Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: HFC Ban Off

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    42
    Post Likes

    Thumbs up HFC Ban Off

    With the new ruling by the District Court of Appeals, looks like HFC ban is off.


    Thoughts?

  2. Likes NETWizz liked this post
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Hamersville, Ohio
    Posts
    6,412
    Post Likes
    What does the Ruling State?

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    42
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    https://www.achrnews.com/articles/13...view?v=preview


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. Likes DavidDeBord liked this post
  6. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Hamersville, Ohio
    Posts
    6,412
    Post Likes
    "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has denied a petition filed by Honeywell, The Chemours Co., and the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The petition had asked the court to review its August 2017 decision in an appeal brought by Mexichem Fluor and Arkema (Mexichem Fluor Inc. vs. the Environmental Protection Agency). In that appeal, the court ruled 2-1 that the EPA cannot ban HFCs under Section 612 of the Clean Air Act because that provision was designed only to address ozone-depleting substances.

    By denying the petition filed by Honeywell, Chemours, and the NRDC, the court upheld its ruling: no EPA ban under Section 612.

    A key to the court’s ruling was that although HFCs are among the greenhouse gases suspected of contributing to climate change, they do not deplete the ozone layer. "

    "The ruling struck down an Obama administration executive order. The order, which was part of Obama’s 2013 Climate Action Plan, had indicated the EPA would use its authority through the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program of Section 612 to reduce HFC emissions. To that end, in 2015, EPA issued a rule that restricted manufacturers from making certain products that contain HFCs

    Mexichem and Arkema petitioned for review of the EPA’s 2015 rule. They raised two main arguments: First, the 2015 rule exceeded EPA’s statutory authority under Section 612, and, second, the EPA’s decision to remove HFCs from the list of safe substitutes was arbitrary and capricious because EPA failed to adequately explain its decision and consider several important aspects of the problem. The court agreed on the first point but dismissed the arbitrary and capricious argument."


  7. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1
    Post Likes
    Will be interesting to see how and when this will directly affect us in the field.

    Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

  8. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    42
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    That’s what I am curious to see as well. Especially with 134a.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. Likes DavidDeBord liked this post
  10. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,156
    Post Likes
    So 410a, 134a, 407c aren't going anywhere anytime soon I take it

  11. Likes NETWizz liked this post
  12. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    42
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    Not from what I can see in that article. It would be nice if they could keep backing up a bit more and include R-22. Though I am happy they are planning on keeping the 134a. The new stuff does not work well at all.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. Likes joestratton1, DavidDeBord, Robber liked this post
  14. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    1,416
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by psehunter View Post
    So 410a, 134a, 407c aren't going anywhere anytime soon I take it
    The big refrigeration companies have to much money invested in these earth saving new flavors, they will get their way eventually. But for now 404a is back to being legal for installs. Think Honeywell and chemours will be dropping their price on 448a and 449a to move a little product at least.

  15. Likes airfreightex, DavidDeBord liked this post
  16. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Southold, NY
    Posts
    22,269
    Post Likes
    Unfortunately new package equipment does not use 404A. As per 1-1-18 Mandate. I dont see manufactures retooling to go back.

    EPA is appealing the ruling but that takes time and there budget is being slashed so I feel there just going to throw in the towel and spend what few dollars they have on other issues.

  17. Likes DavidDeBord liked this post
  18. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    42
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by pecmsg View Post
    Unfortunately new package equipment does not use 404A. As per 1-1-18 Mandate. I dont see manufactures retooling to go back.

    EPA is appealing the ruling but that takes time and there budget is being slashed so I feel there just going to throw in the towel and spend what few dollars they have on other issues.
    Yeah I definitely agree with you there. Though I am hoping the price of 134a will dip down a bit again.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  19. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    1,416
    Post Likes
    Put some Zero Zone self-contains in last week, they came with R448a in them. The medium temp Hydra Cool units had 404a in them though. The build date on them were from 2017.. Doing a couple more tomorrow, will have to see what they got in them if they were built this year.

  20. #13
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    6,270
    Post Likes
    How are we going to carry so many flavors of gas in out vans, we have the ancient stuff, the old stuff, and now the new stuff?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •