Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » Legality of Duracool or Hc12a (What would your insurance co. say?)
| Legality of Duracool or Hc12a [message #97639] |
Sat, 28 August 2010 12:10  |
zhagrieb
Messages: 676
Registered: August 2009
Location: Portland Oregon
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Here's an article from the friendly feds about using any variety of Hc12a refrigerant in a vehicle:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/hc-12a.html
Should your system blow and start a fire would your insurance pay?
Glenn
SEPTEMBER 1, AN UPDATE:
Isn't it amazing where this thread has gone? Reminds me of the old parlor game "pass it on". I tell you a story, you pass it to the next guy, he to the third and so on till it gets back to me. Then we have a good laugh at how it has changed.
No one had a comment about the original question, even the insurance guys. One who responded wanted to know about my propane tank (it's doing just fine and thanks you for asking). One asked if I'd ever experienced a system blowout (yes I have and it was quite exciting as a major cloud of vapor enveloped a number of cars and an 18 wheeler at 65 MPH). It wasn't Duracool, probably R12.
The major reaction to the post clearly was to be defensive of Duracool. What I took away from the exercise:
"THEY'LL HAVE TO PRY MY DURACOOL FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS".
Oh, and by the way, I too am using Duracool.
Glenn
Glenn Giere, Portland OR, K7GAG
'73 "Moby the Motorhome" 26'
[Updated on: Wed, 01 September 2010 10:51] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Legality of Duracool or Hc12a [message #97641 is a reply to message #97639] |
Sat, 28 August 2010 12:43  |
emerystora
Messages: 4442
Registered: January 2004
Karma: 13
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Aug 28, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Glenn Giere wrote:
>
>
> Here's an article from the friendly feds about using any variety of Hc12a refrigerant in a vehicle:
>
> http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/hc-12a.html
>
> Should your system blow and start a fire would your insurance pay?
>
> Glenn
>
Glenn
That "article" is over 10 years old.
Here is something that I had posted to the GMCnet about 7 years back. It still holds true. Pay close attention to the information about fires and auto collisions.
----------------------------------
For a number of years now there have been many messages posted on the GMCnet about the use of hydrocarbon refrigerants to replace R-12 or R-134a. Products such as Duracool and HC-12a, which are both mixtures of Propane and Iso-butane, are currently being used my many GMCers.
Recently there have been warnings on the GMCnet against their use, primarily because of their flammability
I felt it might be good to examine the reported track record of hydrocarbon refrigerants.
Major conversion of car air conditioners from fluorocarbon to hydrocarbon refrigerant commenced in the USA in Idaho during 1992. I have been looking on the Internet for statistics and find that today over 10 million car air conditioners worldwide have been converted, about half of these in North America, and over 30 million user years have accumulated. Almost all of these have been drop-in conversions usually costing less than US$50. Indonesia, Korea, Philippines, China, Canada, Australia, Japan and other countries also have many systems with drop-in HC charges. In spite of this, there have been no reported fires, explosions or injuries to occupants caused by the flammability of hydrocarbon refrigerant in car air conditioners. Many cars with hydrocarbon refrigerant have had frontal collisions which punctured the condenser. Arthur D. Little, the well known consulting firm, estimated the frequency of the refrigerant catching fire from this common accident as once
in ten thousand user years, so over 3,000 such fires should have occurred worldwide; if this had happened it would have been big news and widely reported. But even so, no such fires have been reported. There are reports of such accidents with the refrigerant not catching fire. HC refrigerants have a condenser pressure 10% lower than HFC-134a, making catastrophic leaks many times less frequent. HC REFRIGERANT IS ONLY FLAMMABLE BETWEEN 2 AND 10% VOLUME CONCENTRATION IN AIR. It is non-flammable inside the refrigerant circuit where the concentration is always above 10%. HC refrigerants have a high leak and low flame velocity so an ignited leak tends to blow itself out. HC refrigerants have a lower density so the charged mass is only one fourth of HFC 134a. When this small charge leaks from the evaporator into the passenger cabin, air leaks keep it non-flammable by preventing the concentration from exceeding 2%. HC refrigerants also have an odorant added to he
lp prevent accidents.
Has any of the GMCnetters actually seen or even heard of an actual fire?
I feel it is a matter of personal choice as to one's aversion to risk. 1 in 50 million might be acceptable odds to some but might be unacceptable to others. I personally feel that 0.00000002 is sufficiently close to zero. So, the benefits of using HC refrigeration in my GMC far outweigh any fire risk in my mind. You have to make up your own mind on this, though.
Europe is currently undergoing a transition away from the use of R-134a due to its potential of adding to global warming. Many European countries signed the Kyoto Protocol (the USA did not). Replacements under consideration are hydrocarbon products for existing systems and a newly designed system using CO2 as the refrigerant. However, existing systems cannot use CO2. It will require a different heat exchanger and re-engineering of every component. The CO2 systems will have pressures in the range of 1500 psi to 2000 psi or more. This is about 10 times the pressure found in a conventional AC system. Mercedes has indicated that they may have a CO2 system by 2005.
The advantage of using hydrocarbons instead of HFC-134a is that the greenhouse effect of refrigerant leaks could be eliminated completely.
The only argument against HC blend refrigerants, the flammability issue, has proven to be a non-argument. Plus, the international community, as well as Greenpeace and the UN, are advocating the use of HC blend refrigerants in all applications. This in response to the Kyoto agreement which scheduled the phase-out of greenhouse gases as the Montreal Protocol scheduled the phase-out of ozone-depleting chemicals. The U.S. is not a signatory of the Kyoto agreement, probably because of HFC-134a.
One interesting site I found indicates:
> U.S. policy with regard to refrigerants and refrigeration is lagging behind the rest of the world. This is largely due to political pressure from a variety of pro-HFC groups that are closely linked to the company that held the original patent for Freon and currently holds the patent for HFC-134a -- Dupont. However, as Greenpeace observed, Japanese products are readily available to U.S. consumers and it is only a matter of time before Hitachi HC blend refrigerators are marketed in the states.
>
> Domestically produced HFC-134a cooling and refrigeration systems will be forced to compete with their more efficient, organic and non-toxic HC blend import counterparts. At that time American compressor and appliance manufacturers will have little choice but to follow the environmentally responsible lead that has been taken by the international refrigeration industry.
I am usually not a "conspiracy advocate", but it is interesting to note that duPont did indeed hold the patents for Freon R-12 and it contributed perhaps billions of dollars to their company's profits over the years. And, isn't it interesting that just when the patents they held on R-12 were running out that there was a major push to outlaw its manufacturer and to make R-134a the only "official" substitute. And, isn't it interesting to also note that the patents to R-134a are also held by duPont? Automotive air conditioning refrigerants are a multi-billion dollar industry in the United States and the company that can control most of the manufacturing has a tremendous incentive to lobby and do everything it can to keep its position in the industry intact.
Emery Stora
77 Kingsley
Santa Fe, NM
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
List Information and Subscription Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: Legality of Duracool or Hc12a [message #97642 is a reply to message #97639] |
Sat, 28 August 2010 13:22 |
JohnL455
Messages: 4447
Registered: October 2006
Location: Woodstock, IL
Karma: 12
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"EPA is aware that the following states prohibit the use of flammable refrigerants in automobile air conditioners: Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia."
Does that meas everone with a R134a vehicle is breaking the law? I thought R134a was flamable under the right conditions.
John Lebetski
Woodstock, IL
77 Eleganza II
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Legality of Duracool or Hc12a [message #97645 is a reply to message #97639] |
Sat, 28 August 2010 13:43 |
Ken Burton
Messages: 10030
Registered: January 2004
Location: Hebron, Indiana
Karma: 10
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Glenn Giere wrote on Sat, 28 August 2010 12:10 |
Here's an article from the friendly feds about using any variety of Hc12a refrigerant in a vehicle:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/hc-12a.html
Should your system blow and start a fire would your insurance pay?
Glenn
|
Probably they will say: "What component failed and caused the damage? What will it cost to fix the damage minus the cost of the failing component?" At least that is what they did on my engine fire.
Here is an interesting side note. On my engine fire the insurance company me a little $9,000 to fix the damage. About the only thing under the hood that did not need to be replaced was the AC system with the Duracool inside. I'm still running all of the before the fire components including the Duracool charge inside.
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showphoto.php?photo=17608&cat=4521
Ken Burton - N9KB
76 Palm Beach
Hebron, Indiana
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Legality of Duracool or Hc12a [message #97663 is a reply to message #97656] |
Sat, 28 August 2010 18:24 |
John Sharpe
Messages: 489
Registered: February 2006
Location: Texas
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Quote: |
Should your system blow and start a fire would your insurance pay?
|
How's the insurance company going to determine that HC12a is in the system? Who's going to tell them what to look for? It's called TMI. Keep your mouth shut!!!
They aren't going to call CSI anyway.
John Sharpe
Humble,TX
'78 Eleganza TBI
'89 Spectrum 2000 MPI V-10
'40 Ford Panel Delivery TPI
johnasharpe@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Legality of Duracool or Hc12a [message #97679 is a reply to message #97676] |
Sat, 28 August 2010 22:25 |
Sammy Williams
Messages: 522
Registered: August 2010
Karma: -2
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Careful:
2.What is DURACOOL 12aŽ? Is there a difference between HC-12aŽ and
DURACOOL 12aŽ?
DURACOOL 12aŽ has the same chemical composition as the HC-12aŽ
formulation that was submitted for SNAP review and was called
Hydrocarbon Blend B. Both HC-12aŽ and DURACOOL 12aŽ are different than
the new formulation of HC-12aŽ in six-ounce cans. DURACOOL 12aŽ is the
registered trademark of Duracool Limited, the Canadian company that
has manufactured DURACOOL 12aŽ since 1997. Duracool Limited and OZ
Technology, the manufacturer of HC-12aŽ, are separate, unrelated
companies with their own manufacturing facilities and distribution
mechanisms.
3.What is the legal status of hydrocarbon refrigerants such as HC-12aŽ
and DURACOOLŽ?
It has been illegal since July 13, 1995 to replace CFC-12 with the
HC-12aŽ formulation that was submitted for SNAP review in any
refrigeration or A/C application other than industrial process
refrigeration. The same prohibition for OZ-12Ž took effect on April
18, 1994. Because DURACOOL 12aŽ has the same chemical composition as
the HC-12aŽ formulation that was submitted for SNAP review (i.e.,
Hydrocarbon Blend B), DURACOOL 12aŽ is also subject to the same
restrictions.
HC-12aŽ, as reformulated to meet DOT requirements, is not the same as
Hydrocarbon Blend B and has not been submitted for SNAP review. OZ
Technology is therefore prohibited from marketing this blend as a
substitute for any ozone-depleting substance. In addition, any use of
this blend as a substitute for CFC-12 or any other ozone-depleting
chemical, in industrial process refrigeration or any other
refrigeration or A/C end use
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/hc-12a.html
From EPA's website.
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
List Information and Subscription Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Legality of Duracool or Hc12a [message #97691 is a reply to message #97679] |
Sun, 29 August 2010 01:00 |
John Sharpe
Messages: 489
Registered: February 2006
Location: Texas
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Quote: |
.......OZ Technology is therefore prohibited from marketing this blend as a
substitute for any ozone-depleting substance. In addition, any use of
this blend as a substitute for CFC-12 or any other ozone-depleting
chemical, in industrial process refrigeration or any other
refrigeration or A/C end use
|
It's not being substituted for CFC-12 or any other ozone-depleting chemical. It's being substituted for 134A. Because all our systems were converted to 134A. After that, they were converted to HC-12A.
OZ Technology is marketing this blend as a substitute for 134A, a non-ozone depleting substance.
John Sharpe
Humble,TX
'78 Eleganza TBI
'89 Spectrum 2000 MPI V-10
'40 Ford Panel Delivery TPI
johnasharpe@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Legality of Duracool or Hc12a [message #97702 is a reply to message #97679] |
Sun, 29 August 2010 09:10 |
fred v
Messages: 999
Registered: April 2006
Location: pensacola, fl.
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Sammy Williams wrote on Sat, 28 August 2010 22:25 |
Careful:
2.What is DURACOOL 12aŽ? Is there a difference between HC-12aŽ and
DURACOOL 12aŽ?
DURACOOL 12aŽ has the same chemical composition as the HC-12aŽ
formulation that was submitted for SNAP review and was called
Hydrocarbon Blend B. Both HC-12aŽ and DURACOOL 12aŽ are different than
the new formulation of HC-12aŽ in six-ounce cans. DURACOOL 12aŽ is the
registered trademark of Duracool Limited, the Canadian company that
has manufactured DURACOOL 12aŽ since 1997. Duracool Limited and OZ
Technology, the manufacturer of HC-12aŽ, are separate, unrelated
companies with their own manufacturing facilities and distribution
mechanisms.
3.What is the legal status of hydrocarbon refrigerants such as HC-12aŽ
and DURACOOLŽ?
It has been illegal since July 13, 1995 to replace CFC-12 with the
HC-12aŽ formulation that was submitted for SNAP review in any
refrigeration or A/C application other than industrial process
refrigeration. The same prohibition for OZ-12Ž took effect on April
18, 1994. Because DURACOOL 12aŽ has the same chemical composition as
the HC-12aŽ formulation that was submitted for SNAP review (i.e.,
Hydrocarbon Blend B), DURACOOL 12aŽ is also subject to the same
restrictions.
HC-12aŽ, as reformulated to meet DOT requirements, is not the same as
Hydrocarbon Blend B and has not been submitted for SNAP review. OZ
Technology is therefore prohibited from marketing this blend as a
substitute for any ozone-depleting substance. In addition, any use of
this blend as a substitute for CFC-12 or any other ozone-depleting
chemical, in industrial process refrigeration or any other
refrigeration or A/C end use
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/hc-12a.html
From EPA's website.
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
List Information and Subscription Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
any chance this whole thing is about using imported hc12a rather than domestically produced r134a? i'm assuming 134 is made here.
Fred V
'77 Royale RB 455
P'cola, Fl
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Legality of Duracool or Hc12a [message #97707 is a reply to message #97663] |
Sun, 29 August 2010 10:20 |
Patrick Flowers
Messages: 195
Registered: February 2004
Karma: -24
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Your insurance policy is a contract. Read it before you have a claim.
FWIW, I've never seen any exclusions for non-OEM fluids or refrigerants in
my auto policies.
Patrick
On Sat, August 28, 2010 7:24 pm, John Sharpe wrote:
>
>
> Quote:
>> Should your system blow and start a fire would your insurance pay?
>
>
> How's the insurance company going to determine that HC12a is in the
> system? Who's going to tell them what to look for? It's called TMI.
> Keep your mouth shut!!!
>
> They aren't going to call CSI anyway.
--
GMCnet Listmaster
'73 CanyonLands
Tyrone GA
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
List Information and Subscription Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Patrick Flowers
GMCnet Listmaster
'73 CanyonLands
Tyrone, GA
|
|
|
|
| Re: Legality of Duracool or Hc12a [message #97730 is a reply to message #97677] |
Sun, 29 August 2010 13:50 |
zhagrieb
Messages: 676
Registered: August 2009
Location: Portland Oregon
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bob,
Assume, however unlikely, your Duracool blows out and causes a fire. Don't you think a sharp adjuster form Amalgamated Insurance would be a bit curious why your AC coolant started the fire that destroyed your coach? And if the legality of using Duracool is at all suspect, would you expect Amalgamated to pay? Wouldn't matter that you had 50 gallons of gas in the tanks or that the possibility of Duracool flaming was slim or that you had a big tank of explosive propane along.
Insurance companies are not in business to pay claims. If there is any way for them to avoid doing so, they,ll take it.
Glenn
Glenn Giere, Portland OR, K7GAG
'73 "Moby the Motorhome" 26'
|
|
|
|
| Re: Legality of Duracool or Hc12a [message #97731 is a reply to message #97730] |
Sun, 29 August 2010 13:53 |
Keith V
Messages: 2337
Registered: March 2008
Location: Mounds View,MN
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
And that is why I never put the R12a sticker on.
I know, and thats all that matters.
But personally I would bet that I could put R12A . Duracool in big neon red letters all over the place the the adjuster would have no idea it's any different than R12
Keith Vasilakes
Mounds View. MN
75 ex Royale GMC
ask me about MicroLevel
Cell, 763-732-3419
My427v8@hotmail.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Legality of Duracool or Hc12a [message #97732 is a reply to message #97730] |
Sun, 29 August 2010 14:00 |
emerystora
Messages: 4442
Registered: January 2004
Karma: 13
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Aug 29, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Glenn Giere wrote:
>
>
> Bob,
>
> Assume, however unlikely, your Duracool blows out and causes a fire. Don't you think a sharp adjuster form Amalgamated Insurance would be a bit curious why your AC coolant started the fire that destroyed your coach? And if the legality of using Duracool is at all suspect, would you expect Amalgamated to pay? Wouldn't matter that you had 50 gallons of gas in the tanks or that the possibility of Duracool flaming was slim or that you had a big tank of explosive propane along.
>
> Insurance companies are not in business to pay claims. If there is any way for them to avoid doing so, they,ll take it.
>
> Glenn
It has been used in Australia for many, many years. It is used in many other countries. I was told a few years ago that Mercedes Benz was using it for factory fill in Germany but the couldn't in the USA. There has not been a recorded fire from Duracool.
I have absolutely no problem with your not wanting to use it but I hope that you are not trying to tell the rest of us to not use it. If you are I think that you will find that you have a very unresponsive audience.
Emery Stora
77 Kingsley
Santa Fe, NM
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
List Information and Subscription Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Legality of Duracool or Hc12a [message #97733 is a reply to message #97732] |
Sun, 29 August 2010 15:10 |
|
|
Insurance, to me, is equal to managing risk. It isn't equal to assuring the
worst such and such will happen.
If no one can come up with any empirical data stating Duracool has caused a
fire in a coach then it seems relatively safe to use. The other causes of
fires have higher probability and some things to take precaution against.
Byron Songer
1978 Royale by Coachmen
Louisville, KY
Personal - http://web.me.com/bnsonger
Eastern States - http://www.gmceast.com
Emery Stora wrote:
>
> On Aug 29, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Glenn Giere wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> Assume, however unlikely, your Duracool blows out and causes a fire. Don't
>> you think a sharp adjuster form Amalgamated Insurance would be a bit curious
>> why your AC coolant started the fire that destroyed your coach? And if the
>> legality of using Duracool is at all suspect, would you expect Amalgamated to
>> pay? Wouldn't matter that you had 50 gallons of gas in the tanks or that the
>> possibility of Duracool flaming was slim or that you had a big tank of
>> explosive propane along.
>>
>> Insurance companies are not in business to pay claims. If there is any way
>> for them to avoid doing so, they,ll take it.
>>
>> Glenn
>
> It has been used in Australia for many, many years. It is used in many other
> countries. I was told a few years ago that Mercedes Benz was using it for
> factory fill in Germany but the couldn't in the USA. There has not been a
> recorded fire from Duracool.
>
> I have absolutely no problem with your not wanting to use it but I hope that
> you are not trying to tell the rest of us to not use it. If you are I think
> that you will find that you have a very unresponsive audience.
>
> Emery Stora
> 77 Kingsley
> Santa Fe, NM
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
List Information and Subscription Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
--
Byron Songer
Full-timing to enjoy the USA
Former owner but still an admirer
GMC paint schemes at -
http://www.songerconsulting.net
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Legality of Duracool or Hc12a [message #97735 is a reply to message #97733] |
Sun, 29 August 2010 15:54 |
Don A
Messages: 895
Registered: October 2008
Location: Dallas, TX
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
It's also interesting to me (a former IRS agent) that the "article" on a .gov website contains no references to or citations of the actual law. This may be a handy summation for us comman folk, but it is just hearsay.
Don Adams Dallas, TX
'76 26' Glenbrook, '90 Sidekick
rebuilt by R Archer, powered by J Bounds, Koba
[IMG]http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/data/6109/G2.jpg[/IMG]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Nov 18 09:25:30 CST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01262 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
