News > Policy News All about natural hydrocarbon refrigerants in cooling & refrigeration: News, Products, Jobs, Events, Knowledge, Forum, B2B Networking.The US EPA has published a long awaited proposed rule allowing the use of certain hydrocarbons in new household refrigerator and freezer equipment, as well as new stand-alone commercial refrigeration equipment. The US is one step closer in catching up with the rest of the world, where several millions of refrigeration equipment units already use ozone and climate friendly hydrocarbon refrigerants. ![]() related articles To the liking of these industry players that have been testing hydrocarbon equipment in the country, the US EPA is proposing to list four types of hydrocarbons, namely isobutane, propane, HCR-188C, and HCR-188C1 as acceptable substitutes, subject to use conditions, for ozone-depleting CFC-12 and HCFC-22 in household and light commercial applications. New equipment only; not intended for use as a retrofit alternative The four hydrocarbon refrigerants must be used only in new equipment that has been designed and manufactured specifically for use with the listed alternative refrigerant. Propane will thus be allowed in stand-alone retail food refrigeration, while the other three hydrocarbon refrigerants will be allowed in household refrigerators and freezers as well as their combinations. Existing equipment designed for other refrigerants may not be converted or retrofitted to use any of these four hydrocarbon refrigerants. Safety standards The hydrocarbon refrigerants may be used only in equipment that meets all requirements in Underwriters Laboratory (UL) Standard 250 10th edition regarding isobutane, HCR-188C, and HCR-188C1 in household refrigerators and freezers and UL 471 9th edition regarding propane in retail stand-alone equipment. UL has developed acceptable safety standards including requirements for construction, for markings, and for performance tests concerning refrigerant leakage, ignition of switching components, surface temperature of parts, and component strength after being scratched. Refrigerant charge size Reflecting standards UL 250 and UL 471, the US EPA is proposing the following charge size limits:
Other use conditions and recommendations Other use conditions and recommendations included in the proposed rule that the US EPA is seeking comments upon are:
The proposed rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register within one week. Following this, the US EPA will be accepting comments from the public within the next 60 to 75 days, depending on whether a public hearing on the issue is requested. 2010-05-05 03:23:48 - Brent Hoare I\'m sure we would all like our \'great and powerful friends\' to come clean about what took them so long to catch up with the rest of the world, but it stretches the imagination of even the most cynical to understand why they feel the need to adopt such a restrictive approach on charge limits in domestic appliances? More significantly, as much as the USEPA may not like it, North America continues to lead the world in the volume of hydrocarbon refrigerant that is safely used in the automotive servicing market, to the great and unsung benefit of our fragile atmosphere by replacing R134a, or smuggled CFCs. However the most important question I would like to pose is this: What will happen first? That the powers that be in the USA finally acknowledge that this application is actually safe, as proved by 15 years of experience (so far), and therefore permissible by law, or that sales volumes in the rest of the world will eclipse those of the North American market? I\'d love to be proved wrong, but I predict that the latter will be the case. Tragically, it is we, and our children..., who will pay the price of forgoing the emissions abatement that global recognition of the suitability of HCs in MACS could achieve in the near term. The main obstacle remains the intransigent and recalcitrant attitude of certain regulatory authorities, who really should know better than to believe everything they are told by those who have a lot to lose by a more rational appraisal of the suitability of HCs for use in existing, let alone optimised, MAC systems. If European industrialists, policy makers and regulators were to take a more active interest in this debate, I would be very happy to revise this pessimistic assessment - in the face the laudable restriction of R134a and the current deadlock between CO2 and the toxic and flammable R1234yf, surely the ball is your court? |