UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/39/4

UNITED
NATIONS / EP
UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/39/4
/ United Nations
Environment
Programme / Distr.: General
12 July 2017
Original: English

Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to
the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer

Thirty-ninth meeting

Bangkok, 11–14 July 2017

Items6 of the provisional agenda[*]

Summary of the workshop on safety standards relevant to the safe use of low-global-warming-potential alternatives

Note by the Secretariat

  1. The annex to the present note contains a summaryof the workshop on safety standards relevant to the safe use of low-global-warming-potential alternatives that was held in Bangkok on 10 July 2017.
  2. The summary, which is set out in the annex to the present note, is reproduced as received by the Secretariat, without formal editing.

Annex

Summary on the Workshop on Safety Standards Relevant to the Safe Use of

Low Global-Warming-Potential (GWP) Alternatives

Bangkok, 10 July 2017

Introduction

Under the Kigali amendment to the Montreal Protocol, alternative substances and technologies with low GWP will be increasinglyused. For many such alternatives, the low GWP is related to a low atmospheric lifetime, typically caused by a higher reactivity. As a consequence, many of these substances are flammable. The flammability, while already a fact for a number of sectors (in foams and aerosols) is for many refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat pump (RACHP) sectors a new characteristic, requiring changes in related standards to facilitate safe design, production and use of RACHP products.

A one-day workshop was organised by the Ozone Secretariat in accordance with decision XXVIII/4 taken by the parties at MOP 28 in Kigali. The decision requested “a workshop on safety standards relevant to the safe use of low GWP alternatives”, to be held back-to-back with OEWG 39.

The objectives of the meeting were to improve understanding of the types of safety standard that affect use of low GWP alternatives, to identify barriers that need to be overcome and to raise awareness amongst stakeholders.

The meeting involved a total of 28 speakers, supported by 3 facilitators and 4 rapporteurs. The meeting was structured in five sessions:

  1. Overview of the relevant international safety standards and the process for developing and revising them;
  2. Identifying limitations to the uptake of alternatives that could be addressed with changes to existing safety standards.
  3. Relationship between international and national safety standards.
  4. Co-operation between stakeholders to maximise the opportunities for the safe use of alternatives.
  5. Summary

A set of three briefing notes were prepared by the Ozone Secretariat in advance of the Workshop to help participants better understand the standards making process.

Background to RACHP safety standards

International safety standards are usually developed by independent bodies drawing on technical expertise from many countries. The international bodies responsible for RACHP standards are the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). They work with related National Bodies in most countries. Speakers at the workshop mentioned that ISO has a total of 163 member countries and IEC 83 member countries and 87 affiliate member countries. Other standard bodies operate at regional or national level, such as the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation (CENELEC); the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), Underwriters Laboratories (UL) and the American Society for Heating, Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE).

There are numerous standards that address safety of RACHP systems. Some only relate to RACHP systems, others apply more generally to many industry sectors.

RACHP safety standards are as such advisory in nature; they become mandatory if national or sub-national government bodies establish legislation that mandate compliance, often by incorporating them into national or sub-national building codes. Without such specific legislation, standards may be entirely voluntary. In some countries, though, they are considered as one of the ways by which conformity to national regulations is achieved, even without mentioning them specifically. Many countries or regions use the main international standards as a basis for their own standards, and might sometimes modify them somewhat to recognise local issues.

Four specific RACHP standards were referred to throughout the Workshop. These included 3 IEC “product standards” (i.e. standards referring to a specific and narrow product scope) and one ISO “generic standard” (i.e. standards that apply to almost all RACHP applications). Various other standards were also referred to in the Workshop.

Guiding principle for safety standard revisions

Repeatedly speakers stated as a guiding principle for the development of standards, that the risk associated with the use of RACHP products with alternative lower GWP refrigerants should not be higher than the risks implied in current standards.

Flammability Classification

Many speakers referred to the safety classifications of different refrigerants. Flammability exists across a continuous spectrum from non-flammable to very flammable. Various RACHP standards now use four different classifications for refrigerant flammability:

Class 1: non-flammable

Class 2L: lower flammability

Class 2: flammable

Class 3: higher flammability

Most low GWP alternatives are either Class 2L or Class 3. The Workshop participants discussed the wide range of issues related to the revision of standards for Class 2L and Class 3 refrigerants. Refrigerants also have a toxicity classification (either A or B for lower or higher toxicity). Most of the flammable refrigerants are lower toxicity, hence are referred to as either Class A2L or Class A3.

Technical issues

Some presentations and discussions informed on approaches of reducing risk associated with flammability, such as: reduction of refrigerant charge; elimination of ignition sources; requirements on room size and occupancy; leak detection sensors, combined withrisk mitigation measures such as shut-off valves or increased ventilation. It was pointed out that manufacturers have to consider the circumstances under and environments within which their products are operating, both of which cannot always be influenced.

The technical issues were identified as being very market sector specific. There are some market sectors where current standards are reasonable for flammable refrigerants; for example, the use of A3 refrigerant iso-butane in domestic refrigerators or propane in large water chillers located outdoors. However, for many other RACHP market sectors the current standards need revision; for example, the use of A3 refrigerants in small split air-conditioning or of A2L refrigerants in large multi-split air-conditioning or large commercial refrigeration.

Some participants expressed concerns that below certain charge/capacity ratios, efficiency of refrigeration systems is more difficult to achieve. Further concerns were identified in relation to the increased capacity needs in high ambient temperature countries. Both lead to higher charge amounts, with associated challenges to meet safety standards.

Participants asked about the connection between liability and safety standards. It was pointed out that liability aspects should not be overlooked when developing or revising safety standards.

Timing issues

A key issue discussed through the workshop was the long timescales involved in standards development and revisions. The driver for revising RACHP safety standards was clearly agreed to be the HFC phase-down process defined by the Kigali Amendment (and other regional HFC phase-down policies). The timescale for HFC phase-down under these policies is relatively fast. This contrasts with the lengthy process for developing international standards, taking many years. Revisions to several of the product standards discussed are close to completion, but even they will still need to be adopted at a national or sub-national level which also can be a very slow process.

National Ozone Officers should ensure not only that they themselves are aware of the safety standard issues, but also that they communicate with several stakeholders in their countries. Technical experts from, in particular, RACHP manufacturing industries could be encouraged to increase participation in National Bodies where feasible. National Ozone Officers could also liaise directly with the National Bodies and different regional, national and local authorities preparing relevant legislation, to ensure they understand the urgency of revising RACHP safety standards. The latter groups need to commence their respective work early to ensure timely adoption of national standards and/or subsequent legislation in order to achieve alignment with needed transitions to safely meet HFC phase-down commitments.

Current initiatives

The work on revising international safety standards for class 2L refrigerants is relatively well progressed as requests for inclusion of A2Ls caused the standard revision process to be initiated in 2011. Revisions to product standards for air-conditioning and commercial refrigeration are well advanced, with new versions expected within a year. Further work on class 2L issues will still be required in the near future, to maximise potential for the use of class 2L refrigerants.

Forclass 3 refrigerants progress is lagging somewhat behind as requests for evaluation of these charge sizes was only initiated in 2015. This is the work area identified by some workshop participants as the highest priority. A revision to class 3 charge size allowed in the standard for commercial refrigeration (IEC 60335-2-89) is expected within a year. However, current work on the air-conditioning product standard (IEC 60335-2-40) or the ISO (5149) generic RACHP standardseems not likely to finalise changes related to class A3 refrigerants for several years. Expressed stakeholder interest and technical support will facilitate acceleration of standards development in this area.

Technician training

The main RACHP safety standards support the development of equipment and address manufacturing, transport, and storage. However, the introduction of A2L and A2/A3 refrigerants in the RACHP sector will also require the improved training of technicians to use these refrigerants in installation, servicing, maintenance and at end of life. It should be noted, though, that technical competence levels and operating practices in different regions vary substantially. Technician training can be considered as important as the development of the safety standards for these refrigerants and products. In terms of certification of technicians, the standard EN 13313 “Competence of Personnel” was explained in the workshop, which defines the minimum requirements for RAC servicing technicians. This regional standard is currently being converted into an international standard.

Article 5 Country Participation in Standards Technical Committees

Standards committees strive for openness, lack of dominance and a balance of membership. However, the Workshop included extensive discussions about the limited involvement of A5 country experts. Very few are currently members of the relevant IEC or ISO committees. The barriers to involvement were considered and both ISO and IEC explained the ways in which they try to encourage A5 participation. It was agreed that greater participation would be beneficial to the standards development process.

It was commonly understood that for National Ozone Officers, an understanding of standards, the related processes and the topics covered is very meaningful. However, these Officers do not need to be experts in standards nor standardisation processes.

Stakeholder Awareness

IEC and ISO are responsible for over 30,000 different standards, of which only four specifically relate to RACHP equipment. Standards setting bodies working on the wide ranging issues related to flammable fluids do not currently include refrigerant experts. An important discussion was held about improving awareness of the need to use flammable refrigerants within relevant standards setting bodies. Their awareness of the Kigali Amendment and its need for revised standards was understandably low, in particular prior to this workshop. There was broad agreement that the Montreal Protocol community should clearly request to make changes, where necessary, to relevant international standards, and to stress the importance of rapid action.

1

[*]UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/39/1.