and Leo Meyer (Eds).  Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System.  Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. Cambridge University Press, UK. pp 478.
Kataoka, O., M. Yoshizawa, & T. Hirakawa  2000.  "Allowable Charge Limit of Flammable Refrigerants and Ventilation Requirements."  Daikin Industries. International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference. Paper 506. Available online at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iracc/506.

Mackenzie, F.T. and J.A. Mackenzie. 1995. Our changing planet. Prentice-Hall.

NFPA. 2014.  NFPA Liquified Petroleum Gas Code. 2014 Edition.

OSHA. 2004.  "Safety and Health Topics: Isobutane."  February 2004.  Available online at: <http://www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_247840.html>.

Turk, B.H., D.T. Grimsrud, J.T. Brown, K.L. Geisling-Sobotka, J. Harrison, and R.J. Prill. 1989. "Commercial building ventilation rates and particle concentrations." ASHRAE Transactions 95 (1): 422-423. Paper No. 3248 presented at the 1989 meeting of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), Chicago, Illinois.

UL. 2010. UL 471: Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers. Underwriters Laboratory.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008. DOE Handbook  -  Temporary Emergency Exposure Limits For Chemicals: Methods And Practice. Available online at: http://orise.orau.gov/emi/scapa/files/doe-hdbk-1046-2008_ac.pdf.

U.S. EPA. 2012. Acute Exposure Guidelines (AEGLs) Definitions. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl/pubs/define.htm.

U.S. EPA. 2014. Draft Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. Prepared for the U.S. EPA Stratospheric Protection Division by ICF International. February 24, 2014.

WMO (World Meteorological Organization), 2011. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project-Report No. 52, 516 pp., Geneva, Switzerland.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43494-43500]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19821]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 423

[EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819; FRL-9967-90-OW]
RIN 2040-AF76

Postponement of Certain Compliance Dates for the Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power
Generating Point Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Water Act (``CWA''), The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) intends to conduct a rulemaking to potentially
revise certain best available technology economically achievable
(``BAT'') effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for existing
sources (``PSES'') for the steam electric power generating point source
category, which were published in the Federal Register on November 3,
2015. EPA is, accordingly, postponing the associated compliance dates
in the 2015 Rule. In particular, EPA is postponing the earliest
compliance dates for the new, more stringent, BAT effluent limitations
and PSES for flue gas desulfurization (``FGD'') wastewater and bottom
ash transport water in the 2015 Rule for a period of two years. At this
time, EPA does not intend to conduct a rulemaking that would
potentially revise the new, more stringent BAT effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards in the 2015 Rule for fly ash transport water,
flue gas mercury control wastewater, and gasification wastewater, or
any of the other requirements in the 2015 Rule. As such, EPA is not
changing the compliance dates for the BAT limitations and PSES
established by the 2015 Rule for these wastestreams. EPA's action to
postpone certain compliance dates in the 2015 Rule is intended to
preserve the status quo for FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport

water until EPA completes its next rulemaking concerning those
wastestreams, and it thus does not otherwise amend the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for the steam electric power
generating point source category.

DATES: The final rule is effective September 18, 2017. In accordance
with 40 CFR part 23, this regulation shall be considered issued for
purposes of judicial review at 1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on October
2, 2017. Under section 509(b)(1) of the CWA, judicial review of this
regulation can be had only by filing a petition for review in the U.S.
Court of Appeals within 120 days after the regulation is considered
issued for purposes of judicial review. Under section 509(b)(2), the
requirements in this regulation may not be challenged later in civil or
criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-OW-2009-0819. All documents in the docket are listed
on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald Jordan, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Engineering and Analysis Division;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Electronic copies of this document and related materials are available
on EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/eg/steam-electric-power-generatingeffluent-guidelines-2015-final-rule. Copies of this final
rule are also available at http://www.regulations.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On November 3, 2015, the EPA published a final rule amending 40 CFR
part 423, the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the
steam electric power generating point source category, under Sections
301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314,
1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361). The amendments addressed limitations
and standards on various wastestreams at steam electric power plants:
FGD wastewater, bottom ash transport water, fly ash transport water,
flue gas mercury control wastewater, gasification wastewater, and
combustion residual leachate. Collectively, this rulemaking is known as
the ``Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam
Electric Power Generating Point Source Category,'' or ``2015 Rule.''
For further information on the 2015 Rule, see 80 FR 67838 (November 3,
2015).
    EPA received seven petitions for review of the 2015 Rule. The U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation issued an order on December
8, 2015, consolidating all of the petitions in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Southwestern Electric Power Co., et al.
v. EPA, No. 15-60821.
    In a letter dated March 24, 2017, the Utility Water Act Group
(``UWAG'') \1\ submitted a petition for reconsideration of the 2015
Rule which requested that EPA suspend the Rule's approaching deadlines.
UWAG supplemented its petition with additional information in a letter
dated April 13, 2017. In a letter dated April 5, 2017, the Small
Business Administration (``SBA'') Office of Advocacy sent EPA a second
petition for reconsideration of the 2015 Rule, which expressly supports
UWAG's petition and raises issues that SBA considers to be pertinent to
small businesses. The petitions raise wide-ranging objections to the
Rule.\2\ Among other things, the UWAG petition points to new data which
they believe show that plants burning subbituminous and bituminous coal
cannot comply with the 2015 Rule's limitations and standards for FGD
wastewater and questions EPA's characterization of bottom ash transport
water. UWAG also requested that EPA suspend or delay the ``rule's fast-
approaching compliance deadlines while EPA works to reconsider and
revise, as appropriate, the substantive requirements of the current
rule.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ According to the petition, UWAG is a voluntary, ad hoc,
unincorporated group of 163 individual energy companies and three
national trade associations of energy companies: Edison Electric
Institute, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and
the American Public Power Association.
    \2\ A copy of each petition and the supplemental information is
included in the docket for this rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-
0819.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In an April 12, 2017 letter to those who submitted the
reconsideration petitions, the Administrator announced his decision to
reconsider the 2015 Rule. See DCN SE06612. As explained in that letter,
after considering the objections raised in the reconsideration
petitions, the Administrator determined that it is appropriate and in
the public interest to reconsider the Rule. On April 14, 2017, EPA
requested that the Fifth Circuit hold the case in abeyance while the
Agency undertook reconsideration. On April 24, 2017, the Fifth Circuit
granted the motion and placed the case in abeyance.
    On June 6, 2017 (82 FR 26017), EPA proposed to postpone the
compliance dates for the new, more stringent, BAT effluent limitations
and PSES in the 2015 Rule for each of the following wastestreams: FGD
wastewater, bottom ash transport water, fly ash transport water, flue
gas mercury control wastewater, and gasification wastewater, while
reconsideration of the 2015 Rule was underway. EPA explained that this
postponement would preserve the regulatory status quo with respect to
wastestreams subject to the 2015 Rule's new, and more stringent,
limitations and standards during reconsideration and that postponement
of compliance dates is intended to prevent the unnecessary expenditure
of resources until EPA finalizes any rulemaking as a result of its
reconsideration of the 2015 Rule. EPA also solicited comments on
whether this postponement should be for a specified period of time, for
example, two years.
    On August 11, 2017, EPA sent a second letter to those who had
requested reconsideration of the 2015 Rule, announcing the
Administrator's decision to conduct a new rulemaking to potentially
revise the new, more stringent BAT limitations and PSES in the 2015
Rule that apply to two wastestreams: FGD wastewater and bottom ash
transport water. See DCN SE06670. On August 14, 2017, EPA filed a
motion to govern further proceedings in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit, which explained that EPA intends to conduct further
rulemaking to potentially revise the new, more stringent BAT/PSES
requirements in the 2015 Rule applicable to FGD wastewater and bottom
ash transport water, and requested, in part, that the Court sever and
hold in abeyance all judicial proceedings concerning portions of the
2015 Rule related to those particular requirements. On August 22, 2017,
the Court granted EPA's motion.
    In an earlier action, EPA administratively postponed certain
compliance dates that had not yet passed in part of the 2015 Rule
pursuant to Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act (``APA''),
5 U.S.C. 705, which states that ``[w]hen an agency finds that justice
so requires, it may postpone the effective date of action taken by it
pending judicial review.'' 82 FR 19005 (April 25, 2017). EPA had
postponed the compliance dates as a

temporary measure pursuant to Section 705 to preserve the status quo
while the litigation in the Fifth Circuit was pending and EPA's
reconsideration was underway. Because EPA has decided to conduct
further rulemaking to potentially revise the new, more stringent BAT
limitations and PSES in the 2015 Rule applicable to two specific
wastestreams (FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water), and it is
today finalizing a rule which postpones the associated compliance dates
in the 2015 Rule pending its next rulemaking, there is no longer any
need for the Agency to maintain its prior action pursuant to Section
705 of the APA. EPA, hereby, withdraws that action.

II. Summary of Comments Received

    EPA received thousands of written comments on the proposed rule to
postpone certain compliance dates in the 2015 Rule. EPA also held a
public hearing on July 31, 2017. The comments on the proposed rule
generally fall into one of four categories: (1) Support for
postponement of compliance dates; (2) opposition to the postponement of
compliance dates; (3) comments on the substantive requirements of the
2015 Rule (which are outside the scope of this action, which concerns
postponing certain compliance dates only); and (4) comments on the
length of time that EPA should postpone the compliance dates.
    Commenters that support the postponement rule generally assert that
the postponement is appropriate to prevent industry from spending
``unnecessary resources'' until EPA completes its reconsideration of
the 2015 Rule. Many commenters who support a postponement in compliance
dates state that, given the substantial costs required to implement
technology required to comply with the 2015 Rule, as well as the time
needed for designing and optimizing treatment systems, certainty in the
discharge requirements is needed and postponement of compliance dates
allows for that. In addition, commenters argue that the Agency has both
the authority and the responsibility to postpone the 2015 Rule until it
completes any rulemaking following its reconsideration process.
    Comments on the length of the postponement generally assert that
EPA should postpone the compliance dates for a minimum of two years,
until EPA has taken final action on any rule revisions, or some time
period beyond when EPA has taken final action on any rule revisions.
    Commenters that oppose the postponement rule generally assert that
(1) the technology bases underlying the 2015 Rule are widely available
and affordable now, many steam electric plants have already installed
or are in the process of implementing these technologies, and
postponing the compliance dates would hinder technology development;
(2) any postponement allows power plants to continue to discharge
pollutants that are harmful to public health and the environment, and
the forgone public health and environmental benefits during any
postponement outweigh the costs to industry; and (3) EPA lacks
authority to postpone the compliance dates.

III. Rationale for Finalizing a Postponement of Compliance Dates

    In light of new information not contained in the record for the
2015 Rule and the inherent discretion the Agency has to reconsider past
policy decisions consistent with the CWA and other applicable law, EPA
intends to conduct a new rulemaking regarding the appropriate
technology bases and associated limits for the BAT/PSES requirements
applicable to FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water discharged
from steam electric power plants. Given this, and after carefully
considering comments received on the proposed rule, EPA finds it
appropriate to postpone the earliest compliance dates for the new, more
stringent, BAT effluent limitations and PSES applicable to FGD
wastewater and bottom ash transport water in the 2015 Rule until it
completes the new rulemaking. This maintains the 2015 Rule as a whole
at this time, with the only change being to postpone specific
compliance deadlines for two wastestreams. Thus, the earliest
compliance dates for plants to meet the new, more stringent FGD
wastewater and bottom ash wastewater limitations and standards in the
2015 Rule, which were to be determined by the permitting authority as a
date ``as soon as possible beginning November 1, 2018 . . .'', are now
to be determined by the permitting authority as a date ``as soon as
possible beginning November 1, 2020 . . . .'' EPA is not changing the
``no later than'' date of December 31, 2023, because EPA is not aware
that the 2023 date is an immediate driver for expenditures by plants
(petitioners had requested relief from the ``fast-approaching
compliance deadlines'' in the 2015 Rule), and EPA plans to take up the
appropriate compliance period in its next rulemaking. In order to be
absolutely clear about what is being postponed, the final rule includes
more precise regulatory text to implement the rule than was included in
the proposed rule.
    Agencies have inherent authority to reconsider past decisions and
to revise, replace or repeal a decision to the extent permitted by law
and supported by a reasoned explanation. FCC v. Fox Television
Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v.
State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983). See also
Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. EPA, 682 F.3d 1032, 1038 & 1043 (D.C.
Cir. 2012). Particularly relevant here, the CWA expressly authorizes
EPA to revise effluent limitations and standards. 33 U.S.C. 1311(d),
1314(b), (g)(1), (m)(1)(A), 1317(b)(2). Moreover, in doing so, Section
304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA directs EPA to consider several factors,
including ``other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate,'' and
the Agency is afforded considerable discretion in deciding how much
weight to give each factor. See, e.g., Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590
F.2d 1011, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1978). In this case, where EPA has decided
to undertake a new rulemaking, which may result in substantive changes
to the 2015 Rule, that is an appropriate factor to consider and one
that warrants the postponement of compliance dates for the new, more
stringent BAT and PSES requirements for two wastestreams in the 2015
Rule, until such a rulemaking is complete (i.e., EPA issues any final
rule that substantively revises the 2015 Rule or EPA decides not to
issue such a final rule). This will prevent the potentially needless
expenditure of resources during a rulemaking that may ultimately change
the 2015 Rule in these respects.
    As mentioned, some commenters stated that the record for the 2015
Rule demonstrates that the technologies underlying the new, more
stringent requirements for FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport
water are widely available and affordable. Notwithstanding statements
in the 2015 Rule record, certain parties have raised serious concerns
about the availability and affordability of the technology basis for
the FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water requirements in the
2015 Rule, and the Administrator wishes to take some time to carefully
review these requirements in light of those concerns and ensure any
such requirements are technologically available and economically
achievable within the meaning of the statute. EPA has discretion in
determining technological availability and economic achievability and
is not constrained by the CWA to make the same policy decision as the
former Administration, so long as its decision is reasonable. As
explained above, the Agency may

reconsider past policy decisions consistent with the Clean Water Act
and other applicable law. The Agency may also reconsider technical
determinations in light of new information submitted to the Agency that
was not in the record for the 2015 Rule. EPA intends to fully evaluate
all of the issues raised in the petitions, including concerns about:
Cost and impacts to steam electric facilities, public availability of
information on which the rule is based, lack of data for plants that
burn certain types of coal, and validity of certain pollutant data used
in EPA's 2015 Rule analysis. For example, petitioners raised concerns
about the numerical BAT limitations and PSES applicable to FGD
wastewater in the 2015 Rule. They assert that there are differences
among coal types that affect the performance and costs of biological
treatment and that EPA did not have data to demonstrate the performance
of biological treatment on all coal types. To resolve this concern,
following the rulemaking, industry collected (and continues to collect)
additional data on the performance of biological treatment for
different coal types. As another example, petitioners raised questions
about the inclusion and validity of certain data due, in part, to what
they assert are flaws in data acceptance criteria, obsolete analytical
methods, and the treatment of non-detect analytical results, which
petitioners believed resulted in an overestimation of pollutant
loadings for bottom ash transport water. EPA agrees that these are
important issues that warrant further consideration in conjunction with
the statutory factors for determining BAT for these wastestreams. EPA
thus intends to re-evaluate these and other concerns raised in the
petitions in the next rulemaking. EPA acknowledges that postponement of
certain of the 2015 Rule's compliance dates may be disruptive to
vendors and treatment technology suppliers. EPA, however, must also
consider the substantial investments required by the steam electric
power industry to comply with the BAT limitations and PSES,\3\ and that
certainty regarding the limitations and standards deserves prominent
consideration by the Agency when these limitations and standards may
change. As UWAG pointed out in its April 13, 2017 letter, ``a rule of
this magnitude and complexity requires substantial time to come into
compliance for multiple wastestreams. Detailed studies and planning,
followed by large capital expenditures and subsequent installation and
testing, are time-consuming.'' Companies have been evaluating their
compliance options and are reaching the point at which they will be
committing funds, incurring costs, or commencing construction to
install technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In the 2015 Rule, EPA estimated the total annualized pre-tax
compliance costs for the FGD and bottom ash requirements to be
$486.8 million. See DCN SE05978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the 2015 Rule, EPA estimated the costs associated with
compliance with the 2015 Rule's new requirements. For all applicable
wastestreams, EPA assessed the operations and treatment system
components, identified equipment and process changes that the plant
would likely make to meet the 2015 Rule, and estimated the cost to
implement those changes. This includes, among other things, the capital
costs of installing the technology (based on estimates of the
technology selected as representing the level of control) and the
operation and maintenance costs of operating the technology. See
Technical Development Document (``TDD''), pp. 9-1 through 9-52. EPA
estimated that the total post-tax annualized compliance costs would be
$339.6 million/year. See Regulatory Impact Analysis (``RIA''), Table 3-
2 (Option D).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA analyzed both pre-tax and post-tax costs. Pre-tax costs
provide insight on the total expenditures as initially incurred by
the plants. Post-tax costs are a more meaningful measure of
compliance impact on privately owned for-profit plants, and
incorporate approximate capital depreciation and other relevant tax
treatments in the analysis. RIA, p. 3-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2015 rulemaking record also describes evaluation of the initial
capital costs that regulated parties would incur in the near term (if a
stay were not in place) to meet the 2015 Rule's effluent limitations
and standards. For the purpose of analysis, in the RIA, EPA assumed
that all capital costs are incurred concurrently with technology
installation according to discharge permit renewal schedules, but EPA
realizes that feasibility studies and planning may need to be completed
in advance of that date. Specifically, plants would incur engineering
design costs, costs to acquire equipment, freight shipping costs to
transport equipment from manufacturers to the installation site, costs
for actions to prepare the site (such as installing concrete
foundations and buildings for the new equipment), and construction
expenses associated with connecting electrical and piping systems to
new equipment. See TDD, p. 9-3. EPA estimated post-tax annualized
capital costs of $204.4 million/year. See RIA, Table 3-2 (Option D).
Although there is a wide degree of variability among the costs
particular plants would expend, EPA estimates that the average post-tax
annualized capital compliance costs for a plant would be approximately
$1.5 million/year. See TDD, Table 9-19 (plants with compliance costs);
RIA, Table 3-2 (Option D). To the extent that these costs are
associated with the 2015 Rule requirements for FGD wastewater and
bottom ash transport water, and in the event that EPA revises these
requirements in a future rulemaking, these are costs that would be
incurred for activities that ultimately might not be necessary. In that
case, this would reflect costs incurred by facilities and potentially
passed on to utility rate payers that ultimately did not need to be
spent.
    In light of these imminent planning and capital expenditures that
facilities incurring costs under the 2015 Rule would need to undertake
in order to meet the earliest compliance deadlines for the new, more
stringent limitations and standards in the 2015 Rule, and the fact that
the Agency is conducting a new rulemaking regarding the appropriate
technology bases and associated limits for BAT limitations and PSES
applicable to FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water, the Agency
views it as appropriate to postpone the earliest compliance dates that
have not yet passed for these wastestreams in 2015 Rule. This will
preserve the regulatory status quo with respect to requirements for FGD
wastewater and bottom ash transport water until the new rulemaking is
complete.
    Some commenters also express concerns that postponement of
compliance dates would hinder technology advancements. EPA's experience
does not support this concern. The record for the 2015 Rule
demonstrates that technology advancements were not hindered during that
rulemaking. Rather, as explained in the preamble to the final 2015
Rule, vendors continued to improve existing technologies and to develop
new technologies during the rulemaking leading up to the 2015 Rule.
    EPA acknowledges that postponement of the compliance dates could
lead to a delay in the accrual of some of the benefits attributable to
the 2015 Rule. The 2015 Rule required that steam electric power plants
would comply with the new, more stringent requirements no later than
2023, with plants expected to implement new control technologies over a
five-year compliance period of 2019-2023 according to their permit
renewal schedule. In the record for the 2015 Rule, EPA estimated the
value of certain benefits linked to reduced pollutant

discharges that could be monetized for the period 2019 through 2042.
Based on the 2015 Rule data and methodology, and depending on the
inclusion of the Clean Power Plan, EPA estimates that foregone
annualized benefits for a two-year delay would be between $26.6 million
and $33.6 million.\5\ EPA similarly estimates that plants would
experience annualized cost savings of between $27.5 million and $36.8
million as a result of a two-year delay. See DCN SE06668 for additional
details, including calculations of the foregone benefits and cost
savings. EPA understands that these estimates have uncertainty due to,
for example, the possibility of unexpected implementation approaches,
and thus that the actual cost savings could have been somewhat higher
or lower than estimated. Similarly, due to data and analysis
limitations, the forgone monetized benefits are likely underestimated.
These estimates, however, are consistent with and reflect the best data
and analysis available at the time of the 2015 Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The calculations are based on the benefits and costs
estimated for the 2015 Rule, which were detailed in the ``Benefit
and Cost Analysis for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source
Category'' (BCA) and ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power
Generating Point Source Category'' (RIA) reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that, as explained earlier, there is uncertainty as to
the FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water BAT/PSES requirements
while EPA conducts a new rulemaking. If EPA did not postpone the
compliance dates, industry would likely incur costs as it prepares to
comply with the 2015 Rule, irrespective of what EPA ultimately
determines to be BAT/PSES for FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport
water. By contrast, under the 2015 Rule, even if permits were written
today, the earliest those permits would have required compliance with
the limitations and standards at issue are ``as soon as possible
beginning November 1, 2018.'' So, while some companies would have to
plan to comply and spend money right away, the benefits would not begin
to accrue until 2018, at the earliest. Also, these benefits may not be
lost if a permitting authority requires similar effluent limitations
where necessary to meet applicable water quality standards, under CWA
section 301(b)(1)(C). EPA has carefully weighed the concerns about
potentially foregone benefits with the consideration of the costs that
could needlessly be incurred should the requirements be changed, as
well as the overall uncertainty and potential confusion that would be
caused by imposing the 2015 Rule requirements while simultaneously
undertaking rulemaking that may change those requirements. On balance,
EPA has concluded the more reasonable approach is to postpone the
compliance dates in the 2015 Rule.
    Thus, EPA agrees with commenters who argue that it should postpone
the new, more stringent BAT/PSES requirements for FGD wastewater and
bottom ash transport water in the 2015 Rule until it completes a new
rulemaking on these wastestreams. After reflecting on the time it
typically takes the Agency to propose and finalize revised effluent
limitations guidelines and standards, and in light the characteristics
of this industry and the anticipated scope of the next rulemaking, EPA
projects it will take approximately three years to propose and finalize
a new rule (Fall 2020). See DCN SE06667. Consequently, EPA is
postponing the earliest compliance dates for the new, more stringent,
BAT effluent limitations and PSES for FGD wastewater and bottom ash
transport water for a period of two years (November 1, 2020).\6\ To the
extent that commenters believe a postponement under this rule should
last beyond the time it takes EPA to complete its new rulemaking, such
comments are appropriately considered as part of, and in light of, that
new rulemaking and not this action. As explained, this rule is intended
only as a relatively short-term measure until EPA completes the next
rulemaking, and EPA anticipates that the next rulemaking will
necessarily address compliance dates in some fashion. Although EPA
proposed to postpone the compliance dates for the new, more stringent
requirements applicable to fly ash transport water, gasification
wastewater, and flue gas mercury control (FGMC) wastewater, in addition
to the requirements for FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water,
this final rule does not postpone those former compliance dates.
Commenters stated that EPA has no basis to postpone compliance dates
for requirements that parties have not expressly argued should be
reconsidered, such as those for fly ash transport water and FGMC
wastewater. EPA agrees that the final rule should postpone only those
requirements that the Agency plans to potentially revise in the next
rulemaking. Because EPA is not conducting a new rulemaking concerning
any of the other issues addressed by the 2015 Rule, including
requirements for fly ash transport water, gasification wastewater, and
FGMC wastewater, EPA is not changing the compliance dates for these
wastestreams or any of the other compliance dates for the requirements
in that Rule. The record for the 2015 Rule demonstrates that changes
associated with converting a fly ash system are unrelated from an
engineering perspective to conversions/upgrades for bottom ash
transport water and FGD treatment systems. Converting a fly ash system
requires installing a silo to capture the dry fly ash, which is
subsequently transported offsite to beneficial reuse markets (e.g.,
cement plants) or landfilled. Bottom ash is handled separately,
regardless of whether it is wet or dry. The same is true for FGD
wastes. EPA recognizes however, that from a financing and long-term
planning perspective, there are advantages to a facility in knowing the
full suite of requirements it will need to comply with over a longer
term planning horizon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ If EPA does not complete a new rulemaking by November, 2020,
it plans to further postpone the compliance dates such that the
earliest compliance date is not prior to completion of a new
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some facilities commented that they may need to know what the
ultimate requirements will be for bottom ash transport water and FGD
wastewater to assist them in considering alternatives for meeting the
requirements for the other waste streams (fly ash transport water and
FGMC wastewater) for which EPA is not postponing the earliest
compliance dates. EPA notes that there continues to be discretion under
the 2015 Rule for permitting authorities to consider: Time needed to
``expeditiously plan (including time to raise capital), design,
procure, and install equipment'' to comply with the rule; changes being
made at the plant to comply with several other rules; and ``other
factors as appropriate'' in determining exactly when, within a
specified compliance period, the 2015 Rule's new, more stringent
limitations apply to any given plant. See 40 CFR 423.11(t).
    In light of the compliance date postponements being finalized
today, in determining the ``as soon as possible date,'' EPA believes it
would be reasonable for permitting authorities to consider the need for
a facility to make integrated planning decisions regarding compliance
with the requirements for all of the wastestreams currently subject to
new, more stringent requirements in the 2015 Rule, as well as the other
rules identified in Sec.  423.11(t) to the extent that a facility
demonstrates such a need. This could include harmonizing schedules to
the extent provided for

under the 2015 Rule \7\ for meeting the 2015 Rule requirements for fly
ash transport water and FGMC wastewater to allow time for a facility to
have certainty regarding what their ultimate requirements will be under
the steam electric ELGs, as well as the requirements under the other
rules listed in Sec.  423.11(t).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For any final effluent limitation that is specified to
become applicable after November 1, 2018, the specified date must be
as soon as possible, but in no case later than December 31, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule is effective immediately upon publication. Section 553(d)
of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), provides that
publication of a substantive rule must be made no less than 30 days
before its effective date, subject to several exceptions. Section
553(d)(1) establishes an exception for ``a substantive rule which
grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.'' The
exception in Section 553(d)(1) reflects the purpose of the 30-day
notice requirement, which is to give affected entities time to prepare
for the effective date of a rule or to take any other action which the
issuance of a rule may prompt. This rule fits within Section 553(d)(1)
because it postpones certain requirements on steam electric power
plants to control their pollutant discharges by two years, and as a
result, it relieves a restriction on regulated entities for that
period.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review; and,
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be
found in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated
with this action.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not involve any information collection
activities subject to the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

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. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This action maintains the 2015 Rule as a
whole at this time, with the only change being to postpone specific
compliance deadlines for two wastestreams. As described above, EPA
estimates that steam electric plants, including some small entities,
would experience annualized cost savings of $27.5 million as a result
of this two-year delay. We have therefore concluded that this action
will relieve regulatory burden for some directly regulated small
entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

    This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) because EPA previously determined that the
environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by the
requirements EPA is finalizing do not present a disproportionate risk
to children.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations 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.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards that would
require Agency consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272
note.

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

    This is a final rule to delay action, and it does not change the
requirements of the effluent limitations guidelines and standards
published in 2015. While the postponement in compliance dates could
delay the protection the 2015 Rule would afford to all communities,
including those impacted disproportionately by the pollutants in
certain wastewater discharges, this action would not change any impacts
of the 2015 Rule upon implementation. The EPA therefore believes it is
more appropriate to consider the impact on minority and low-income
populations in the context of possible substantive changes as part of
any future rulemaking.

L. Congressional Review Act

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is a not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 423

    Environmental protection, Electric power generation, Power plants,
Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.

    Dated: September 12, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
    For reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 423 as
set forth below:

PART 423--STEAM ELECTRIC POWER GENERATING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

0
1. The authority citation for part 423 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Secs. 101; 301; 304(b), (c), (e), and (g); 306; 307;
308 and 501, Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act

Amendments of 1972, as amended; 33 U.S.C. 1251; 1311; 1314(b), (c),
(e), and (g); 1316; 1317; 1318 and 1361).

0
2. Amend Sec.  423.11 by revising paragraph (t) introductory text to
read as follows:

Sec.  423.11   Specialized definitions.

* * * * *
    (t) The phrase ``as soon as possible'' means November 1, 2018
(except for purposes of Sec.  423.13(g)(1)(i) and (k)(1)(i), and Sec.
423.16(e) and (g), in which case it means November 1, 2020), unless the
permitting authority establishes a later date, after receiving
information from the discharger, which reflects a consideration of the
following factors:
* * * * *

Sec.  423.13   [Amended]

0
3. Amend Sec.  423.13 paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (k)(1)(i) by removing
the text ``November 1, 2018'' and adding the text ``November 1, 2020''
in its place.

Sec.  423.16   [Amended]

0
4. Amend Sec.  423.16 paragraphs (e) two times, and (g) by removing the
text ``November 1, 2018'' and adding the text ``November 1, 2020'' in
its place.

[FR Doc. 2017-19821 Filed 9-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P