Vol. 59 No. 53 Friday, March 18, 1994 p 13044 (Rule)
13854/13854
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 82
[FRL-4839-7]
RIN 2060-AD48
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
SUMMARY: This final rule promulgates the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) program for evaluating and regulating
substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals being phased out under
the stratospheric ozone protection provisions of the Clean Air
Act (CAA). In section 612 of the CAA, the Agency is authorized
to identify and restrict the use of substitutes for class I
and II ozone-depleting substances where the Administrator has
determined that other alternatives exist that reduce overall
risk to human health and the environment. EPA is referring to
the program that provides these determinations as the Significant
New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The intended effect
of this final rule is to expedite movement away from
ozone-depleting
compounds by identifying substitutes that offer lower overall
risks to human health and the environment.
In this final rule, EPA is both issuing decisions on the
acceptability and unacceptability of substitutes and promulgating
its plan for administering the SNAP program. To arrive at
determinations
on the acceptability of substitutes, the Agency completed a
crossmedia analysis of risks to human health and the environment
from the use of various substitutes in different industrial
end-uses. Results of this analysis are summarized in this final
rule, which covers substitutes in the following sectors:
Refrigeration
and air conditioning, foam blowing, solvents cleaning, fire
suppression and explosion protection, tobacco expansion, adhesives,
coatings and inks, aerosols, and sterilants. Analysis of
substitutes
in a ninth sector, pesticides, will be completed, and the resulting
decisions will be added to future SNAP determinations published
in the Federal Register. These sectors comprise the principal
United States industrial sectors that historically consumed
large volumes of ozone-depleting compounds.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on April 18, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to the rulemaking are contained
in Air Docket A-91-42, Central Docket Section, South Conference
room 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. The docket may be inspected between 8
a.m. and 12 noon, and from 1:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. on weekdays.
As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged
for photocopying.
Notifications, petitions or other materials required by this
final rule should be sent to: SNAP Coordinator, U.S Environmental
Protection Agency, (6205-J), 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC
20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Stratospheric Ozone
Information
Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 can be contacted for information on
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time or contact Sally
Rand at (202) 233-9739, Substitutes Analysis and Review Branch,
Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs,
Office of Air and Radiation (6205-J), 401 M Street SW., Washington,
DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this preamble, EPA describes the
final SNAP program in sections III through VIII. Although EPA
may include responses to certain comments throughout the
description
of the program, readers should see section III.D. for a discussion
of EPA's responses to public comment on major issues. See also
the Response to Comment document found in Docket A-91-42 for
a detailed response to comments on all issues.
I. Overview of Final Rule
This final rule is divided into eleven sections, including
this overview:
I. Overview of Final Rule.
II. Background.
A. Regulatory History.
B. Subgroup of the Federal Advisory Committee.
III. Section 612 Program.
A. Statutory Requirements.
B. Guiding Principles.
C. Implementation Strategy.
D. Response to Public Comment.
IV. Scope of Coverage.
A. Definition of Substitute.
B. Who Must Report.
V. Information Submission.
A. Overview.
B. Information Required.
C. Submission of Confidential Business Information.
D. Display of OMB Control Numbers.
VI. Effective Date of Coverage.
A. General Provisions.
B. Grandfathered Use of Unacceptable Substitutes.
VII. Notice, Review, and Decision-Making Procedures.
A. Substitutes Reviewed under SNAP Only.
B. Joint Review of New Substitutes under SNAP and the Toxic
Substances Control Act Premanufacture Notice (TSCA PMN)
Program.
C. Joint Review of Substitutes under SNAP and the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
D. Shared Statutory Authority with the Food and Drug
Administration
(FDA).
VIII. Petitions.
A. Background.
B. Content of the Petition.
C. Sufficiency of Data.
D. Criteria for Evaluating Petitions.
E. Petition Review Process.
IX. Listing of Substitutes.
A. Overview.
B. Format for SNAP Determinations.
C. Decisions Universally Applicable.
D. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning.
E. Foam Blowing.
F. Solvents Cleaning.
G. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection.
H. Sterilants.
I. Aerosols.
J. Tobacco Expansion.
K. Adhesives, Coatings and Inks.
X. Additional Information.
XI. References.
Appendix A: Class I and Class II Ozone-Depleting Substances.
Appendix B: Summary of Listing Decisions.
Appendix C: Data Confidentiality Claims.
II. Background
A. Regulatory History
The stratospheric ozone layer protects the earth from dangerous
ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation. Depletion of stratospheric ozone
allows more UV-B radiation to penetrate to the earth's surface.
Increased radiation, in turn, has been linked to higher incidence
of certain skin cancers and cataracts, suppression of the human
immune system, damage to crops and aquatic organisms, and increased
formation of ground-level ozone. Further, increased radiation
can cause economic losses from materials damage such as more
rapid weathering of outdoor plastics. (See 53 FR 30566 (August
12, 1988) for more information on the effects of ozone depletion.)
In response to scientific concerns and findings on ozone
depletion, the United States and twenty-three other nations
signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer on September 16, 1987. The original agreement set
forth a timetable for reducing the production and consumption
of specific ozone-depleting substances, including CFC-11, CFC-
12, CFC-113, CFC-114, CFC-115, Halon 1211, Halon 1301, and Halon
2402. EPA implemented the original Protocol through regulations
allocating production and consumption allowances equal to the
total amount of production and consumption granted to the United
States under the Protocol. (See 53 FR 30566.)
The Parties to the Montreal Protocol met in London June 27-
29, 1990 to consider amendments to the Protocol. In response
to scientific evidence indicating greater than expected
stratospheric
ozone depletion, the Parties agreed to accelerate the phaseout
schedules for the substances already controlled by the Protocol.
They also added phaseout requirements for other ozone-depleting
chemicals, including methyl chloroform, carbon tetrachloride,
and other fully-halogenated chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
On November 15, 1990, then-President Bush signed the Clean
Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. Title VI, section 604 of
the amended CAA requires a phaseout of CFCs, halons, and carbon
tetrachloride by 2000, which is identical to the London Amendments
to the Montreal Protocol, but with more stringent interim
reductions.
Title VI also differs from the London Amendments by mandating
a faster phaseout of methyl chloroform (2002 instead of 2005),
a restriction on the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)
after 2015, and a ban on the production of HCFCs after 2030.
In Title VI, section 602, the CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride,
and methyl chloroform are defined as class I substances; HCFCs
are referred to as class II substances. Appendix A of this final
rule lists the class I and class II substances identified in
the CAA.
In addition to the phaseout requirements, Title VI includes
provisions to reduce emissions of class I and II substances
to the ``lowest achievable level'' in the refrigeration sector
and to maximize the use of recycling and recovery upon disposal
(section 608). It also requires EPA to ban certain nonessential
products containing ozone-depleting substances (section 610);
establish standards and requirements for the servicing of motor
vehicle air conditioners (section 609); mandate warning labels
on products made with or containing class I or containing class
II substances (section 611); and establish a safe alternatives
program (section 612). The development and implementation of
the safe alternatives program under section 612 is the subject
of this final rule.
In October 1991, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
(NASA) announced new findings documenting ozone depletion over
the last decade that was more severe than had previously been
predicted by atmospheric modeling or measurements. In particular,
NASA found 2.9 percent ozone depletion over the northern mid-
latitudes over the past decade in summertime-the first time
a trend showing ozone depletion had been detected in the U.S.
during that time of year, when risks from depletion are greatest.
Partly in response to these findings, on February 11, 1992,
then-President Bush announced an accelerated phaseout schedule
for class I substances as identified in the CAA, as amended,
section 606. This final schedule, published in the Federal Register
(58 FR 65018; December 10, 1993), implements a January 1, 1996
phaseout of class I chemicals. The President also ordered an
accelerated review of substitutes that reduce damage to the
ozone layer. The expedited phaseout schedule and the President's
directive regarding alternatives added urgency to EPA's effort
to review and list substitutes for class I and II substances
under section 612.
B. Subgroup of the Federal Advisory Committee
In 1989, EPA organized the Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Advisory Committee (STOPAC) in accordance with the requirements
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. section
9(c). The STOPAC consisted of members selected on the basis
of their professional qualifications and diversity of perspectives
and provided representation from industry, academia, federal,
state, and local government agencies, non-governmental and
environmental
groups, as well as international organizations. The purpose
of STOPAC was to provide advice to the Agency on policy and
technical issues related to the protection of stratospheric
ozone.
In 1991, the Agency asked STOPAC members to participate in
subgroups to assist in developing regulations under title VI
of the CAA. EPA established a subgroup of the standing STOPAC
to guide the Agency specifically on development of the safe
alternatives program. The subgroup on safe alternatives met
twice. At the first meeting in May 1991, subgroup members reviewed
a detailed description of EPA's plans for implementing section
612. At this meeting, there was general agreement on the need
to issue a request for data to provide the general public with
an opportunity to furnish the Agency with information on
substitutes.
The group also agreed on the need to review substitutes as quickly
as possible to avoid any delay in industry's efforts to phase
out ozone-depleting substances.
At the second meeting of the subgroup, in July 1991, subgroup
members provided EPA with comments on a draft of the Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), which was prepared in
response to the conclusions of the first meeting. The comments
focused primarily on the draft discussion of EPA's plans for
implementing section 612 and refinements to a list of preliminary
substitutes that the Agency intended to review. Based on comments
received from the subgroup and other offices within EPA, a final
ANPRM was prepared and published in the Federal Register on
January 16, 1992 (57 FR 1984). Because the bulk of regulatory
development required under title VI has been completed, the
STOPAC has since been disbanded.
III. Section 612 Program
A. Statutory Requirements
Section 612 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to develop
a program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting
substances.
EPA is referring to this new program as the Significant New
Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The major provisions of
section 612 are:
Rulemaking-Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules
making it unlawful to replace any class I or class II substance
with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present
adverse effects to human health or the environment where the
Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces
the overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2)
is currently or potentially available.
Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes-Section
612(c) also requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes
unacceptable for specific uses. EPA must publish a corresponding
list of acceptable alternatives for specific uses.
Petition Process-Section 612(d) grants the right to any
person to petition EPA to add a substance to or delete a substance
from the lists published in accordance with section 612(c).
The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where the
Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the revised lists
within an additional 6 months.
90-day Notification-Section 612(e) requires EPA to require
any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I
substance to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before
new or existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce
for significant new uses as substitutes for a class I substance.
The producer must also provide the Agency with the producer's
unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes.
Outreach-Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator
shall seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities
and resources to assist users of class I and II substances in
identifying and developing alternatives to the use of such
substances
in key commercial applications.
Clearinghouse-Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to
set up a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product
substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are
available for products and manufacturing processes which use
class I and II substances.
B. Guiding Principles
EPA has followed several guiding principles in developing
the SNAP program:
1. Evaluate Substitutes Within a Comparative Risk Framework
The Agency's risk evaluation compares risks of substitutes
to risks from continued use of ozone-depleting compounds as
well as to risks associated with other substitutes. This evaluation
considers effects due to ozone depletion as well as effects
due to direct toxicity of substitutes. Other risk factors
considered
include effects on water and air quality, the potential for
direct and indirect contributions to global warming, and
occupational
health and safety. Any effects found to pose a concern will
be evaluated further to determine if controls are required.
EPA does not believe that a numerical scheme producing a single
index to rank all substitutes based on risks is appropriate.
A strict quantitative index would not allow for sufficient
flexibility
in making appropriate risk management decisions that consider
issues such as the quality of information supporting the decision,
the degree of uncertainty in the data, the availability of other
substitutes, and economic feasibility.
2. Do Not Require That Substitutes Be Risk-Free To Be Found
Acceptable
Section 612(c) requires the Agency to publish a list of
acceptable
and unacceptable substitutes. The Agency interprets this as
a mandate to identify substitutes that reduce risks compared
to use of class I or II compounds or to other substitutes for
class I or II substances, rather than a mandate to list as
acceptable
only those substitutes with zero risks. In keeping with this
interpretation, the Agency believes that a key goal of the SNAP
program is to promote the use of substitutes for class I and
II chemicals that minimize risks to human health and the
environment
relative to other alternatives. In some cases, this approach
may involve designating a substitute acceptable even though
the compound may be toxic, or pose other environmental risk
of some type, provided its use reduces overall risk to human
health and the environment as compared to use of class I or
class II substances or other potential substitutes.
3. Restrict Only Those Substitutes That are Significantly Worse
As a corollary to the above point, EPA does not intend to
restrict a substitute if it poses only marginally greater risk
than another substitute. Drawing fine distinctions concerning
the acceptability of substitutes would be extremely difficult
given the variability in how each substitute can be used within
a specific application and the resulting uncertainties surrounding
potential health and environmental effects. The Agency also
does not want to intercede in the market's choice of available
substitutes, unless a substitute has been proposed or is being
used that is clearly more harmful to human health and the
environment
than other alternatives.
4. Evaluate Risks by Use
Section 612 requires that substitutes be evaluated by use.
Environmental and human health exposures can vary significantly
depending on the particular application of a substitute. Thus,
the risk characterizations must be designed to represent
differences
in the environmental and human health effects associated with
diverse uses. This approach cannot, however, imply fundamental
tradeoffs with respect to different types of risk to either
the environment or to human health. For example, in the Agency's
consideration of global warming as a criterion under SNAP, EPA
has principally compared different global warming gases among
themselves, as opposed to attempting to establish some methodology
for comparing directly the effects of global warming and ozone
depletion.
5. Provide the Regulated Community With Information as Soon
as Possible
The Agency recognizes the need to provide the regulated
community
with information on the acceptability of various substitutes
as soon as possible. Given this need, EPA has decided to expedite
the review process by conducting initial risk screens for the
major substitutes now known to the Agency and to include them
in this final rulemaking. Future determinations on the
acceptability
of new substitutes will be published in quarterly updates to
the SNAP lists.
6. Do Not Endorse Products Manufactured by Specific Companies
While the goal of the SNAP program is to identify acceptable
substitutes, the Agency will not issue company-specific product
endorsements. In many cases, the Agency may base its analysis
on data received on individual products, but the addition of
a substitute to the acceptable list based on that analysis does
not represent endorsement of that company's products. Generally,
placement on the list merely constitutes an acknowledgement
that a particular product made by a company has been found to
be acceptable under SNAP.
7. Defer to Other Environmental Regulations When Warranted
In some cases, EPA and other federal agencies have developed
extensive regulations under other statutes or other parts of
the CAA that address any potential cross- or inter-media transfers
that may result from the use of alternatives to class I and
II substances. For example, ceasing to use an ozone-depleting
compound may in some cases entail increased use of chemicals
that contribute to tropospheric air pollution. These chemicals,
such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or hazardous air
pollutants
(HAPs), are already regulated under other sections of the CAA,
and determinations under the SNAP program will take these existing
regulations into account. Where necessary, the Office of Air
and Radiation will confer with other EPA program offices or
federal agencies to ensure that any regulatory overlap is handled
efficiently.
C. Implementation Strategy
Implementation of the SNAP program is directed towards
fulfilling
the general policy contained in section 612 of identifying
substitutes
that can serve as replacements for ozone depleting substances,
evaluating their effects on human health and the environment,
and encouraging the use of those substitutes believed to present
lower overall risks relative both to the ozone depleting compounds
being replaced and to other substitutes available for the same
end-use. Implementation of this policy involves four key
activities.
The first is to develop, promulgate, and administer a regulatory
program for identifying and evaluating substitutes. The second
activity is to undertake a review of the existing substitutes
based on criteria established for the program and then to publish
a list of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes by application.
The third activity is to review additional substitutes as they
are developed to allow their timely introduction into the
marketplace.
The fourth is to aggressively disseminate information about
those substitutes found to pose lower overall risk through a
clearinghouse and outreach program.
To expedite implementation of the SNAP program, EPA has not
only developed a screening process for examining the alternatives,
as discussed in this final rule, but has also completed an analysis
of many key substitutes based on the criteria presented here.
Section IX summarizes the results of this assessment. More detail
on the steps leading up to this final rule and the implementation
of the SNAP program is given below.
1. ANPRM and Request for Data
On January 16, 1992, EPA published in the Federal Register
an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) and Request
for Data (57 FR 1984). The ANPRM described in general terms
EPA's plans for developing the SNAP program and solicited public
comment on the Agency's planned approach. The ANPRM also included
an appendix listing substitutes that the Agency planned to include
in its initial substitute determinations. The ANPRM invited
industry to submit information on these substitutes and to identify
additional alternatives to be considered in the SNAP program.
The Agency received approximately one hundred comments from
industry, trade groups, and other federal agencies. These comments
contained information on potential substitutes for ozone-depleting
chemicals, as well as comments on the SNAP program as described
in the ANPRM.
2. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on SNAP Process and Proposed
Determinations
On May 12, 1993 EPA published in the Federal Register a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for SNAP (58 FR 28094). The NPRM
described the proposed structure and process for administering
the SNAP program and proposed determinations on the acceptability
of key substitutes. The Notice also contained the proposed
regulatory
language that would serve as the legal basis for administering
and enforcing the SNAP program.
In the NPRM, EPA recognized that notice-and-comment rulemaking
procedures were necessary to establish regulations governing
SNAP. EPA further concluded that rulemaking was required to
place any substance on the list of unacceptable substances,
to list a substance as acceptable only with certain use
restrictions,
or to remove a substance from either the list of unacceptable
or acceptable substitutes. EPA did not believe, however, that
rulemaking procedures were required to list alternatives as
acceptable with no restrictions. Such listings would not impose
any sanction, nor remove any prior license to use a substance.
3. Final Rulemaking
This final rule promulgates the SNAP process and the first
set of determinations on SNAP substitutes. The Agency may revise
these decisions in the future as it reviews additional substitutes
and receives more data on substitutes already covered by the
program. However, EPA expects future changes to the SNAP lists
to be minor, and thus not to represent an undue burden on the
regulated community. The principal changes the Agency expects
to make in the future are to add new substitutes or sectors
to the lists, rather than to change a substitute's acceptability.
Further, once a substitute has been placed on either the acceptable
or the unacceptable list, EPA will conduct notice-and-comment
rulemaking to subsequently remove a substitute from either list,
as described below in section VII. This final rule also addresses
comments that the Agency received on the NPRM, and incorporates
further data on substitutes received during the comment period.
4. Updates of SNAP Determinations
Three mechanisms exist for revising or expanding the list
of SNAP determinations published in this final regulation. First,
under section 612(d), the Agency will review and either grant
or deny petitions to add or delete substances from the SNAP
list of acceptable or unacceptable alternatives. Section VIII
of this final rule presents EPA's method for handling petitions.
The second means of revising or expanding the list of SNAP
determinations is through the notifications, described below,
which must be submitted to EPA 90 days before introduction of
a substitute into interstate commerce for significant new use
as an alternative to a class I or class II substance. These
90-day notifications are required by section 612(e) of the CAA
for producers of alternatives to class I substances for new
uses and by EPA regulations issued under sections 114 and 301
of the Act to implement section 612(c) in all other cases. Section
VII of this final rule discusses the Agency's approach for
processing
these notifications, including a strategy for integrating SNAP
notifications with other chemical review programs already being
implemented by EPA under authorities provided in the Toxic
Substances
Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Other parts of this final rule also
explain how the Agency addresses the overlap between SNAP
regulations
and regulations issued under other titles of the CAA.
Finally, the Agency believes that section 612 authorizes
it to initiate changes to the SNAP determinations independent
of any petitions or notifications received. These amendments
can be based on new data on either additional substitutes or
on characteristics of substitutes previously reviewed.
5. Outreach and Substitute Clearinghouse
Public outreach and the substitute information clearinghouse
comprise the technical assistance component of the SNAP program.
The purpose of this effort is to provide information for the
public to use in selecting acceptable substitutes. Sections
VII.A.3.f. and VII.A.3.g describe the Agency's approach for
establishing the clearinghouse and performing outreach.
D. Response to Public Comment
A document summarizing public comment on the NPRM in greater
detail is available in the public docket supporting this final
rule. The major programmatic issues raised by the commenters
and the Agency's response to them are described below. Major
comments specific to the eight SNAP industry sectors are addressed
in sections IX.D. through IX.K. of this final rule.
1. Scope of the SNAP Rule
a. Class II substances. One commenter supported EPA's position
that the Agency has the authority to review class II substances
under SNAP, particularly EPA's view that where little reduction
in ozone depletion potential (ODP) can be gained in going from
a class I substance to a class II substance, such as from methyl
chloroform to HCFC-141b, the substitution should be disallowed
under SNAP. Other commenters criticized this position, arguing
that the omission of any reference to class II substitutes in
section 612(e) clearly indicated Congressional intent that class
II substitutes not be subject to the SNAP program.
For this final rule, the Agency is including class II substances
under the scope of SNAP. The Agency disagrees with one commenter's
interpretation of the limitation in section 612(e). Section
612(c) specifically mandates that the Agency list unacceptable
and acceptable alternatives for class I or II substances. In
addition, the Agency believes that Congressional intent under
section 612 is to reduce the overall risk from the continued
use of ozone depleting substances (ODSs). The class II substances
range in ozone depletion potential (ODP) from 0.11 for HCFC-
141b to 0.02 for HCFC-123. In the evaluation of substitutes
completed for the NPRM, use of some class II substitutes up
to the time of their phaseout was identified as representing
significantly greater overall risk than use of other alternatives
available for a number of end-uses. Consequently, the Agency
believes lower overall risk to human health and the environment
can be achieved by including class II substitutes in SNAP. Despite
the limitation in section 612(e) to producers of class I
substances,
EPA believes it has authority under section 114 and section
301(a) to require submission of SNAP notifications with respect
to class II substances as necessary to enable EPA to carry out
its obligation under section 612 to evaluate both class I and
class II substances, as explained in the NPRM.
b. Review of existing versus new substitutes. A number of
commenters believed that EPA's SNAP program has no authority
to restrict existing substitutes, which companies may have switched
to in an effort to eliminate the use of CFCs prior to the
publication
of this final rule. Arguments in support of this position include
the prospective language of the statute, which says EPA must
make it ``unlawful to replace'' an ODS with a substitute deemed
unacceptable. Many of these commenters recommended grandfathering
of these existing uses, so as not to disrupt industry's transition
away from ODSs. An extension of this concern appears in several
comments, in which commenters expressed the fear that SNAP will
revisit prior decisions, removing substitutes previously deemed
acceptable as newer and more environmentally benign substitutes
are developed.
Under the Agency's interpretation of section 612, in order
to fulfill the Congressional mandate to review ``any'' substitute
substance that may present adverse effects to human health and
the environment, both new and existing substitutes must be included
under SNAP. In addition, section 612(e) specifically requires
notifying the Agency before new or existing chemicals are
introduced
into interstate commerce. EPA believes that class I and II
substances
are ``replaced'' within the meaning of section 612(c) each time
a substitute is used, so that once EPA identifies an unacceptable
substitute, any future use of such substitute is prohibited.
Under any other interpretation, EPA could never effectively
prohibit the use of any substitute, as some user could always
start to use it prior to EPA's completion of the rulemaking
required to list it as unacceptable. EPA believes Congress could
not have intended such a result, and must therefore have intended
to cover future use of existing substitutes.
c. Grandfathering in SNAP. Many commenters supported the
idea of grandfathering uses of existing substitutes, but felt
that the grandfathering should be broadened to include existing
uses of all substitutes which companies have invested in prior
to the promulgation of the SNAP final rule, and not just HCFC-
141b as proposed in the NPRM. Commenters argued that not doing
so would delay transition by creating uncertainty about the
useful life of alternatives.
One commenter argued that the grandfathering scheme EPA has
proposed with respect to HCFC-141b should be extended to existing
uses of perfluorocarbons (PFCs). The commenter notes that title
VI calls for regulation and elimination of ozone-depleting
substances
while in the commenter's opinion precluding regulation based
on global warming potential. Since PFCs have no ozone depletion
potential, the commenter argued that they are a better candidate
than HCFC-141b for grandfathering. One commenter proposed two
years past the date of an unacceptability determination as the
general grandfathering period.
In this final rule, the Agency will not grandfather existing
uses except in specifically identified cases. The grandfathering
provisions under SNAP do give the Agency flexibility to address
unacceptable listings that might disrupt industry's transition
away from ODSs. For this final rule, the Agency was not presented
with significant evidence from the public comments to believe
universal grandfathering of existing substitutes is warranted.
The Agency believes that given the diversity of the industries
covered under the SNAP program, a case-by-case review of
applications
using the banned substitute would be necessary to protect human
health and the environment. Moreover, EPA must be able to justify
any grandfathering on a case-by-case basis under the grandfathering
criteria established in the Sierra Club case, as described below
in section VI.B.
In the case of HCFC-141b, the Agency has elected to maintain
the proposed grandfathering period for existing uses, since
many users switched to HCFC-141b when it was believed to offer
sufficient risk reduction. In comparison, for perfluorocarbons,
the Agency has made clear from the beginning of their suggested
use as substitutes that the Agency has concerns about the global
warming potential of these chemicals. EPA believes, therefore,
that an extended grandfathering period in this case is not
warranted.
However, the Agency agrees to grandfather for use, existing
supplies of a substitute in the possession of an end-user as
of March 18, 1994. Therefore, persons who transitioned to a
substitute for an end-use prior to this final rule may continue
use of all existing supplies of the substitute purchased prior
to March 18, 1994 until that supply is exhausted. As of the
effective date of this final rule, only substitutes purchased
prior to March 18, 1994 can be used. Under the four-part test
to judge the appropriateness of grandfathering (see section
VI.B of this final rule), the Agency determined that, on balance,
the results of this test favors this action.
Existing inventory of final products manufactured with or
containing a substitute designated unacceptable as a result
of final EPA rule-making within an end-use covered under SNAP
could theoretically be legally sold after listing. Producers
should be aware, however, that they will be effectively barred
from selling a substitute for use once it has been deemed
unacceptable
under SNAP, because potential purchasers will not be able to
use it. After the effective date of this final rule, users will
not be able to use any additional supply of a banned substitute
purchased after the publication date of the unacceptable listing.
d. Exemption for small sectors and small volume uses. In
the NPRM, EPA proposed to exempt small volume use applications
requiring less than 10,000 pounds per year of an ODS substitute
from SNAP review. This proposal generated substantial confusion.
Many commenters pointed out that the 10,000 pounds exemption
from reporting and review under SNAP was vague, and asked for
additional clarification. Specifically, commenters asked whether
EPA intended the 10,000 pound limit to apply at the process,
plant, company, or sector level. If applied at the sector level,
some commenters noted that an individual end-user might have
enormous difficulty compiling volume information related to
the behavior of an entire industry sector.
In response to these comments, EPA has decided to maintain
the small use exemption but provide the needed additional
clarification
of the Agency's intent. The Agency will exempt from the section
612(e) notification requirements substitutes used in quantities
of 10,000 pounds or less per year within a major industrial
sector covered under SNAP. The responsibility for reporting
under the notification requirement for SNAP falls on those
introducing
substitutes into interstate commerce, not on the individual
end-user. Similarly, relief from reporting, if within the bounds
of the small use and sector exemption as defined, rests with
the same person.
The Agency believes the burden of responsibility for determining
whether use of a substitute will be small should reside at the
same level as the notification requirement. That is, it should
be the responsibility of the introducing agent to determine
whether use of a particular substitute in a given sector is
likely to remain below 10,000 pounds per year. The Agency continues
to believe that focusing the listing decisions on the substitutes
sold in the largest volumes will allow the Agency to target
its regulatory efforts to those applications that offer the
maximum risk reduction potential.
Many commenters generally supported EPA's exemption for small
industrial sectors, arguing that the administrative burden imposed
by a SNAP review of all possible substitutions is unjustified
by the likely risks posed by these uses. For this final rule,
the Agency will continue to exempt small sectors and small volume
uses within major industrial sectors from reporting
responsibilities
under SNAP.
e. Designation of submitters/reporting responsibilities.
Many of the public comments on the NPRM expressed general support
for the flexibility of the reporting requirements, noting it
is sensible to require notification from the person most suited
to have the relevant information. However, some confusion has
arisen as to the implementation and enforcement of these
requirements.
The Agency agrees with public comment that the designation
of submitters or reporting responsibility needed clarification
in this final rule. For this final rule then, reporting
responsibility
rests with the person who introduced the substitute into interstate
commerce in its final form. As such, the producer could potentially
be a manufacturer, formulator, or an end-user. Identification
of designated submitters is further detailed in section IV.B.
f. Exemption for second-generation substitutes. Many commenters
supported EPA's exemption for second-generation substitutes.
However, several asked for clarification of regulatory language
setting out this exemption. They note that the definition left
plenty of room for advances in the science to calculate
increasingly
small contributions to ozone depletion added by hitherto
unsuspected
compounds, thereby constantly broadening the scope of SNAP as
new concerns develop. They ask that EPA clarify that SNAP should
only apply to substitutes for class I or class II compounds.
EPA agrees with these comments and has clarified in section
IV.A.2.f. that the definition of second-generation applies only
to substitutes for class I or class II compounds in this final
rule.
2. SNAP Determination and Listing Process
a. Allowing for assured minimum periods of use. Numerous
commenters expressed a need for a minimum assured time period
of use for acceptable substitutes in order to facilitate the
fastest possible transition away from class I substances. Some
commenters suggested that this assured minimum period should
be established based on some economic measure, such as the lifetime
of equipment in which the compound is to be used, or the overall
payback period for investment in modifications to allow the
use of a transitional compound. One commenter suggested the
use of risk analysis to define the assured minimum period. Other
commenters suggested 10 years as the appropriate period.
The Agency believes Congress enacted provisions under section
612 which make a minimum assured time period for use of a
substitute
neither authorized nor necessary under SNAP. As described in
section VIII of this final rule, a petition under section 612(d)
to change a listing from acceptable to unacceptable or vice
versa must include adequate data. In addition, any change will
be formally promulgated as a rulemaking, which requires EPA
to propose, take public comment, and complete final action for
any decision. If the decision is made to change a listing for
a substitute from acceptable to unacceptable, the grandfathering
provisions of this final rule provide the Agency with the
flexibility
in appropriate cases to provide time after a substitute is removed
from the list of acceptable substitutes to allow persons who
are then using the substance, or who have expended considerable
efforts in good faith toward its use, to find a different
substitute
and recover their investment in prior substitutes.
3. SNAP Information Form
a. Use of global warming potential. Some commenters argue
that EPA has no legal authority under section 612 to regulate
substitutes based on global warming. One commenter noted that
during the development of title VI, Congress deliberately excised
global warming from the statute, and that legislative history
of title VI thus argues against reliance on global warming as
a regulatory criterion under SNAP. Finally, a commenter asserted
that not only the Congress, but the President also believes
that ozone depletion and global warming should be treated
separately.
The Agency believes that the Congressional mandate to evaluate
substitutes based on reducing overall risk to human health and
the environment authorizes use of global warming as one of the
SNAP evaluation criteria. Public comment failed to identify
any definition of overall risk that warranted excluding global
warming. Further, in October 1993, the President directed EPA
through the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) to use its authority
under section 612 of the Clean Air Act to narrow the uses allowed
for hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons with high global
warming potential.
EPA disagrees with the statutory and legislative history
arguments raised by the commenter. The commenter points to language
that relates only to the listing of ozone depleting and global
warming substances, which is not relevant to EPA's authority
under section 612(c) to regulate substitutes based on an assessment
of overall risk. The fact that Congress may have deleted authority
for EPA to phase out use of substances based solely on their
global warming potential without regard to available substitutes
certainly imposes no limitation on consideration of global warming
potential as a factor in assessing the overall risk of using
any class I or II substitute. Especially in light of President
Clinton's recent commitment to use section 612 authority
specifically
to narrow uses of high global warming potential CFC substitutes
based on an overall risk assessment, EPA has concluded that
it is appropriate to consider global warming potential as one
factor in the SNAP analysis. Therefore, in this final rule,
the Agency will continue to exercise its statutory authority
to review substitutes for listing as unacceptable or acceptable
alternatives, using the criteria for evaluation set out in the
NPRM, including global warming.
4. Definitions
a. Definition of potentially available. Several commenters
supported EPA's definition of potentially available because
it would speed the review process and encourage innovation in
development of new substitutes. Other commenters expressed the
concern that EPA's definition of ``potentially available'' could
allow EPA to review and accept a substitute which may be several
years from general commercial availability, and on that basis
to ban some other commonly used chemical with relatively higher
risk. These commenters argued that EPA should at least wait
until test marketing has begun to consider an alternative
``potentially
available'' for the purpose of SNAP review. Another commenter
argued that a knowledge of the economic viability of a substitute
is crucial in assessing its potential availability as a substitute
under SNAP.
Under section 612(c) of the CAA, the Agency is specifically
required to identify alternatives that are either ``currently
or potentially available.'' For this final rule, the Agency
is defining as potentially available any alternative for which
adequate health, safety, and environmental data, as required
for the SNAP notification process, exist to make a determination
of acceptability, and which the Agency reasonably believes to
be technically feasible, even if not all testing has yet been
completed and the alternative is not yet produced or sold. EPA
would not prohibit use of a substitute where no substitute that
reduces overall risk is currently available, to avoid situations
where the only available substitute to allow transition away
from ozone-depleting compounds is unacceptable under SNAP.
b. Definition of a substitute. Several commenters expressed
support for EPA's definition of a substitute as used in the
NPRM. One commenter proposed the use of the word ``alternative''
instead of ``substitute,'' while supporting the Agency's general
construction of the statute to allow SNAP's purview to extend
beyond chemical substitutes to a broader range of alternative
technologies, including process changes. Another commenter,
while also generally supporting EPA's definition of a substitute,
pointed out that the language ``could replace'' is overly broad.
This commenter noted that this language suggests that someone
who is not using a compound as an ODS replacement, but is aware
that it could be used in this way, should report to EPA under
SNAP.
For the purpose of this final rule the Agency is using the
word ``substitute'' as a synonym for alternative. As discussed
in section IV.A, this definition includes chemical substitutes,
alternative manufacturing processes, and alternative technologies.
In response to the public comment described above, the Agency
has also clarified in this final rule that SNAP addresses only
those substitutes or alternatives actually replacing the class
I and II compounds listed under section 602 of the CAA within
the eight industrial sectors identified in sections IX.D. through
K.
5. General Comments on Substitutes
a. Perfluorocarbons. Under the NPRM for SNAP, EPA proposed
perfluorocarbons (PFCs) as acceptable for limited use as
replacements
for ozone depleting chemicals in the solvent cleaning, and fire
suppression and explosion protection sectors. Several commenters
supported the Agency's cautious approach toward PFCs, given
the high global warming potential of these compounds as well
as their extreme atmospheric persistence. Other commenters sought
clarification with respect to the scope of the Agency's proposed
restrictions on PFCs.
PFCs are fully fluorinated compounds, unlike CFCs, HCFCs,
or hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). These chemicals are nonflammable,
have low toxicity, are exempt from federal VOC regulations,
and do not contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion. The
environmental characteristics of concern for these compounds
are high global warming potential (5,000-10,000 times greater
than CO2) and long atmospheric lifetimes (3,000-5,000 years).
Although the actual contributions to global warming depend upon
the quantities emitted, because of their long atmospheric
lifetimes,
the warming effects of PFCs are essentially irreversible.
In the proposed rule, EPA identified specific solvent cleaning
applications for which PFCs were acceptable. In response to
public comment seeking clarification of these limitations, EPA
is finding PFC use acceptable in electronics and precision cleaning
for only high-performance, precision-engineered applications
where no other substitute for CFC-113 or MCF would meet performance
or safety requirements. Additional detail on PFC use in the
solvent cleaning sector can be found in section IX.F.
In this final rule, EPA has also clarified the limitations
placed in its proposed rule on the use of PFCs to replace halons.
PFC-410 (C4F10) and PFC-614 (C6F14) will be limited to fire
suppression and explosion protection applications where other
alternatives are not technically feasible to meet safety or
performance requirements due to the physical or chemical properties
of the agent, or where human exposure to the extinguishing agent
may approach cardiosensitization levels or result in other
unacceptable
health effects under normal operating conditions. Additional
detail on PFC use in the fire suppression and explosion protection
sector can be found in section IX.G.
Before replacing ozone-depleting compounds with PFCs, users
must first investigate whether other alternatives would meet
performance or safety standards. This may include contacting
vendors or testing using other substitutes and equipment. Although
special forms or reporting to EPA is not required, companies
must maintain documentation of the review of alternatives on
file. Where users must rely on PFCs for lack of other options,
they should make every effort to adopt closed systems and recover,
recycle and destroy the chemicals where possible. EPA also
encourages
PFC users to reduce emissions to a minimum through conservation
practices that address idling losses and operator variables.
Above all, PFC users should continue the search for long-term
alternatives.
IV. Scope of Coverage
A. Definition of Substitute
1. Statutory Language
Based on the language of section 612(a) of the CAA, the Agency
defines within the SNAP program a ``substitute'' as any chemical,
product substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, existing
or new, that could replace a class I or II substance. While
subsequent subsections of section 612 refer only to ``substitute
substances'' or ``substitute chemicals,'' EPA interprets these
provisions for purposes of the SNAP program as incorporating
the general definition of substitute presented in section 612(a).
The Agency believes that this definition is consistent with
the overall intent of section 612 and is necessary to enable
EPA to identify and analyze the universe of substitutes for
class I and II substances.
Section 612(c) prohibits users from replacing class I or
II substances with any substitute substance which the Administrator
determines may present adverse effects to human health and the
environment, where the Administrator has identified an alternative
to such replacement that: (1) Reduces overall risk to human
health and the environment, and (2) is currently or potentially
available. EPA believes that in addition to authorizing the
Agency to ban the use of a given substitute substance where
other alternatives exist, section 612 confers the legal authority
to allow the use of a substance only with certain restrictions-
conditions of use or narrowed use limits-while banning its use
otherwise. This authority is inherent in the Administrator's
authority to totally ban use of the substitute where other
acceptable
alternatives exist that reduce overall risk. EPA only intends
to use this authority where a viable substitute exists that
would otherwise have to be disallowed because of risk associated
with its uncontrolled use.
a. Use conditions. In imposing conditions on use, EPA does
not intend to preempt other regulatory authorities, such as
those exercised by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
(OSHA) or other government or industrial standard-setting bodies.
Rather, EPA hopes to fill existing regulatory gaps during the
interim period of substitution away from ozone-depleting compounds
and provide the needed margin of protection to human health
and the environment until other regulatory controls or standards
are developed under appropriate authorities.
EPA anticipates applying use conditions only in the rare
instances where clear regulatory gaps exist, and where an
unreasonable
risk would exist in the absence of any condition. These
restrictions
will remain in place only until the appropriate standard-setting
agency acts. Where appropriate, EPA's use conditions will terminate
by their own terms once the appropriate standard-setting Agency
takes action. The mechanism for informing the public of this
change will be the quarterly Federal Register notices updating
the status of the SNAP lists. These are discussed further in
Section VII.A below.
b. Narrowed use limits. In imposing narrowed use limits,
the Agency has sought to expand the list of alternatives available
to all applications within a sector end-use category. EPA
recognizes
that certain sector end-uses encompass a broad range of
applications,
manufacturing processes, and products. Where EPA narrows uses,
a substitute will be acceptable for use only in certain
applications,
as where other alternatives are not technically feasible due
to performance or safety requirements. Conditions on use discussed
in section IV.A.1.a. above refer to how (under what operating
conditions) an otherwise unacceptable substitute may be used;
narrowed use limits define where (in which end-uses and
applications)
an otherwise unacceptable substitute may be used.
c. Potentially available. Section 612(e) makes clear that
a chemical can be a substitute whether it is existing or new.
Also, the language in section 612(c) clearly states that a new
substitute may be currently or potentially available. In this
final rule, the Agency is defining as potentially available
any alternative for which adequate information exists to make
a determination of acceptability, and which the Agency reasonably
believes to be technically feasible, even if not all testing
has yet been completed and the substitute is not yet produced
and sold.
2. Additional Clarification
EPA believes that the statutory language included in section
612 is written broadly to allow for a reasonably comprehensive
evaluation of substitutes that will be introduced as replacements
for ozone-depleting chemicals. However, additional clarification
is presented below to further explain the Agency's definition
of a ``substitute'' in specific circumstances based on section
612.
a. Chemicals already listed under TSCA. Section 612(e)
explicitly
requires producers of chemicals, both new and existing, to notify
the Agency before introducing such chemicals into interstate
commerce for significant new uses as class I alternatives. In
addition, section 612(c) requires the Agency to produce lists
of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes, without regard to
the status of each chemical alternative, whether new or existing.
These interrelated provisions of section 612 serve as the
basis for the Agency's belief that all substitutes, whether
``new or existing'' chemicals, should be subject to SNAP review.
This regulatory purview would thus necessarily extend to those
chemicals already listed on the TSCA inventory of existing
chemicals.
EPA believes SNAP review is critical for such chemicals given
the differing statutory objectives of TSCA and the CAA, and
the new and expanded applications of many existing chemicals
as class I and II replacements, which could alter existing release
and exposure profiles.
b. Significant new use of existing alternatives. There has
also been some question regarding whether an existing alternative
already being sold commercially within a SNAP sector (e.g.,
use of semi-aqueous cleaners in the electronics industry) would
be subject to review under section 612. The Agency believes
that it should be subject to review under SNAP. Because of the
phaseout, uses of existing substitutes can reasonably be expected
to increase significantly beyond current consumption, which
could translate into greater releases and risks from use of
a substitute. Existing substitutes are therefore subject to
SNAP review because EPA believes that their use can be expected
to significantly expand to new users or product lines. Users
should note that the SNAP determinations discussed in section
IX of this final rule demonstrate that with few exceptions,
all substitutes already on the market meet the conditions for
acceptability under the SNAP program.
c. Authority to review substitutes for class II compounds.
Section 612(c) authorizes the Administrator to prohibit the
use of substitutes for class II, as well as class I substances,
and requires the Agency to compile lists of substitutes for
class II as well as class I compounds upon making the requisite
findings. EPA believes that this is in part because of the
considerable
overlap in sectors that use class I and II substances. More
importantly, this mirrors the statute's general emphasis on
moving away from class I compounds in a way that does not create
new and unintended environmental problems. Clearly, for the
same reasons class I substitutes require review under the SNAP
program, class II substitutes should also be reviewed.
To obtain the data necessary to analyze class II substitutes,
the Agency is using statutory authority provided in sections
114 and 301 of the CAA in conjunction with 612(c). As explained
in the NPRM, these sections, when read together, authorize the
Administrator to promulgate such regulations as needed to require
companies to provide information EPA may reasonably need to
identify acceptable and unacceptable substitutes for class II
substances. EPA is exercising this authority to subject class
I and II substitutes to the same information reporting requirements
and listing process.
d. Designation of class I and II chemicals as substitutes.
EPA believes that review authority under section 612 extends
also to use of class I and II chemicals as substitutes, even
though these chemicals are subject to the phaseout provisions
of the CAA. While one comment received by the Agency in response
to the NPRM questions EPA's authority under section 612 to review
class I and II chemicals as substitutes (e.g., methyl chloroform
used to replace CFC-113), it is clear that these compounds can
be used as substitutes for other class I and II substances in
certain applications. Since section 612 authority extends to
``any'' substitutes, both class I and II substances are subject
to review under the SNAP program just as any other substitute.
Given the potential for the class I and II chemicals used as
substitutes for other ozone-depleting chemicals to continue
depleting stratospheric ozone and thus affect human health and
the environment, a close examination of these alternatives in
the context of both their effect on the environment and the
availability of other substitutes for particular uses is especially
warranted under section 612.
e. Alternative products and manufacturing processes. EPA
believes that section 612(c) broadly charges EPA to identify
alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. For example, EPA
believes that alternative products can include no-clean fluxes
in electronics manufacturing processes that currently use class
I or II compounds as cleaning solvents. EPA believes it appropriate
to consider substitute processes and products for review under
the SNAP program, since many of these alternatives are viable
substitutes and could reduce overall risks to human health and
the environment. EPA believes that such alternative products
and processes, therefore, fall within the definition of substitutes
under section 612.
Similarly, new production techniques and/or processing equipment
are important developments that can minimize environmental
releases.
Accordingly, alternative manufacturing processes will also be
examined under section 612 in the context of use and emissions
of substitutes. EPA believes that section 612's reference to
``alternative,'' instead of ``alternative substance,'' or
``alternative
chemical,'' implies a statutory intent that ``alternative''
be read broadly. This furthers the statutory desire to shift
use to alternatives that reduce overall risk.
EPA will encourage, where appropriate, alternative processes
and technologies that reduce environmental and human health
effects. In many applications, reliance on alternative processes
and/or equipment may be associated with the use of particular
substitute chemicals. In these instances, EPA encourages the
filing of joint submissions where information is provided by
both the chemical manufacturer and, for example, an equipment
manufacturer whose equipment makes use of such a substitute.
Such joint filings will provide the most comprehensive data
on an alternative and its effect on human health and the
environment.
f. Second-generation substitutes. A key issue is whether
there exists a point at which an alternative should no longer
be considered a class I or II substitute as defined by section
612. The Agency believes that as long as class I or II chemicals
are being used, any substitute designed to replace these chemicals
is subject to review under section 612. In this final rule,
the Agency has determined that second-generation replacements,
if they are non-ozone depleting and are replacing non-ozone
depleting first-generation alternatives, are exempt from reporting
requirements under section 612. Other regulatory programs (e.g.,
other sections of the CAA, or section 6 of TSCA) exist to ensure
protection of human health and the environment in these situations.
Where second-generation substitutes replace first-generation
substitutes that are themselves ozone-depleters (e.g., HCFCs),
these second-generation substitutes are bound by the same
notification
and review requirements under section 612 as first-generation
substitutes to ozone-depleting chemicals. For example, if a
hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) is introduced as a first-generation
refrigerant substitute for either a class I (e.g., CFC-12) or
class II chemical (e.g., HCFC-22), it is subject to review and
listing under section 612. Future substitutions to replace the
HFC would then be exempt from reporting under section 612 because
the first-generation alternative did not deplete stratospheric
ozone. If, however, a class I or class II chemical is used as
a first-generation substitute (e.g., use of HCFC-141b as a
transitional
replacement in foam blowing), the second-generation substitute
is still subject to review under section 612 because it is
replacing
a class I or class II chemical.
The key to determining whether a substitute is exempt or
not as a second-generation substitute is, as discussed above,
what it is designed to replace. For example, SNAP reviews are
not meant to cover cases in which a technology is designed for
use primarily in replacing existing non-ozone depleting evaporative
cooling systems. In general, if most intended uses for a possible
substitute are to replace a non-OD substitute for a class I
or class II substance, then this substance would therefore be
a second-generation substitute, and SNAP review is unlikely
to be required. In those situations where class I or class II
substitutes have already been replaced in most applications,
the small use exemption could also eliminate the need for review
of next generation substitutes.
g. Applicability to existing uses. The prohibition on use
of an alternative applies only to substitutions to unacceptable
substitutes made after the effective date of any final rulemaking
for unacceptability. However, for this final rule, any person
who has transitioned to a substitute for an end-use prior to
any SNAP final rulemaking designating it as unacceptable may
continue to use the substitute until their existing supply of
the chemical, as of March 18, 1994, is depleted.
Existing inventory of final products manufactured with or
containing a substitute designated unacceptable as a result
of final EPA rule-making within an end-use covered under SNAP
could theoretically be legally sold after listing. Producers
should be aware, however, that they will be effectively barred
from selling a substitute for use once it has been deemed
unacceptable
under SNAP, because potential purchasers will not be able to
use it. After the effective date of this final rule, users will
not be able to use any additional supply of a banned substitute
purchased after the publication date of the unacceptable listing.
h. Substitutes produced outside of the United States. Companies
manufacturing substitutes outside the U.S. who are producing
solely for use by entities outside the U.S. are not subject
to the requirements of these section 612 rules. EPA believes
that its authority under section 612 extends only to use of
substitutes in areas under the jurisdiction of the United States
government. This principle does not apply to substitutes introduced
as replacements for class I and II chemicals at offshore U.S.
installations (e.g., U.S. military bases located in foreign
countries) that are subject to the legal provisions of section
612.
Substitutes manufactured within the U.S. exclusively for
export are subject to SNAP since the definition of use in the
rule includes use in the manufacturing process, which occurs
within the United States.
B. Who Must Report
1. General Provisions
As required by section 612(e), anyone who produces a substitute
for a class I substance must provide the Agency with that person's
unpublished health and safety studies on the substitute, as
well as notify the Agency at least 90 days before introducing
the substitute into interstate commerce for significant new
use as an alternative. Also, as discussed in section IV.A.2.c.
of this final rule, pursuant to sections 114, 301 and 612(c)
of the CAA, producers of class II substitutes must abide by
the same reporting requirements. Under the authority of sections
114, 301(a) and 612(c), EPA has determined that in certain cases,
formulators or end-users of substitutes could be considered
to be producers and would therefore be subject to reporting
requirements. This approach is discussed below, in section IV.B.2.
To analyze substitutes under section 612(c), the Agency finds
it necessary under section 301(a) to require that any person
who introduces a substitute in its final form into interstate
commerce be considered to be a producer of the substitute and
required to submit information describing the substitute under
section 114. With respect to substitutes for both class I and
II substances, EPA needs all of the types of information described
below, not just health and safety studies. Such data are needed
to allow EPA to fully analyze the overall risks to human health
and the environment presented by alternative substitutes, as
required by section 612(c).
2. Designated Submitters
Several commenters requested clarification on who has primary
responsibility to notify EPA under SNAP. EPA recognizes that
a potential substitute can be developed for introduction into
one of the SNAP sectors at several points in the manufacture-
to-use chain. EPA considers responsibility for notification
under SNAP to reside with the person who first introduces a
substitute not otherwise exempted from reporting requirements
into interstate commerce. Therefore, for example, if a chemical
manufacturer introduces a substitute into interstate commerce
for sale as a fire extinguishing agent to replace an ODS-based
extinguishing method, the manufacturer is a designated submitter
under SNAP. If a system manufacturer or a chemical formulator
buys an agent from a chemical manufacturer and subsequently
formulates or engineers it for introduction into interstate
commerce as a substitute for an ozone-depleting means of fire
suppression, then in this case, the system manufacturer or
formulator
is the designated submitter. If an end-user develops a proprietary
blend or means of fire suppression using chemical or physical
inputs purchased from manufacturers or formulators and then
enters that product into interstate commerce as a replacement
for ozone-depleting means of fire suppression, then the end-
user is in this case the designated submitter.
a. Chemical manufacturers. Chemical manufacturers producing
a substitute in its final form are required to notify the Agency
of the existence of that substitute. For instance, if a chemical
manufacturer intends to market a new chemical as a substitute
foam blowing agent to companies that manufacture insulation
products, the chemical manufacturer would be required to notify
the Agency about the existence of the substitute.
b. Formulators. A formulator is engaged in the preparation
or formulation of a substitute, after chemical manufacture of
the substitute or its components, for distribution or use in
commerce. Formulators usually only sell substitutes based on
existing chemicals, since they do not ordinarily possess chemical
manufacturing capabilities. Chemicals used in such substitutes
are frequently in common use and have already been accepted
for general use through other chemical review programs such
as under TSCA or FIFRA.
However, to the extent that these formulators can be considered
to be directly responsible for production of the substitute
for an end-use, for example by offering a tailored formulation
for an industrial cleaning process, these formulators would
be subject to reporting requirements as outlined in this final
rule. In such cases, the formulator is best suited in the
manufacture-
to-use chain to present information on how substitutes based
on existing chemicals are or could be used. In cases where the
manufacturer of a chemical is also the formulator of a blend,
the manufacturer would be responsible for meeting reporting
requirements on the substitute.
The Agency does not foresee a situation where any person
who simply re-packages a substitute, i.e. does not in any way
alter the chemical or physical characteristics of the substitute,
would be the designated submitter. However, if the act of re-
packaging a product is intended solely to allow for the
introduction
of a substitute into interstate commerce, that person would
be the designated submitter under SNAP.
c. End-users. In general, end-users of substitutes will not
be obligated to meet the reporting requirements discussed in
this final rule, except in rare cases where the end-user and
the producer of the substitute for commercial introduction in
final form are the same person. While the Agency expects that
this situation will occur infrequently, several large companies
have developed substitutes for their own use and subsequently
have notified EPA of their intent to offer those substitutes
for commercial sale. Because EPA intends to require end-users
to report only on those substitutes they plan to introduce into
interstate commerce, evaluating and listing such substitutes
will not stifle research and development innovations by end-
users.
3. Exemptions From Reporting
The Agency has identified several situations in which
notification
under the provisions of section 612 will not be required. These
exemptions from reporting are discussed below.
a. Substitutes already listed by EPA. As part of this final
rule, the Agency has already completed the review of numerous
class I and II alternatives and has determined that these
substitutes
are either acceptable or unacceptable. In preparing these
determinations,
the Agency evaluated information either on file or supplied
in response to the NPRM published in the Federal Register on
May 12, 1993. The substitutes list and supporting risk screens
are described in more detail in section IX. No further submission
is needed for any of those substitutes already listed as acceptable
or unacceptable in this final rule. However, further information
may be required for those substitutes listed as pending review
in appendix B.
b. Small sectors. Most ozone-depleting substances have been
or are currently used in large industrial sectors such as
refrigeration
and air conditioning or foam blowing. However, there are also
numerous small uses of class I or II substances that fall outside
of these major use sectors. While small use applications for
class I and II compounds are varied and numerous, in the aggregate
these small uses do not contribute substantially to ozone
depletion.
The Agency estimates that across all sectors these varied but
small sector uses comprise in aggregate at most seven percent
of total U.S. consumption of ozone-depleting substances. For
more detail on the Agency's analysis and rationale for exempting
small sectors, readers should refer to the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking for SNAP (58 FR 28094) published May 12, 1993.
Accordingly, eight major industrial use sectors are covered
in this final rule. They are refrigeration and air conditioning,
foam blowing, fire suppression and explosion protection, solvents
cleaning, adhesives, coatings, and inks, aerosols, sterilization
and tobacco expansion. Analysis of substitutes in a ninth sector,
pesticides, will be completed, and the resulting decisions will
be added to future SNAP determinations published in the Federal
Register as part of EPA's quarterly updates to the lists of
acceptable and unacceptable substitutes. EPA does not plan to
add sectors other than the nine principal sectors listed above
to the formal analyses performed under SNAP, unless the Agency
receives additional data indicating that inclusion of additional
sectors is warranted based on the potential for high risks to
human health and the environment due to class I and II
alternatives.
c. Small volume use within SNAP sectors. As noted above,
most ozone-depleting substances have been or are currently used
in large industrial sectors such as refrigeration or fire
extinguishing.
However, even within these sectors, the potential for adverse
effects on human health and the environment is related to the
aggregate amount of ozone-depleting material consumed in an
end-use. Thus, the Agency is focusing the SNAP determinations
on large-volume uses in the major industrial sectors. Given
the breadth of EPA's required overall risk assessment, the
imposition
on small volume uses within any sector of a requirement for
a full SNAP submission seems unjustified by the potential for
risk posed by these small uses.
Moreover, a key policy interest in the SNAP program is promoting
the quickest possible shift from the ODSs into alternatives
posing lower overall risk. The speed and orderliness of this
shift depends in part on clear early determinations from EPA
on the acceptability of key substitutes. Focusing the SNAP program
on all possible substitutes in every conceivable use could diminish
EPA's ability to provide an early and clear message on those
substitutes which can contribute most to solving the problem
of general reliance on ozone-depleting chemicals.
Further, the small volume use exemption is an exemption from
the notification requirement only. It does not, for example,
authorize the use in any quantity of a substitute otherwise
deemed unacceptable under SNAP. Since the responsibility for
meeting the notification requirement resides with the person
introducing the substitute into interstate commerce, whether
manufacturer, formulator, or end-user, this person is also
responsible
for ascertaining whether annual use of the substitute in its
intended sector will exceed 10,000 pounds per year.
Thus, those introducing substitutes for ozone-depleting
compounds
in annual quantities of 10,000 pounds per year or less for any
given major industrial sector identified in this rule need not
notify EPA of their activities under SNAP. The exemption applies
regardless of whether the Agency is notified for the same
substitute
for any conceivable application in the other major sectors covered
under SNAP, or whether the introducer's total sales are 10,000
pounds or less for any or all of the other major SNAP sectors.
Those taking advantage of the exemption for small uses must
maintain documentation describing the basis for their view that
any substitute being used meets this small use definition. This
documentation must include annual production and sales information
by sector, and could be necessary in the event the Agency receives
a petition to add such substitutes to its evaluations under
SNAP, or to assure adequate enforcement of the notification
requirement.
d. Research and development. Substitutes manufactured or
imported solely for research and development are exempt from
reporting requirements under section 612. Several commenters,
including Federal agencies involved in research on CFC-related
substitutes, support this exemption. Amounts used in research
are assumed to be the minimum necessary for reasonable scientific
experimentation. For new chemicals, the provisions of 720.36
of the PMN rule (40 CFR part 720) are in effect.
e. Test marketing. Use of alternatives for the sole purpose
of test marketing is exempt from any reporting requirements
under section 612. Persons taking advantage of this exemption,
are, however, required to notify the Agency in writing that
they are conducting test marketing prior to the commencement
of sale into interstate commerce. Notification must be sent
30 days prior to the test marketing period, and must include
the name of the substitute used, the volume used in the test
marketing, and the expected duration of the test marketing.
Once a company decides to sell an alternative as a class I or
II substitute, it must provide the Agency with formal notification
at least 90 days prior to the introduction of the substitute
into interstate commerce for significant new use as a substitute
for a class I or II chemical.
For new substitute chemicals that are being test marketed,
the producer must abide by the provisions of section 5(h)(1)
of TSCA, which authorizes the EPA, upon application, to grant
exemptions from TSCA-reporting requirements, provided that test
marketing will not present an unreasonable risk to human health
or the environment.
f. Formulation changes. In general, the Agency believes that
changes in formulation needed to accommodate replacement of
class I and II compounds should not be subject to the provisions
of section 612. Such changes may be necessary, for example,
when a new blowing agent in foam manufacture necessitates the
replacement of the catalyst formerly used with the class I blowing
agent. The Agency believes that other regulatory mechanisms
(e.g., TSCA) are available for examining and controlling, as
needed, any adverse environmental and human health effects
associated
with subsequent formulation modifications. However, the
manufacturer
overseeing the formulation change is required to notify the
Agency if these modifications may significantly influence the
environmental and human health risk characteristics associated
with the class I or II substitute. Also, the Agency reserves
the right to exercise its discretion to examine formulation
changes if a problem appears to exist.
g. Substitutes used as feedstock. Commenters to the NPRM
supported the Agency's proposal to exempt substitutes that could
replace class I chemicals used solely as intermediates in the
production of other chemicals. To the extent that any feedstock
substitutions occur, the Agency believes that they will not
contribute substantially to any incremental risk to human health
and the environment. This is because intermediates are used
as inputs in production of other compounds, and as a result
are largely consumed in the chemical manufacturing process.
V. Information Submission
A. Overview
To develop the list of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes
for various end-uses as required by section 612(c), the Agency
must assess and compare the ``overall risks to human health
and the environment'' posed by use of substitutes, and this
assessment must be performed in the context of particular
applications.
To conduct this overall examination, the Agency must consider
a wide range of health and environmental factors. In order to
reduce the burden on the regulated community, the Agency will
defer to data collection requirements under other regulatory
authorities to the maximum extent practicable. In the section
that follows, the Agency presents information required by the
SNAP program to evaluate class I and II substitutes. A copy
of the SNAP Information Notice can be obtained from the SNAP
program at the address listed in the beginning of this final
rule.
B. Information Required
1. Name and Description of the Substitute
A chemical substitute should be identified by its chemical
name, trade name(s), identification numbers (e.g. Chemical Abstract
Service (CAS) registry), chemical formula and chemical structure.
If a substitute is a blend, the percentage of each component
must also be provided. Alternative technologies or manufacturing
processes should be described in sufficient detail as to uniquely
identify its use as a class I and II substitute.
2. Physical and Chemical Information
Key properties needed to characterize chemical substitutes
include: molecular weight; physical state; melting point; boiling
point; density; odor threshold; solubility; partition coefficients
(Log KOW, Log KOC); and vapor pressure. For alternative
technologies
or manufacturing processes, technical details on health,
environmental
or safety issues associated with use should be provided.
3. Substitute Applications
Identification of the end-use in which the substitute is
likely to be used is required. It is essential to provide a
complete list of potential end-uses and of applications within
those end-uses because section 612(c) requires the Agency to
list substitutes by specific uses.
4. Process Description
For each identified end-use application, the Agency requires
descriptive data on processing, including in-place pollution
controls. Such information will be used to characterize workplace
and environmental releases and exposures.
5. Ozone Depletion Potential
The predicted 100-year ozone depletion potential (ODP) of
substitute chemicals relative to CFC-11 is required. The submitter
should also provide sufficient supporting documentation-either
a citation or the background information used to develop the
ODP. For purposes of calculating ODP, the Agency recommends
the methodology used in the most recent Scientific Assessment
of Ozone Depletion: 1991, which was prepared for the United
Nations Environment Programme. (1)
6. Global Warming Potential
The Agency requires data on the potential total global warming
of the substitute in its particular end-use (e.g., as a
refrigerant,
foam blowing agent, etc.). The total global warming considers
both direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts refer to the
direct contribution to global warming of using a substitute.
Calculation of the global warming potential (GWP) index for
a 100, 500, and 1000 year time horizon, as well as the atmospheric
lifetime and infrared adsorption spectrum of the substitute
used to calculate the GWP is required. The Agency is requesting
that all GWPs be referenced to CO2 using the methodology
recommended
by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC).(2)
Indirect impacts explicitly consider the effect on global warming
arising from changes in energy consumption associated with the
use of a substitute (e.g., an alternative refrigerant). This
latter measure can be identified as changes in energy efficiency
resulting from use of the substitute relative to that of the
substance being replaced.
7. Toxicity Data
To assess the overall risks to human health and the environment,
information is required on the acute and chronic toxicity of
a substitute chemical, its impurities, and its degradation products
on any organism (e.g., humans and other mammals, fish, wildlife,
and plants). To characterize the risk to humans, the Agency
is requesting a minimum submission of the following mammalian
tests: A rangefinding study that considers the appropriate exposure
pathway for the specific use (e.g. inhalation, oral, etc), and
a 90-day subchronic repeated dose study in an appropriate rodent
species (e.g. rats or mice). For some substitutes, a cardiotoxicity
study, usually measuring cardiotoxic effects in the dog, is
also required. Additional mammalian toxicity tests will be
identified
by EPA on a case-by-case basis depending on the particular
substitute
and application being evaluated. To characterize aquatic toxicity,
both acute and chronic toxicity data for a variety of species
are required. The Agency requires a minimum aquatic data set
to be submitted as described in ``Guidelines for Deriving Numerical
National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic
Organisms and Their Uses,'' which is available through the National
Technical Information Service (#PB 85-227049). All toxicity
data in the submitter's possession and any other available hazard
information, including Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), must
also be submitted. Submission of the actual toxicity studies
is recommended; however, it is not necessary to submit these
reports if they have been supplied to the Agency as part of
other regulatory submissions. If studies are not submitted,
however, the submitter must provide sufficiently clear references
that the Agency can locate the studies without delay. As discussed
below in section V.C.3., data concerning the objectives,
methodology,
results or significance of any toxicity, metabolism, translocation,
or persistence test for a substitute and its degradation products
cannot be held as CBI where such data are also submitted under
TSCA and FIFRA to the extent that confidential treatment is
prohibited under those statutes. Submitters providing information
on new chemicals for joint review under the TSCA and SNAP programs
may be required to supply additional toxicity data under TSCA
section 5.
8. Environmental Fate and Transport
Where available, EPA requests information on the environmental
fate and transport of substitutes. Such data shall include
information
on bioaccumulation, biodegradation, adsorption, volatility,
transformation, and other data necessary to characterize a
substitute's
movement and reaction in the environment.
9. Flammability
Data on the flammability of a substitute chemical or mixture
is required. Specifically, the flash point and flammability
limits are needed, as well as information on the procedures
used for determining the flammability limits. Testing of blends
should identify the compositions at which the blend itself is
flammable, and the changes in the composition of the blend during
various leak scenarios. For substitutes that will be used in
consumer applications, documentation of testing results conducted
by independent laboratories (e.g., Underwriters Laboratories)
should be submitted, where available. If a substitute is flammable,
the submitter must analyze the risk of fire resulting from the
use of such a substitute and suggest measures to minimize these
risks.
10. Exposure Data
The submitter must provide available modeling or monitoring
data on exposures associated with the manufacture, formulation,
transport, and use of a substitute. Descriptive process information
for each substitute application, as required above, will be
used to develop exposure estimates where exposure data are not
readily available. Depending on the end-use, exposure profiles
will be needed for workers, consumers, and the general population.
11. Environmental Release Data
Data on emissions from the substitute application and equipment,
as well as pollutant releases or discharge to all environmental
media (ambient air, surface and groundwater, hazardous/solid
waste) are needed to complete the risk characterization. Submitters
should provide information on release locations, if known.
Available
information on pollution controls that are used or could be
used in association with the substitute (e.g., emissions reduction
technologies, wastewater treatment, treatment of hazardous waste)
and the costs of such technology is also requested.
12. Replacement Ratio for a Chemical Substitute
The Agency requires information on the replacement ratio
for a chemical substitute versus the class I or II substances
being replaced. The term ``replacement ratio'' refers to how
much more or less of the substitute chemical is needed to
substitute
for the original ozone-depleting compound being replaced. This
ratio will affect the estimated incremental cost and environmental
effects associated with use of the substitute.
13. Required Changes in Technology
Data on any changes in technology needed to use the alternative
are required. Such information should include a description
of whether the substitute can be used in existing equipment-
with or without some retrofit-or only in new equipment.
14. Cost of Substitute
The Agency requires data on the expected average cost of
the alternative. The cost of the substitute can be expressed,
for example, in terms of $/pound (for a chemical substitute)
or as incremental capital and operating costs associated with
a retrofit or new equipment. In addition, information is needed
on the expected equipment life for an alternative technology.
Other critical cost considerations should be identified, as
appropriate. For example, it is important to understand the
incremental costs associated with losses or gains in energy
efficiency associated with use of a substitute relative to current
experience with existing substances.
15. Availability of Substitute
The Agency needs to understand the extent to which a substitute
is already commercially available or the date on which it is
expected to become available. The timing of availability is
an important factor in assessing the overall health and
environmental
effects of the substitute.
16. Anticipated Market Share
Data on the anticipated near-term and long-term (over the
next ten years) nationwide substitute sales are also required.
This information can be presented in several ways, for example:
a percentage of existing nationwide use of class I or II chemicals
that would be replaced in a particular end-use; number of
units/products
to be produced; or pounds of substitute to be sold. This
information
is required to assess the potential effects of a substitute
related to total consumption and environmental releases.
17. Applicable Regulations Under Other Environmental Statutes
The submitter is required to provide information on whether
the substitute is regulated under other statutory authorities,
in particular the Clean Water Act; the Safe Drinking Water Act;
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; the Toxic Substances Control
Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act; the Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Act, and other titles of the CAA. The Agency will evaluate
substitutes under the SNAP program subject to existing regulatory
constraints.
18. Information Already Submitted to the Agency
Individuals may have already submitted information required
in the SNAP Information Notice to the Agency as part of past
regulatory and information-gathering activities. In this case,
to minimize reporting burden, the submitter need not resubmit
the data but instead should provide the following information
to help EPA locate the data already maintained at EPA: Type
of information submitted; the date of submission; the EPA office
to which the data were sent; description of the regulatory program
under which the data were submitted; and a document-control
number, if assigned (e.g., a PMN number). If the submitter cannot
provide adequate references for data sent previously to the
Agency as described above, all required information should be
included in the SNAP notice. To facilitate review under SNAP,
reports already submitted to the Agency as part of other regulatory
submissions should be resubmitted if the original information
was claimed as Confidential Business Information when previously
submitted.
19. Information Already Available in the Literature
If any of the data needed to complete the SNAP program notice
are available in the literature, the submitter should provide
the Agency with references for such information. Failure to
provide the Agency with an accurate and complete citation may
delay review of the notice. Additionally, submitters are encouraged
to provide copies of any literature to expedite review,
particularly
if the citation is from a source not readily available. Any
references from sources in foreign languages should be translated
into English prior to submission.
Submissions should be sent to the SNAP Coordinator at the
address referenced at the beginning of this final rule. All
submissions must be provided in three complete copies. If
information
is claimed as confidential, all confidential information must
be excised from one of the three copies. This copy will be placed
in the public docket. The other two copies should include the
confidential material. If no claims of confidentiality are made
for the submission, all three copies should be identical. (See
below, as well as appendix C, for further guidance on handling
of confidential information under SNAP.)
C. Submission of Confidential Business Information
1. Clean Air Act Provisions
Anyone submitting information for which Confidential Business
Information (CBI) status is requested must assert a claim of
confidentiality at the time of submission. Failure to assert
a claim of confidentiality at the time of submission may result
in disclosure of the information by the Agency without further
notice to the submitter. Further, it should be noted that
information
which is publicly available (e.g., in journals, trade magazines,
product literature, etc.) cannot be claimed as CBI. Requesting
CBI status for such information could delay review under section
612. All claims of confidentiality will be treated in a manner
consistent with 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The submitter should be advised that under CAA section 114(c),
emissions data may not be claimed as confidential. Moreover,
there are further instances in which confidentiality assertions
may later be reconsidered by the Agency even when confidentiality
claims are originally received. These circumstances are provided
in the provisions of 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The submitter
will be contacted as part of this evaluation process when such
a circumstance occurs.
2. Substantiation of Confidentiality Claims
In the NPRM, EPA proposed to require substantiation of any
confidentiality claims at the time of submission. In making
these claims, the following provisions apply:
-The specific information to which the claim applies must be
clearly marked in the body of the study as subject to a claim
of confidentiality;
-A Supplemental Statement of Data Confidentiality Claims must
be submitted, identifying each section claimed confidential
and describing in detail the basis for the claim. (A list
of points to address in such a statement is included in appendix
C);
-The Supplemental Statement of Data Confidentiality Claims must
be signed and dated and must include the typed name and title
of the official who signed it.
EPA also stated that if required substantiation is not provided
when submitting information claimed as confidential, the complete
submitted information may be made available to the public without
further notice to the submitter.
Several commenters indicated that EPA should contact the
submitter before releasing information marked as confidential
to the public even if it does not contain adequate substantiation.
One commenter also indicated that complete substantiation should
not be required until the end of the 90 day review period and
that any issue regarding the adequacy of CBI substantiation
should not delay the review process.
EPA agrees with the comment that submitters should be notified
prior to disclosure to the public of information marked as
confidential
where substantiation, although it may be inadequate, has been
provided. This will give the submitter opportunity to provide
the necessary additional substantiation or withdraw the submission.
However, an acceptability determination on a substitute will
not be published until all claims of CBI have been fully
substantiated
under the provisions described above. Additionally, should no
substantiation of CBI claims be provided, EPA may make the complete
submittal available to the public without further notice to
the submitter.
3. Confidentiality Provisions for Toxicity Data
In the event that toxicity or health and safety studies are
listed as confidential, the submitter should be advised that
this information cannot be maintained as confidential where
such data are also submitted under TSCA or FIFRA to the extent
that confidential treatment is prohibited under those statutes.
However, any information other than emissions data contained
in the toxicity study that is not health and safety data and
is not relevant to the effects of a substance on human health
and the environment (e.g., discussion of process information,
proprietary blends) can be maintained as confidential subject
to the provisions of 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The Agency is
therefore requesting that submitters not identify the following
information as confidential when submitting information under
TSCA or FIFRA: All information concerning the objectives,
methodology,
results, or significance of any toxicity test or experiment
performed on or with a substitute or its degradation products;
any information concerning the effects of the substitute on
any organism (e.g., fish, wildlife, humans and other mammals)
or the environment (e.g., studies related to persistence,
translocation,
and fate); and pharmacokinetics/metabolism studies.
4. Federal Register Requirements
As discussed below in Section VII.A.3.g., the Agency will
publish quarterly notices in the Federal Register updating the
list of acceptable and unacceptable alternatives. If the name
of a specific substitute contained in any studies supporting
such notices must be maintained as confidential, the submitter
and the Agency will together develop a generic name that will
protect the proprietary nature of the substitute, but will provide
sufficient detail for the public to evaluate the health and
safety studies. If appropriate, the submitter may reference
any generic names identified for use in the PMN program.
D. Display of OMB Control Numbers
EPA is also amending the table of currently approved information
collection request (ICR) control numbers issued by OMB for various
regulations. This amendment updates the table to accurately
display those information requirements contained in this final
rule. This display of the OMB control number and its subsequent
codification in the Code of Federal Regulations satisfies the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.) and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.
The ICR was subject to public notice and comment prior to
OMB approval. As a result, EPA finds that there is ``good cause''
under section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act
(5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) to amend this table without prior notice
and comment. Due to the technical nature of the table, further
notice and comment would be unnecessary. For the same reasons,
EPA also finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
VI. Effective Date of Coverage
A. General Provisions
This final rule includes a list of acceptable substitutes
and a list of unacceptable substitutes. Unacceptable substitutes
cannot be used in manufacturing or in final applications as
substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds. The list of unacceptable
substitutes and acceptable substitutes subject to use restrictions
becomes binding 30 days after March 18, 1994. In contrast, the
list of fully acceptable substitutes is furnished for the purpose
of assisting users in understanding the full range of available,
acceptable substitutes in each application. Many of the substitutes
listed as pending or proposed in the NPRM have since been added
to the final acceptable or unacceptable lists.
As noted above, the Agency does not believe that determinations
on substitutes that are acceptable with no use restrictions
need be made through rulemaking. Consequently, EPA believes
that it is within its discretion to supplement the list of
acceptable
substitutes at any time upon making determinations consistent
with the criteria established in this rulemaking. Until the
Agency reaches a final decision restricting the use of a
substitute,
vendors are not barred from selling such substitutes once
notification
is given and the 90 day prior-to-sale notification period expires.
B. Grandfathering of Unacceptable Substitutes
EPA is authorized to permit the continuation of activities
otherwise restricted where the balance of equities supports
such grandfathering. Consequently, where appropriate, EPA may
grandfather the production and use of particular substitutes
by setting the effective date of unacceptability listings in
the future.
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Circuit has established a four-part test to judge the
appropriateness
of Agency grandfathering (see Sierra Club v. EPA, 719 F.2d 436
(DC Cir. 1983)). This test involves balancing the results of
four analyses, including whether the new rule represents an
abrupt departure from previously established practice, the extent
to which a party relied on the previous rule, the degree of
burden which application of the new rule would impose on the
party, and the statutory interest in applying the new rule
immediately.
In each rulemaking listing a substitute as unacceptable where
grandfathering seems appropriate, EPA will conduct these four
analyses and weigh their results. Where the balance of equities
favors grandfathering, EPA will set a delayed effective date
for such listings.
Setting future effective dates to ban the sale and distribution
of specific substitutes will allow the Agency to avoid penalizing
those who in specific applications may have already invested
in good faith in alternatives the SNAP program determines to
be unacceptable. For example, the Agency in this final rule
finds unacceptable the use of HCFC-141b in solvent applications.
New information on stratospheric ozone depletion has increased
concern over possible adverse human health and environmental
effects, and the Agency's unacceptable determination in the
case of HCFC-141b reflects these concerns.
However, the Agency recognizes that some solvent users may
have switched to HCFC-141b in good faith, expecting that this
substitute would sufficiently lower the risk of ozone depletion
relative to earlier materials. To provide for these users, the
Agency has extended the effective date for certain end users
of HCFC-141b. See the listing determination narrative discussion
in section IX.F., as well as the listing tables in appendix
B, for a full discussion of HCFC-141b and associated effective
dates. Finally, to balance the desire not to penalize those
who switched early in good faith with the need to avoid creating
an incentive for continued investment in alternatives the Agency
wishes to discourage, the longer-term effective dates discussed
above will affect only existing uses.
VII. Notice, Review, and Decision-making Procedures
The purpose of this section is to summarize the procedures
for submitting the required information to the Agency, the steps
EPA will take in reviewing SNAP submissions, and the process
of making determinations based on these reviews. This section
focuses on three procedures, summarized in Exhibit 1, depending
on the nature of the submission received by the Agency. Some
substitutes may already be approved or may not need approval
under other environmental statutes, especially TSCA and FIFRA.
These substitutes, in consequence, would only require review
under the SNAP program. Section VII.A. discusses in greater
detail the submission and review process for alternatives that
fall into this category. In other cases, a substitute will require
review under section 612 as well as relevant provisions of TSCA
and FIFRA. With respect to any substitute that is a new chemical
(i.e., not currently listed on the TSCA inventory), information
must be submitted to the Agency for review both under the SNAP
program and the PMN program. Section VII.B. describes steps
for this review in more detail. For alternatives to class I
and II chemicals that will be used in pesticide products, the
substitute manufacturer will need to file notification jointly
with EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) and EPA's SNAP
program. Section VII.C. discusses the latter procedure. The
SNAP program has coordinated closely with each of these regulatory
programs to establish a joint review process that will ensure
consistency in the final decisions, while minimizing the time
for review, the reporting burden, and the costs for both the
submitter and the Agency.
See the accompanying hardcopy volume for non-machine-readable
data that appears at this point.
A. Substitutes Reviewed under SNAP Only
1. Applicability
Sections IV. and V. describe the conditions dictating review
under the SNAP program only and the general reporting requirements
under section 612. If any of these conditions are met and the
substitutes are not exempt as described in section IV.B.3.,
Exemptions from Reporting, a SNAP notice must be submitted.
2. Pre-Notice Communication
Prior to submitting the SNAP notice, each submitter is
encouraged
to contact EPA's SNAP Coordinator to discuss the notification
process. Among other things, the SNAP Coordinator will: (1)
Assist the potential submitter in determining whether a SNAP
notice is needed; (2) answer questions regarding how to complete
a submission; (3) provide all necessary forms and the guidance
manual; (4) serve as the initial point of contact when the notice
is submitted; and (5) oversee the assignment of a SNAP program
tracking number to the notice once it is received by the Agency.
A copy of the SNAP Information Notice and Guidance Manual may
be obtained from the SNAP Coordinator at the address listed
at the beginning of this final rule. Specific data requested
are described in section V.
3. Processing of Completed SNAP Submission
a. 90-Day review process. As required under section 612(e),
a manufacturer of a substitute for a class I chemical must provide
the Agency with notification at least 90 days prior to introducing
into interstate commerce any new or existing chemicals for
significant
new uses as class I alternatives. The same requirements apply
to manufacturers of substitutes for class II substances, although
in this case the Agency is drawing on general authorities contained
in sections 114 and 301 of the CAA in order to fulfill the purpose
of section 612(c). EPA intends to review these substitutes within
a 90-day period to ensure prompt response for manufacturers
initiating production of substitutes. EPA's 90-day review period
for SNAP submissions begins once EPA receives a submission,
as described in section V.B. above. If a submission does not
include adequate data, EPA may return the submission to request
specific additional information. Section 114 and, in the case
of petitions, section 612(d) authorizes EPA to require
manufacturers
to support their SNAP submissions with data adequate to facilitate
EPA's review.
b. Initial receipt of the SNAP submission. (1) Initial review
of submission. EPA will conclude a completeness review of each
submission within fifteen days of receipt of the submission.
Within the 15-day period, EPA will inform the submitter of any
additional information needed. If EPA makes no such request,
then after the 15-day period is concluded, the 90-day review
period will automatically commence. If EPA does request any
additional data, the 90-day period shall not commence until
the additional data are received and themselves reviewed for
completeness.
During the 15-day completeness review, the SNAP Coordinator
will first review the SNAP Information Notice to ensure that
basic information necessary to process the submission is present
(i.e., name of company, identification of substitute, etc.).
A more detailed review of supporting technical data will then
ensue, as well as an examination of substantiation provided
for any claim for confidentiality of information. Should additional
information be required, EPA will contact the submitter within
15 days of receipt of the original submission.
During the 90-day review period, EPA may ask for additional
information from submitters as necessary, although manufacturers
of a new substitute may introduce the substitute into interstate
commerce 90 days after EPA receives a submission for the product
if the Agency has not already rendered an unacceptability
determination.
In the case of a substitute which already exists in the marketplace
prior to the issuance of this final rule, manufacturers must
submit a completed SNAP Information Notice as soon as possible,
and not later than 90 days after the effective date of this
rule. During EPA's review, use of an existing substitute may
continue, and need not cease unless and until EPA adds the
substitute
to the list of unacceptable substitutes as a result of notice-
and-comment rulemaking.
(2) Letter of receipt. The SNAP Coordinator will send a letter
of confirmation to the submitter once the Agency has received
the SNAP Information Notice and reviewed it for completeness.
This letter will include the date of advance notification to
the Agency, the starting date of EPA's 90-day review period,
and the SNAP program tracking number assigned to the submission.
c. Determination of data adequacy. As part of the review
for a SNAP submission, the Agency will complete a preliminary
determination of the adequacy of data supporting the application.
The Agency will issue this determination within 15 days after
receipt of the application. At any time during the review period,
if information is not adequate to allow the Agency to reach
a SNAP determination, EPA will contact the submitter and request
the missing data. EPA believes it appropriate and authorized
under section 114 to require the submitter to provide all data
needed to complete the review of the SNAP notice. Depending
on the type of information needed and the time necessary to
compile and submit the requested data to the Agency, EPA may
suspend or extend the review period. This will not affect the
ability of a manufacturer to begin marketing a new substitute
90 days after advance notification to the Agency, or in the
case of a pre-existing substitute, to continue marketing.
In a few cases, the Agency and the submitter may disagree
on a schedule for furnishing additional data EPA deems necessary
to determine the acceptability of the substitute. If in these
cases EPA has reason to believe that such a substitute may be
unacceptable, the Agency may exercise the option of proposing
to list the substitute as unacceptable based on existing data
until the necessary data are provided, due to the uncertainty
of the risks associated with use of the substitute.
d. Availability of new information during review period.
If critical new information becomes available during the review
period that may influence the Agency's evaluation of a substitute,
the submitter must notify the Agency about the existence of
such information within ten days of receiving such data. The
submitter must also inform the Agency of new studies under way,
even if the results will not be available within the 90-day
review period. The Agency may extend or suspend the review period
depending on the type of information at issue and the stage
of review. Again, this will not affect a manufacturer's ability
to market a substitute 90 days after initial notification to
the Agency.
e. Completion of detailed review. Once the submission is
found to be supported by adequate data, the Agency will commence
a detailed evaluation of the notice. As this review proceeds,
EPA may contact the submitter for additional scientific and
technical information to assist in the evaluation. This will
ensure that the review is completed quickly and that it reflects
the best available information. Final decisions will be based
on detailed analysis completed during this stage of review.
f. Vendor lists. As part of EPA's outreach and clearinghouse
under SNAP, the Agency will use the SNAP determinations to compile
a list of vendors for the convenience of potential users. Companies
could then ask EPA to review their specific substitute, to ensure
that it is covered by the listing decisions on acceptable
substitutes,
and to add the company to the vendor list. The Agency believes
that specific information on vendors of acceptable substitutes
would be useful to companies switching out of class I and II
compounds.
g. Communication of SNAP determination. (1) SNAP determinations
on 90-Day notifications. EPA's determinations on SNAP submissions
that come as a result of the 90-day advance notification
requirement
will take the form of either adding substances to the list of
acceptable substitutes or by proposing to add them to one of
the following lists: acceptable subject to use conditions,
acceptable
subject to narrowed use limits, or unacceptable substitutes.
(2) Communication of SNAP determination to the submitter.
Once Agency review has been completed, the submitter will be
notified in writing of the determination under SNAP. At this
time, the submitter will also be informed if any restrictions
are attached to the acceptability of a substitute. Following
the expiration of 90 days after submitting advance notification
to EPA, companies may begin sale or manufacture of a new
substitute.
They may continue to sell or manufacture an existing substitute
through the review period, unless and until the Agency places
such substitute on the list of unacceptable substitutes as a
result of rulemaking. Sale or manufacture may begin and continue
even if the Agency fails to reach a decision or notify the
submitter
of that decision within 90 days of advance notification of EPA.
(3) Communication of SNAP determination to the public. (a)
Federal Register notice. To provide the public with updated
information on SNAP determinations, the Agency will publish
in the Federal Register a complete list of the acceptable and
unacceptable alternatives reviewed to date. This list will be
published four times each year and will include recent decisions
made under the SNAP program. In addition to the quarterly
publications,
the Agency will communicate decisions through a clearinghouse
and outreach program, as discussed in the next section, as well
as through the Stratospheric Ozone Protection hotline.
(b) Outreach and clearinghouse. Section 612(b)(4) requires
the Agency to maintain a public clearinghouse of alternative
chemicals, product substitutes, and alternative manufacturing
processes that are available as replacements for class I and
II chemicals. The clearinghouse will distribute information
on substitutes that are acceptable under the SNAP program. For
the convenience of companies wishing to identify substitutes,
the Agency will maintain a list of vendors selling substitutes
as discussed in section VII.A.3.f.
In addition, the Agency will enter data on substitutes into
the Pollution Prevention Information Exchange System (PPIES)
database, which is maintained by EPA's Office of Research and
Development. This database contains information on numerous
pollution prevention options for a wide variety of industrial
sectors and chemicals. PPIES can also be accessed from a variety
of other pollution prevention databases maintained by other
federal agencies and industry.
4. Decision-Making Framework
a. Decisions by substitute and use. As required by section
612(c), the Agency must publish a list of substitutes unacceptable
under the SNAP program and a list of acceptable alternatives
for specific uses. Given that environmental exposure and risk
profiles can change significantly from one end-use to the next,
it is essential to evaluate and list substitutes in the context
of their intended use. The Agency identified a number of end-
uses in each sector by which to list substitutes, and section
IX provides risk management decisions for many existing substitutes
in each of the principal sectors.
The Agency will be as specific as possible in listing
substitutes
by providing exact chemical names of substitutes. For most
substitutes,
a broad chemical classification (e.g., aromatic hydrocarbons,
or HCFCs) is not specific enough because of differences among
chemicals belonging to each of these groups. Thus, where
appropriate,
EPA will provide a more specific description of the substitute
by application.
The Agency anticipates two possible exceptions to this practice.
The first is where release of the chemical identity of a substitute
constitutes release of proprietary information. In that event,
the Agency will report generic chemical names based on chemical
classes as described in section V.C. The other exception would
be in cases where the Agency believes that a more general
categorization
is needed to account for the diversity of possible chemicals
used in a particular set of substitutes. For example, in the
solvents cleaning sector, many substitutes are formulations
composed of compounds drawn from several categories of chemicals.
In this case, the toxicity profile of each chemical is similar
to those of other chemicals in that class.
b. Decision categories. Under section 612, the Agency has
considerable discretion in the risk management decisions it
can make in SNAP. In this final rule, the Agency has identified
five possible decision categories, as described below. Commenters
suggested that there was confusion with the Agency's intent
to designate some substitutes as acceptable subject to narrowed
use limits versus unacceptable except for critical use exemptions.
In response to these comments, the Agency has determined that
the goal of both categories was to limit the use of a substitute
that had generally unacceptable characteristics yet provide
relief for specialized applications within an end-use where
no other alternatives exist. Given the similarity in goals,
the decision categories have been streamlined by eliminating
the category listed in the NPRM as ``unacceptable except for
critical use exemptions.'' Those substitutes that were listed
in the NPRM as proposed unacceptable except for critical use
exemptions are listed as unacceptable in this final rule, and
the concerns which the critical use exemption petition process
was created to address will now be addressed as part of EPA's
responsibilities under the section 612(d) petition process.
(1) Acceptable. Where the Agency has reviewed a substitute
and found no reason to prohibit its use, it will list the
alternative
as acceptable in the end-uses for which the submitter provided
information. Where appropriate, the Agency may provide some
additional comment (e.g., general recommendations encouraging
recapture and recycling). However, these comments are not
conditions
for use of the substitute.
(2) Acceptable subject to use conditions. As proposed in
the NPRM, after reviewing a submission, the Agency may determine
that a substitute is acceptable if certain conditions on use
are adopted. The Agency cannot predict at this time all necessary
restrictions, but has imposed some conditions based on substitute
reviews already completed for this final rule. Several commenters
supported the application of use conditions as necessary in
providing important guidance to companies in reviewing alternative
replacements for ODSs. While also supporting use conditions
generally, other commenters noted that they should be used
sparingly,
so as to create the minimum uncertainty in the regulated community
and encourage swift transition.
The Agency agrees with these comments. In this final rule,
any conditions imposed will depend on the risks involved and
the substitute and application in question. For example, the
Agency may impose conditions on the use of a substitute and
require recycling equipment to limit workplace and ambient releases
or require use of other control practices within a certain
application.
Where a substitute is found acceptable subject to conditions
on uses, use without adherence to the conditions in the relevant
end-use is prohibited in this final rule. Determinations of
acceptability subject to use conditions will only be made pursuant
to notice-and-comment rulemaking.
In implementing conditions on use, the Agency has sought
to avoid overlap with existing regulatory authorities. EPA has
taken a number of steps to mitigate this potential for duplication.
First, EPA intends to restrict the use of conditions to cases
in which clear regulatory gaps exist. Second, these existing
regulatory gaps must render the use of a substitute an unreasonable
risk in the absence of any additional controls. Third, in the
limited cases in which conditions may be necessary, the Agency
will impose them only as a result of formal notice-and-comment
rulemaking. Finally, use conditions will be effective only until
other appropriate regulatory controls are imposed under other
authorities and will be withdrawn by the Agency when they are
superseded by such controls.
(3) Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits. The Agency
cannot restrict use of a substitute under SNAP if there are
no technically feasible alternatives to the use of an ozone-
depleting compound. Thus, EPA may approve a compound not for
general use within a sector, but for use only within certain
specialized applications within a sector end-use. EPA refers
to these restrictions as narrowed use limits. For example, the
Agency could list a substitute with a generally unfavorable
environmental or human health effect as acceptable in certain
specific metals cleaning applications in the solvents cleaning
sector. This would allow transition away from the damaging ozone-
depleting compounds to proceed, by allowing industry the
flexibility
to use in narrow niche applications a substitute which provides
the only means of transition. At the same time, the narrowed
use determination prevents a widespread shift of an entire sector
to substitutes which overall do not offer the risk reduction
available through the use of other alternatives.
Clearly, any limits imposed will depend on the risks involved
and the substitute and application in question. To provide adequate
opportunity for comment by the regulated community, EPA will
complete notice-and-comment rulemaking before promulgating any
finding that a substitute is acceptable only subject to a narrowed
use limit.
In implementing narrowed use limitations, the Agency has
sought to allow agents for specific uses that would otherwise
be deemed unacceptable. This policy serves the larger goal of
facilitating the fastest possible transition from ozone-depleting
compounds by expanding the list of alternatives available to
all applications within a sector end-use category. EPA recognizes
that certain sector end-uses encompass a broad range of
applications,
manufacturing processes and products. Under the acceptable for
narrow use category, EPA will accept a substitute for use only
in certain specialized uses within the broader end-use. The
intent of the narrowed use limitation is to restrict the use
of a substitute that the Agency deems unacceptable for the full
range of applications or products within a sector end-use category.
Where a substitute is found acceptable subject to narrowed use
limits, general use within the relevant end-use is prohibited.
Before users adopt a restricted agent within the narrowed
use limits category, they must make a reasonable effort to
ascertain
that other substitutes or alternatives are not technically
feasible.
Users are expected to undertake a thorough technical investigation
of alternatives before implementing the otherwise restricted
substitute. The Agency expects users to contact vendors of
alternatives
to explore with experts whether or not other acceptable substitutes
are technically feasible for the process, product or system
in question. To further assist users in their evaluation, EPA
has prepared a list of vendors manufacturing other substitutes.
Although users are not required to report the results of their
investigation to EPA, companies must document these results,
and retain them in company files for the purpose of demonstrating
compliance. Both the Vendor List and the Guidance Manual are
available from the SNAP program, or through EPA's Stratospheric
Ozone Protection Hotline.
In October 1993, the President directed EPA through the Climate
Change Action Plan (CCAP) to use its authority under section
612 of the Clean Air Act to narrow the uses of CFC substitutes
with high global warming potential. Because EPA is simultaneously
also interested in promoting the broader shift away from ozone-
depleting compounds, EPA will make every effort to assure that
these limits on use will be imposed in ways that preserve as
much flexibility as possible for those trying to move to
alternatives.
In this final rule, EPA has imposed narrowed use limitations
on the acceptability of perfluorocarbon (PFC) substitutes when
used in solvent cleaning, and fire suppression. EPA has imposed
these limitations because of the high global warming potential
and long atmospheric lifetimes of the PFC compounds as compared
with other alternatives available for the same end-uses. Comparable
limitations on the use of refrigerants and aerosols containing
PFCs are also likely to be proposed shortly. In the case of
fire suppression and explosion protection, EPA has taken the
approach of narrowing uses to prevent or delay emissions of
global warming gases. This is preferable to the outright
prohibitions
EPA would otherwise be authorized to impose where other
alternatives
are available, because in these limited cases users may have
no other feasible alternatives to continued reliance on ozone-
depleters.
Through the notice and comment rulemaking process, other
companies or vendors will be able to scrutinize the proposed
narrowed use limits. This may bring to light new alternatives
or processes of which the user and EPA are unaware, and these
new alternatives may pose lower overall risks than the substances
which have been the subject of the narrowed use designation.
If an acceptable listing is revoked based on the availability
of a new, lower-risk alternative, companies that have made
investments
in technology which was earlier deemed as having no alternatives
available may be granted permission to extend their use for
a limited period of time, consistent with EPA's grandfathering
approach described above in section VI.B.
The Agency has prepared guidance describing additional
documentation
users should include for narrowed use applications. This
information
includes descriptions of:
Process or product in which the substitute is needed;
Substitutes examined and rejected;
Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance,
technical or safety standards; and/or
Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and
projected time for switching.
In addition to this basic information, the guidance includes
specific data for end-uses in each sector. The guidance is
available
from the SNAP program.
(4) Unacceptable. The Agency has the authority under section
612(c) to prohibit the use of a substitute believed to present
adverse effects to human health and the environment where
alternatives
that reduce overall risk are available. The Agency will only
use this provision where it has identified other substitutes
that are currently or potentially available and that pose lower
overall risks. Substitutes will be listed as unacceptable through
the rulemaking process.
(5) Pending. The Agency will describe submissions for which
the 90-day review period is underway and for which EPA has not
yet reached a final decision as pending. For all substitutes
in the pending category, the Agency will contact the submitter
to determine a schedule for providing the missing information
if the Agency needs to extend the 90-day review period. EPA
will use the authority under section 114 to gather this
information,
if necessary. Again, a delay of the review period will not affect
a manufacturer's ability to sell a product 90 days after
notification
of the Agency as described above.
c. Implications of other regulatory requirements. In evaluating
substitutes, the SNAP program takes into consideration the
regulatory
requirements of other environmental and health protection statutes
(e.g., the Clean Water Act or the Occupational Safety and Health
Act). In considering the framework of existing regulatory
constraints,
the Agency's evaluation of alternatives will assume compliance
with their provisions.
However, it will not be possible to factor in regulatory
requirements that are still under development (e.g., more stringent
requirements to control volatile organic compounds and hazardous
air pollutants under title I and title III of the CAA). In these
instances, a substitute may be deemed acceptable under SNAP,
but is not thereby excused from compliance with any future
regulations.
The Agency does not believe that it was the intent of Congress
to use the authority under section 612 to compromise other
regulatory
requirements. Should future regulations severely limit the
availability
of the only acceptable substitute for a specific end-use, EPA
would reconsider the advisability of keeping any other alternatives
which could be used in that application on the list of unacceptable
substitutes.
5. EPA-Generated Review of Substitutes
In addition to SNAP notifications received under section
612 for substitute review, the Agency is authorized by section
612(c) to add or delete alternatives to the list of reviewed
substitutes on its own initiative. EPA has many efforts under
way to identify and communicate the availability of promising
new alternatives. These include support for research efforts
to study and focus attention on future substitutes, involvement
in the United Nations Environment Programme's biannual assessment
of technologies for key sectors currently using ozone-depleting
chemicals, and technology transfer projects with industry, other
federal agencies, and developing nations. Based on information
available through these activities, EPA may initiate review
of new substitutes under section 612. In each case, the next
planned quarterly Federal Register notice updating the status
of SNAP determinations will inform the public that EPA is
initiating
a review, subject to the provisions discussed in this final
rule. Similarly, determinations ultimately reached as a result
of these internally-generated reviews will be included in these
quarterly updates.
B. Joint Review of New Substitutes under SNAP and TSCA PMN
1. Applicability
Any potential SNAP submitter who intends to introduce a new
chemical (i.e., a chemical not currently included in the TSCA
inventory) as an alternative for a class I or class II chemical
must undergo review not only under section 612, but under section
5 of TSCA (the Premanufacture Notice program) as well. Because
of the overlap in statutory authority, the Agency has established
a joint review process between the SNAP and TSCA Premanufacture
Notice (PMN) programs. This process has been structured to minimize
reporting burden and to ensure consistency in decisions between
the two programs. The following sections describe the joint
review and decision-making process in more detail.
2. Data Submission Requirements and Process
a. SNAP and PMN forms. The Agency has reviewed the data
submission
needs for the SNAP and PMN programs and found significant overlap.
In general, the Agency has identified only a few additional
data elements beyond those already required by the PMN program
that should be included for review under the SNAP program. These
elements are:
Ozone depletion potential.
Global warming potential.
Cost of using the substitute, including:
-Chemical replacement data.
-Chemical cost data.
-Incremental equipment expenditures (either new or retrofit)
needed to use substitute.
-Information on the cost implications of changes in energy
consumption
(e.g., from the use of a less or more energy-efficient
refrigerant).
Documentation of testing results regarding the flammability
of substitutes, especially when proposed for consumer applications.
Given this overlap, a submitter requesting a review under
both the SNAP and PMN programs should provide the above information
by following these steps:
Complete the PMN form (EPA Form 7710-25) following the
Instructions Manual currently available through the TSCA Assistance
Information Service.
Indicate on page 11 of the PMN form, ``Optional Pollution
Prevention Information,'' that the chemical to be reviewed is
also to be considered under the SNAP program.
Complete a SNAP addendum that requests information only
on those items listed above. (The addendum can be obtained from
the SNAP program, or EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline.)
The completed PMN form (EPA Form 7710-25) will remain the
basis for all information needed to complete review of the new
chemical under section 5 of TSCA. The completed PMN form and
the SNAP addendum together will comprise the data submission
for section 612 review and listing decisions for new chemicals.
This approach is intended to minimize the reporting burden on
submitters.
The Agency will modify the PMN Instructions Manual to provide
more explicit direction on how to complete the SNAP addendum.
A SNAP submitter may also consult the SNAP Guidance Manual,
which is available from the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline.
Any questions regarding the completion of these forms can be
directed to either the PMN Pre-notice Coordinator or the SNAP
program.
b. Submission of completed forms. Both the PMN and SNAP programs
have a review period of 90 days, subject to suspensions and
extensions described in section VII.A. for the SNAP program
and in the PMN final rule (40 CFR 720.75). To ensure that new
chemical submissions are reviewed and decided on jointly, the
Agency encourages submitters to provide both the PMN form and
SNAP addendum to the PMN and SNAP coordinators. Failure to provide
both programs with the requested information at the same time
could result in delays in the review of a submitter's notice
seeking acceptance of a new chemical as a class I or II substitute
concurrent with review under the PMN program.
c. Procedures for handling confidential business information.
The Agency recognizes that, where appropriate, information
submitted
to the PMN and SNAP programs may need to be held confidential.
EPA has determined that all CBI submitted as part of the joint
PMN/SNAP review should be maintained and treated in a manner
consistent with TSCA security procedures. Confidentiality claims
will be processed and reviewed in a manner consistent with 40
CFR part 2, subpart B. This approach was selected because the
majority of data provided to SNAP under the joint review process
will come from the PMN form. Submitters should note that while
TSCA and CAA may have different language describing CBI handling
procedures, there is no substantive difference in how CBI is
maintained under the two statutes.
3. Agency Review of New Substitutes under PMN and SNAP
a. Preparation of public docket and Federal Register notices.
Once the letter of receipt has been issued, the PMN program
will prepare a public docket and Federal Register notice, as
described in the final rule for the PMN program (40 CFR 720.75).
The PMN program manager will consult with the SNAP program in
preparing the notice.
b. Joint review process. EPA will complete joint evaluations
of new chemicals serving as class I or II substitutes under
section 5 of TSCA and section 612 of the CAA. This joint review
process will be coordinated to ensure that there is consistency
in the final decisions made under the PMN and SNAP programs.
To ensure agreement in the decisions, EPA offices will work
in concert to develop toxicity, exposure, and risk profiles
for those substitutes and applications that come under joint
TSCA and CAA review authority. The Agency will also coordinate
its review of the completeness of the information supplied and
any subsequent data requests to minimize the reporting burden
on the submitter. Submitters should note that Agency decisions
to restrict production of particular chemicals under TSCA will,
in the case of joint PMN/SNAP applications, also have the effect
of restricting production of substitutes undergoing review under
the SNAP program. However, companies that produce substitutes
only being reviewed under the SNAP program are not required
to cease production during the SNAP review period in the case
of existing substitutes, and in the case of new substitutes,
manufacturers may introduce the substitute into interstate commerce
90 days after submitting their complete notification to EPA.
As part of the review, the PMN and SNAP programs will work
to arrive at a consistent decision regarding the new chemical
under review. Consequently, listing decisions under SNAP will
reference any conditions also incorporated into the PMN review
(e.g., submission of additional toxicity information, restrictions
on use, etc.).
If a substitute meets the conditions for general PMN approval
but not for SNAP acceptability, the company may produce and
market the substance in question once the 90-day period has
elapsed. However, EPA will commence a rulemaking to prohibit
the use of the substitute as a class I or II substitute. If
the chemical fails to meet the conditions for PMN approval,
the submitter is barred from producing the chemical and
consequently
is effectively barred from marketing the product as a substitute
for a class I or II compound. Submitters should note, however,
that CAA section 612 places considerable emphasis on identifying
and promoting the use of substitutes which, relative to others,
reduce overall risks to human health and the environment. To
the extent a substitute offers such risk reduction, EPA will
make every effort to facilitate production and use of that
alternative.
c. Communication of decision. The PMN program will use the
existing TSCA regulatory framework for communicating decisions
on the new substitute to the submitter. The SNAP program will
provide public notice of decisions regarding the acceptability
or unacceptability of a substitute following the process described
in section VII.A.3.g. EPA will contact the submitter to determine
how best to list the substitute under the SNAP program if necessary
to protect the confidentiality of the alternative.
C. Joint Review of Substitutes under SNAP and FIFRA
1. Background on Use of Ozone-Depleting Chemicals in Pesticides
Certain pesticides are formulated with class I and II chemicals.
Examples include the use of methyl chloroform
(1,1,1-trichloroethane)
as an inert ingredient, or the use of methyl bromide as an active
agent. Pesticide products that contain class I and II compounds
must be reformulated as these chemicals are phased out of
production
pursuant to Clean Air Act section 604. This section describes
how the Agency will handle reviews of these changes.
2. Applicability
Any new pesticide or amendment of an existing formulation
is already subject to Agency approval under current provisions
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
Public Law 100-460, 100-464 to 100-526, and 100-532. However,
as of the effective date of the SNAP program, new pesticides
or formulation changes based on class I or class II substitutes
will also be subject to review under section 612 of the CAA.
These authorities apply in all cases where a manufacturer amends
a pesticide product to replace chemicals being phased out under
CAA section 602 or 604. Similarly, registrations of new pesticide
products will also be subject to SNAP review if the new formula
contains chemicals functionally replacing class I or class II
compounds which would otherwise have been used in the new pesticide
formulation.
3. Review Responsibilities Under FIFRA and CAA/SNAP
In general, review responsibilities for pesticide products
under the CAA SNAP program will focus on a substance's ozone
depletion and global warming potential. The FIFRA reviews will
address factors commonly examined during pesticide amendments
and registrations. The two program offices responsible for these
reviews will coordinate their efforts at critical junctures
and share pertinent data to ensure appropriate technical
consideration
of the substitute.
4. Data Submission Requirements and Process
a. Preparation of applications. The Agency has reviewed the
data submission needs for the SNAP and FIFRA pesticide
amendment/registration
process and found no significant overlap. Because there is so
little overlap, the Agency requires that a submitter requesting
review under both SNAP and the Office of Pesticide Programs'
(OPP) pesticide amendment/registration process submit all
information
ordinarily required for the OPP process as well as a fully
completed
SNAP information form. A copy of the FIFRA form should be submitted
to OPP, and a copy of the SNAP form should be submitted to the
SNAP Coordinator. The SNAP form can be obtained from the SNAP
program. For further guidance, SNAP submitters may also consult
the SNAP Guidance Manual, which is available from the Stratospheric
Ozone Protection Hotline.
If a registrant is submitting an amendment to a product
registration
under FIFRA that currently contains a class I or II substance,
he or she should note in section II (``Amendment Information'')
of the FIFRA form that the amendment was filed in response to
the CAA production phase-out. Similarly, if a registrant is
submitting an application for a new pesticide registration that
would otherwise have been based on a class I or II compound,
he or she should note in Section II of the FIFRA form that the
registration includes a class I or II substitute.
The submitter should also identify in Section II both the
substitute chemical and the class I or II compound it is replacing.
Further, if a registrant is aware that a particular chemical
intended for use as a class I or II substitute in a pesticide
formulation has already been accepted through earlier SNAP/FIFRA
determinations, the registrant should also reference the relevant
part of the prior review.
b. Review of applications. When the Agency receives the FIFRA
application and SNAP submission, it will log each into the relevant
tracking systems: the OPP's tracking system for the FIFRA
application
and the SNAP tracking system for SNAP submissions. If the FIFRA
application is identified in section II as a Clean Air Act
substitution,
the FIFRA program coordinator will contact EPA's SNAP program
to ask if the substitute has been the subject of any prior SNAP
reviews. If the registrant's substitute is already on the list
of unacceptable substitutes, EPA will notify the registrant
that the amendment request cannot be granted. If the registrant's
substitute is already on the list of acceptable substitutes,
EPA will proceed with the standard FIFRA application review.
If a chemical substitute is not listed under existing SNAP
determinations
but is a substitute for an ozone-depleting compound, EPA will
inform the registrant that a SNAP review must commence.
5. Communication of Decision
Once EPA review is complete, the Agency will notify the
registrant
whether the new formulation or proposed formulation change is
acceptable. At the same time, the Agency will amend the SNAP
determinations to reflect these findings and will publish the
revised determinations in the next quarterly Federal Register
notice. Submitters should note that, because of the shared
authority
to review substitutes under both SNAP and FIFRA, formulators
may not sell amended or new formulations subject to FIFRA until
they have received FIFRA approval.
D. Shared Statutory Authority with the Food and Drug Administration
The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C.
321, provides for the safety and effectiveness of drugs and
therapeutic devices, the purity and wholesomeness of foods,
and the harmlessness of cosmetics. Under this statute, the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the packaging of food
products and incidental additives and requires predistribution
clearance of medical devices.
As defined in the FDCA, medical devices can include any devices,
diagnostic products, drugs, and drug delivery systems. Devices
covered under this jurisdiction are subject to review under
the FDCA. Some medical devices and food packaging currently
contain class I or II compounds. The Agency has determined that
such products are exempt from further review for human health
effects under the SNAP program where FDA approval of such effects
is required before a product can be introduced into commerce.
EPA will rely in its SNAP determination on FDA's conclusions
regarding health effects. The Agency believes this exemption
is justified because of the higher burden of proof placed on
submitters under the FDCA. However, the Agency will continue
to evaluate all other environmental effects of the proposed
substitute, and will consult with the FDA to determine the
appropriate
course of action.
VIII. Petitions
A. Background
1. Role of Petitions
Section 612(d) of the CAA explicitly states that ``any person
may petition the Administrator to add a substance * * * or to
remove a substance from either of such (prohibited or safe use)
lists.'' The petition provision serves two principal needs.
The first is to permit the appeal of existing Agency determinations
under the SNAP program. The second is to provide a mechanism
for individuals and organizations to bring to the Agency's
attention
new information on substitutes that could affect existing listing
determinations or result in new ones.
The opportunity for outside parties to comment on existing
listing decisions is an important aspect of the petition process.
As discussed in the section on notifications, companies that
produce substitutes must submit specific data on the substitutes
to the Agency for review. However, organizations and private
citizens other than those required to submit SNAP notices may
have additional information about existing substitutes or
information
on new substitutes not yet reviewed by the Agency. To ensure
that the SNAP determinations are based on the best information
on substitutes, it is essential that the Agency offer a means
for such information to be incorporated into the SNAP analyses
on a continuing basis.
Before individuals, organizations, or companies may initiate
legal action against EPA for the purpose of changing the lists
of acceptable or unacceptable substitutes, they must first exhaust
all administrative remedies for receiving such relief, including
remedies like the petition process described in this section.
2. Types of Petitions
Five types of petitions exist:
(1) Petitions to add a substitute not previously reviewed
under the SNAP program to the acceptable list;
(2) Petitions to add a substitute not previously reviewed
under the SNAP program to the unacceptable list;
(3) Petitions to delete a substitute from the acceptable
list and add it to the unacceptable list or to delete a substitute
from the unacceptable list and add it to the acceptable list;
(4) Petitions to add or delete use restrictions on an
acceptability
listing, and
(5) Petitions to grandfather general use of an unacceptable
or acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in specified
applications
substitute.
Petitioners should note that the first type of petition is
comparable to completing a SNAP submission, except that the
latter is submitted by substitute producers prior to the
introduction
into interstate commerce of the substitute for a significant
new use as a class I or II substitute. The first type of petition,
by contrast, would generally be initiated by entities other
than the company responsible for producing the substitute.
Companies
that manufacture, formulate, or use a substitute themselves
and want to have their substitutes added to the acceptable list
should submit information on the substitute under the 90-day
advance notification review program.
3. Basis for Petition
A petitioner may submit a petition for several reasons,
including:
Availability of new information on substitutes or applications
not covered in the existing SNAP determinations;
Requests to extend effective date for existing prohibitions
on uses of an unacceptable substitute;
New technologies or practices that reduce exposures to
a substitute previously unacceptable under SNAP due to toxicity
concerns; or
Requests for acceptability subject to narrowed use limits
listing for specialized applications within a sector end-use
for an unacceptable substitute where no other technologically
viable substitute can be found.
All of the above are examples of valid justifications for
submitting a petition. Other bases for petitioning the Agency
may exist as well, and all petitions with adequate supporting
data will receive consideration under the SNAP program.
4. Nature of Response
The Agency will only review and grant or deny petitions based
on the sector and end-use application identified in the petition.
For example, simply because the Agency ultimately deletes a
substitute from the list of acceptable substitutes for a particular
end-use in the solvents cleaning sector does not mean the
substitute
is unacceptable for any specific end-use as a refrigerant. A
similar caveat applies for petitions on applications within
a sector. If a substitute, for instance, is found acceptable
for a specific end-use within an application, it will not
automatically
be deemed acceptable for any other end-use in that sector.
B. Content of the Petition
The Agency requires the following information: A brief statement
describing the type of petition, substitute, sector and end-
uses to which it applies; and a brief summary of the basis for
the petition and the data that support the petition. As with
SNAP submissions, the Agency will issue a determination letter
on the completeness of the petition to the petitioner within
15 calendar days of its receipt.
Petition types (1) and (2) must contain the information
described
in section V.B. of this notice, which lists the items to be
submitted in a 90-day notification. Information requirements
for such petitions and 90-day notifications are the same, since
the Agency will be applying the same level of analysis to petitions
submitted by outside parties as to notifications received from
the producing companies themselves. For petition types (3) and
(4), which request a reexamination of a substitute previously
reviewed under the SNAP program, the submitter may reference
the prior submission rather than submit duplicate information.
In this case, the petitioner should provide and submit as
appropriate
any new or additional data. Petitions to grandfather use of
an unacceptable substitute must describe the applicability of
the four-part test to judge the appropriateness of Agency
grandfathering
as described in section VI.B. of this final rule.
C. Sufficiency of Data
Petitioners should be aware that insufficient data may prevent
the Agency from reaching a timely decision on whether to grant
or deny a petition. EPA will conclude a completeness review
of each petition received within fifteen days of receipt of
the petition. Within the 15-day period, EPA will inform the
petitioner of any additional information needed. If EPA makes
no such request, then after the 15-day period is completed,
the 90-day review period will automatically commence. If EPA
does request any additional data, the 90-day period shall not
commence until the additional data are received and themselves
reviewed for completeness.
As provided in section 612(d), any petition must ``include
a showing by the petitioner that there are data on the substance
adequate to support the petition.'' Petitioners may provide
citations to scientific literature, where appropriate. However,
submitters are advised that furnishing copies of supporting
articles, reports, or letters will expedite the review process.
If the Agency receives a petition with insufficient data,
EPA will not commence review until the petitioner submits the
missing information to the best of the petitioner's ability.
EPA will inform the petitioner when the petition is complete
for purposes of initiating the 90-day review period. To the
extent the petitioner does not have the required information,
EPA may also seek data from sources other than the petitioner,
including manufacturers or users of products that contain the
substitute. In such cases, section 612(d) explicitly provides
that ``the Administrator shall use any authority available to
the Administrator, under any law administered by the Administrator,
to acquire such information.'' These authorities include section
114 of the CAA as well as information collection provisions
of other environmental statutes. Where EPA cannot obtain sufficient
data within the statutory 90-day review period, the Agency may
deny the petition for lack of adequate technical support.
D. Criteria for Evaluating Petitions
In evaluating petitions, the Agency will follow the same
criteria as for review of the SNAP Information Notice which
notifies EPA of the intent to introduce a substitute into
interstate
commerce. This will ensure that both petitions and notifications
are judged by the same standards.
E. Petition Review Process
1. Petition Submittal
This final rule describes a generic petition process. Petitions
should be sent to the docket number listed in the beginning
of this final rule as well as to the SNAP Coordinator.
2. Petition Reviews
When the Agency receives a petition, it will log the petition
into the SNAP tracking system. If the petition concerns a
substitute
previously either found acceptable or unacceptable under the
SNAP program, the Agency will as a courtesy contact the initial
submitter of that substitute.
The Agency will grant or deny the petition within 90 days
of receiving a complete application. If the Agency grants a
petition to add a substitute to the list of unacceptable
substitutes
or to remove a substitute from either list, the decision will
be made through notice and comment rulemaking. In such cases,
the statute requires EPA to propose, take comment on, complete
final action, and publish the revised lists within six months
of the grant of the petition. Otherwise, responses to petitions,
including explanations of petition denials, will be included
in the next 3-month Federal Register notice updating the SNAP
determinations. Regardless of the final determination, the Agency
will inform petitioners within 90 days whether their request
has been granted or denied.
IX. Listing of Substitutes
A. Overview
This section presents EPA's listing decisions for class I
substitutes in the following industrial sectors: Refrigeration
and air conditioning, foam blowing, solvents cleaning, fire
suppression and explosion protection, sterilants, aerosols,
tobacco expansion and adhesives, coatings and inks. Parts D
through K below present a detailed discussion of the substitute
listing determinations for each of the major use sectors. Tables
that summarize listing decisions in this section are included
in appendix B. Listings of substitutes within the pesticides
sector will be added in future notices, as information on these
substitutes becomes available to the Agency. This final rule
focuses on substitutes for class I substances, given the
accelerated
production phaseout schedule for class I substances. One of
the goals of SNAP is to encourage transition away from class
I substances as rapidly as possible. SNAP will begin analyzing
alternatives to class II substances in the near future. Results
of these analyses will appear in quarterly updates to the SNAP
lists, which will be published in the Federal Register as described
in Sections III.C.4. and VII.A.3.g. of this final rule.
To develop the lists of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes,
EPA conducted screens of health and environmental risks posed
by various substitutes for class I compounds in each use sector.
These screens are presented in individual background documents
entitled ``Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I
Ozone-Depleting Substances'' for each use sector. These background
documents are available for review in the public docket supporting
this rulemaking. Whenever the initial risk screen indicated
a potential risk, the substitute was evaluated further to ascertain
whether the potential risk was accurately estimated and if
management
controls could reduce any risk to acceptable levels.
Based on these analyses, EPA classified as unacceptable only
uses of substitutes that pose significantly higher human health
and environmental risks than those risks that would accrue through
either continued use of the class I substances themselves or
through use of other available substitutes.
The assessments presented in the background documents are
screens of the comparative risks posed by use of substitutes,
not assessments or rankings of the absolute risks associated
with use of each substitute. Designating a substitute as acceptable
does not imply the absence of risks for that substitute, but
rather that the substitute in question is believed to present
lower overall risks than both the class I compound it is replacing
and other substitutes available for the same end-use. For instance,
in some cases, ozone-depleting substances can be replaced by
chemicals with known toxicity or ability to contribute to ground-
level ozone formation. The Agency's risk screen analyzes these
effects, and the SNAP determinations generally describe as
acceptable
those substitutes for which risks from replacements would be
lower on an overall basis compared to risks from other existing
alternatives, or for which such risks could be managed by
developing
and implementing appropriate regulatory controls. Additionally,
in cases where the Agency has listed a substitute as unacceptable,
it has assessed-as required in section 612-the availability
of other substitutes and concluded that alternatives with reduced
overall risk are currently or potentially available.
As a rule, the Agency did not evaluate the technical performance
of a substitute, since the purpose of the SNAP program is to
examine environmental effects of substitutes identified as being
of commercial interest regardless of technical acceptability.
However, in certain sectors, performance of the substitute does
pertain directly to environmental or health effects. For example,
in refrigeration, the ability of a refrigerant replacement to
serve as a coolant will directly influence the substitute's
energy efficiency, which in turn will affect the substitute's
environmental effects. Similarly, in fire suppression, the ability
of a substitute to put out fires and thereby save human lives
will directly affect a substitute's health effects. Further,
in the case of narrowed use listings, the Agency's decision
to grant or deny a narrowed use petition may hinge on the ability
of potential substitutes to meet technical performance criteria.
For example, in the case of certain specialized solvents, some
substitutes otherwise considered unacceptable may require special
consideration because they are the only available substitute
offering performance characteristics deemed essential in a certain
application. In cases such as these, the SNAP analyses do consider
the performance of a substitute as necessary.
EPA's evaluation of each substitute in an end use is based
on the following types of information and analyses:
Atmospheric effects are assessed by predicting ozone depletion
and analyzing total global warming potential, including chemical
properties relevant to global warming. Ozone depletion is based
on market penetration of a substitute and is measured in terms
of cumulative ClX loadings and its effect in terms of increased
incidence of skin cancer cases and skin cancer mortalities.
Analysis of total global warming potential includes changes
consideration of inherent properties such as atmospheric lifetime
and absorption spectra, as measured by the GWP index, and from
changes in fossil fuel use due to increases or decreases in
energy efficiency resulting from production or use of the
substitutes.
Atmospheric lifetime is considered as an indicator of the likely
persistence of an environmental effect or of the time lag to
reverse any known or unknown effect associated with an emission.
The model used by the Agency to determine atmospheric effects-
the Atmospheric Stabilization Framework model-has been used
by the Agency in calculating the benefits from the phase-out
of class I substances. The model was peer-reviewed in connection
with this earlier analysis.
Although scientific studies have pointed to the possibility
of ecological effects due to ozone depletion, such as crop damage,
the scope of existing studies is limited and therefore these
effects were not part of this analysis.
Exposure assessments are used to estimate concentration
levels of substitutes to which workers, consumers, the general
population, and environmental receptors may be exposed, and
over what period of time. These assessments are based on personal
monitoring data or area sampling data if available. Otherwise,
exposures are assessed using measured or estimated releases
as inputs to mathematical models. Exposure assessments may be
conducted for many types of releases, including releases in
the workplace and in homes, releases to ambient air and surface
water, and releases from the management of solid wastes.
Toxicity data are used to assess the possible health and
environmental effects from exposure to the substitutes. If
Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-approved or EPA-wide
health-based criteria such as Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs,
for occupational exposure), inhalation reference concentrations
(RfCs, for noncarcinogenic effects), or cancer slope factors
(for carcinogenic risk) are available for a substitute, exposure
information is combined with this toxicity information to explore
any basis for concern. Otherwise, toxicity data are used with
existing EPA guidelines to develop health-based criteria for
interim use in these risk characterizations.
Flammability is examined as a possible safety concern for
workers and consumers. EPA assesses flammability risk using
data on flash point and flammability limits (e.g., OSHA
flammability/combustibility
classifications), data on testing of blends with flammable
components,
test data on flammability in consumer applications conducted
by independent laboratories, and information on flammability
risk minimization techniques.
Some of the substitutes are volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), chemicals that increase tropospheric air pollution by
contributing to ground-level ozone formation. Local and nationwide
increases in VOC loadings from the use of substitutes is also
evaluated.
In conducting these assessments, EPA made full use of previous
analyses performed by the Agency, including EPA's 1990 interim
hazard assessments and supporting documentation. These analyses
were modified in some cases to incorporate more recent data,
such as data received in public comment on the May 12, 1993
NPRM, or to accommodate different analytical approaches as needed.
Finally, these analyses assume that the regulated community
complies with applicable requirements of other statutes and
regulations administered by EPA (e.g., recycling requirements
promulgated under the CAA) and other Federal agencies (e.g.,
any occupational exposure limits set by OSHA).
Acceptable substitutes within specific use sectors may be
listed as hazardous wastes or, because of flammability,
corrosivity,
reactivity or toxicity characteristics, must be managed as
hazardous
wastes. The regulatory status of three chlorinated hydrocarbons
(trichloroethylene, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene) which
could serve as substitutes for ODCs are highlighted in section
IX. of this final rule. However, other chemicals listed as
acceptable
substitutes are also RCRA-regulated, and the RCRA regulations
should be consulted when application of a specific substitute
for an ozone-depleting substance is being considered.
Should additional data become available that would help
characterize
the risks of substitutes, the Agency will incorporate this data
into its risk screens. For example, the risk screen does not
at present include assessment of the environmental transformation
products of substitutes. Research efforts of the Agency in
cooperation
with the Alternative Fluorocarbons Environmental Acceptability
Study (AFEAS) are in progress and are intended to define the
chemical, biological and photochemical sinks for these substances
in the biosphere. Ultimately, these research activities will
contribute to the development of more complete ecological risk
assessments for substitutes. However, the Agency generally does
not believe that a more detailed characterization of risks would
lead to a different listing decision for individual substitutes
unless effects are characterized as highly severe, since the
critical comparison for policy purposes remains the adverse
effects posed by continued use of a class I compound.
The listing of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes under
SNAP will continue. Thus, if a company is not yet able to provide
the Agency with the information needed to complete a review
of a substitute, a review can be completed in the future, when
data become available. Once the data are complete, Agency review
will begin, as discussed in sections IV. through IX. of this
final rule.
B. Format for SNAP Determinations
Sections IX.D. through IX.K. below present the decisions
on acceptability of substitutes that EPA has made based on
available
information and the evaluation criteria (see Section V of this
final rule). These sections describe the sector end-uses (e.g.,
industrial process refrigeration), the substitutes evaluated,
the decision (i.e., acceptable or unacceptable) and associated
rationale, any conditions for or limitations on the use of a
substitute, and any general comments.
In most cases, the end-use descriptions have been written
broadly to encompass numerous industrial applications or uses.
Based on discussions with industry, the Agency felt that this
approach was preferable to listing substitutes by narrowly-defined
applications, which would increase needlessly the number of
SNAP notices that would be received by the Agency. The objective
of section 612 is to ensure that replacement of class I and
II substances with available substitutes will reduce adverse
effects on human health and the environment. In general, the
Agency can look at exposures from very broad classifications
of use (e.g., metals cleaning) and perform the screening analysis
to ensure that this statutory objective is being met. It is
not necessary or helpful, for example, to list acceptable
substitutes
by each specific type of metal being cleaned in the solvents
cleaning sector. This is especially true when conservative
assumptions
used in the screening analysis demonstrate the acceptability
of an alternative in a wide range of end-uses. Where possible,
the substitutes presented in sections D. through K. have been
identified by their chemical name. Generally speaking, EPA has
not listed substitutes by product or company name in order to
avoid implied endorsement of one substitute over another. However,
there are two circumstances in which specific chemical names
have not been included. First, where proprietary blends have
been identified as substitutes, the Agency has worked with the
manufacturers to identify generic ways in which the substitute
could be listed. Before a user invests in a substitute in these
categories, they may wish to contact the SNAP program to confirm
that the specific substitute they intend to use has been reviewed
and found acceptable by EPA. EPA believes that if a potential
user identifies the substitute by a product name that EPA has
on record, but was not included on the list for the reasons
stated above, EPA can confirm the listing of the substitute
without violating safeguards important to protect any proprietary
business information provided in confidence to the Agency.
The second situation in which EPA does not anticipate listing
specific chemicals arises in the solvents cleaning sector,
primarily
for aqueous and semi-aqueous cleaners. In this area, numerous
cleaning formulations exist and are comprised of a wide variety
of chemicals. As discussed in the section below on solvents
cleaning alternatives (see section IX.F.), the Agency performed
its screening assessment by identifying representative chemicals.
These were then used to screen a wide variety of chemicals grouped
into categories of solvent-cleaning constituents (e.g.,
saponifiers,
surfactants, etc.). Information on these chemicals presented
in the risk screen was used as a basis for determining that
aqueous and semi-aqueous cleaners present lower risk than the
chemicals they are replacing.
EPA has selected this strategy for listing as acceptable
aqueous and semi-aqueous cleaners for several reasons. First,
it should minimize the need to submit SNAP notices for blends
of compounds that are combinations of the chemicals which have
already been approved. Second, it will allow EPA to avoid listing
proprietary formulations.
Any conditions for use included in listing decisions are
part of the decision to identify a substitute as acceptable.
Thus, users would be considered out of compliance if using a
substitute listed as acceptable without adhering to the conditions
EPA has stipulated for acceptable use of the alternative.
Alternatively,
where restrictions are set which narrow the acceptable applications
within an end-use, a user would be considered out of compliance
if using the compound in an end-use application where such use
is unacceptable. Conditions, if any, are listed when it is clear
that a substitute can only be used safely if certain precautions
are maintained. As noted previously, any conditions will be
imposed in the listing of substitutes as acceptable through
rulemaking.
The comments contained in the table of listing decisions
found in summary form in Appendix B provide additional information
on a substitute. Since comments are not part of the regulatory
decision, they are not mandatory for use of a substitute. Nor
should the comments be considered comprehensive with respect
to other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute.
However, EPA encourages users of acceptable substitutes to apply
any comments in their use of these substitutes. In many instances,
the comments simply allude to sound operating practices that
have already been identified in existing industry and/or building-
code standards. Thus, many of the comments, if adopted, would
not require significant changes in existing operating practices
for the affected industry.
C. Decisions Universally Applicable
Recently, the Agency has become aware of substitute mixtures
that are being marketed as replacements for both class I and
II chemicals. In situations where these mixtures are a combination
of class I and II chemicals, they may serve as transitional
chemicals because they offer environmental advantages in that
they have a lower combined ODP than use of a class I compound
by itself. However, where EPA has identified a non-ozone depleting
alternative that reduces overall risk to human health and the
environment, mixtures of class I and II substances shall be
unacceptable or subject to use limits.
There have been a few instances in which mixtures of class
I and II chemicals have been marketed as replacements for class
II chemicals. Because the ODP of such alternatives is clearly
higher than the class II substances, the Agency is prohibiting
the use of any class I and class II mixture as a replacement
for a class II chemical. Where the Agency is aware of specific
mixtures falling into this category, they are listed by individual
use sector below. The remainder of this section presents the
initial listing decisions for each of the following end use
sectors:
D. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
E. Foam Blowing
F. Solvents Cleaning
G. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
H. Sterilants
I. Aerosols
J. Tobacco Expansion
K. Adhesives, Coatings and Inks
D. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
1. Overview
The refrigeration and air conditioning sector includes all
uses of Class I and Class II substances to transfer heat. Most
end-uses in this sector involve mechanically moving heat from
a cool region to a warmer one. For example, a car's air conditioner
moves heat from the cooled interior to the hot ambient air.
This sector also includes heat transfer end-uses, i.e. those
uses of Class I and Class II substances to move heat from a
warm region to a cool one. For example, CFC-114 is currently
used to remove excess heat from a very hot uranium enrichment
process to cooler ambient air. Hence, the process requires no
additional energy, and does not create refrigeration by mechanical
means.
Mechanical systems generally use a vapor compression cycle.
However, several alternative cycles have been used for decades;
these and other alternatives are being re-examined in light
of the phaseout of commonly used CFC-based refrigerants in 1996.
Substitutes reviewed under SNAP may use alternative cycles;
review is not restricted solely to applications based on replacing
the working fluid in vapor compression equipment. Similarly,
simple heat transfer end-uses will also be included.
The refrigeration and air conditioning sector is divided
into the following end-uses:
Commercial comfort air conditioning;
Industrial process refrigeration systems;
Industrial process air conditioning;
Ice skating rinks;
Uranium isotope separation processing;
Cold storage warehouses;
Refrigerated transport;
Retail food refrigeration;
Vending machines;
Water coolers;
Commercial ice machines;
Household refrigerators;
Household freezers;
Residential dehumidifiers;
Motor vehicle air conditioning;
Residential air conditioning and heat pumps; and
Heat transfer.
EPA has not necessarily reviewed substitutes in every end-
use.
The following discussion provides some distinctions among
the various end-uses in the refrigeration and air conditioning
sector.
a. Chillers. CFCs are used in several different types of
mechanical commercial comfort air conditioning systems, known
as chillers. These chillers cool water, which is then circulated
through a building. They can be classified by compressor type,
including centrifugal, reciprocating, scroll, screw, and rotary.
The selection of a particular compressor type generally depends
on the cooling capacity required. Reciprocating and scroll
compressors
are used in small capacity applications (less than 200 tons),
screw compressors are used in medium capacity applications (50
to 400 tons), and centrifugal compressors are used in large
capacity applications (greater than 300 tons). The majority
of the chillers used in the United States are centrifugal chillers.
Chillers have a lifetime of 23 to 40 years. EPA anticipates
that over time, existing cooling capacity will be either
retrofitted
or replaced by systems using non-CFC refrigerants in a vapor
compression cycle or by alternative technologies.
b. Industrial process refrigeration systems. Many industrial
applications require cooling of process streams. These applications
include systems designed to operate in a wide temperature range.
Included within this category are industrial ice machines and
ice rinks. The choice of substitute for specific applications
depends on ambient and required operating temperatures and
pressures.
c. Ice skating rinks. Skating rinks frequently use secondary
refrigeration loops. They are used by the general public for
recreational purposes.
d. Industrial process air conditioning. Ambient temperatures
near 200 degrees Fahrenheit and corrosive conditions make this
application distinct from commercial and residential air
conditioning.
Units in this end-use provide comfort cooling for operators
and protect process equipment.
e. Uranium isotope separation processing. This end-use includes
operation of a heat transfer cycle to cool uranium isotope
separation
processing. Substitutes must meet an extremely rigorous set
of criteria to be applicable in this end-use.
f. Cold storage warehouses. Cold storage warehouses are used
to store meat, produce, dairy products and other perishable
goods. The majority of cold storage warehouses in the United
States use ammonia as the refrigerant in a vapor compression
cycle.
g. Refrigerated transport. Refrigerated transport moves products
from one place and climatic condition to another, and include
refrigerated ship holds, truck trailers, railway freight cars,
and other shipping containers. Refrigerated transport systems
are affected by a number of inherent complications not found
with other refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses. In route,
the refrigerated units may be subject to a broad range of ambient
temperatures. Engine-driven transport units suffer power
interruptions
when either the unit or the vehicle is out of use for brief
periods of time (e.g., loading and unloading and fuel stops).
Refrigerated units are designed to provide the maximum amount
of space available for containment of the product to be
transported.
Refrigerated transport equipment must be versatile to allow
for the different temperature requirements for the different
products (e.g., ice cream versus fresh produce) which may be
transported.
h. Retail Food Refrigeration. This end-use includes all cold
storage cases designed to chill food for commercial sale. Equipment
in this end-use is generally designed for two temperature regimes:
Low temperature cases operating below freezing and medium
temperature
units merely chilling food. In addition to grocery cases, the
end-use includes convenience store reach-in cases and restaurant
walk-in refrigerators. Icemakers in these locations are discussed
under commercial ice machines.
i. Vending machines. Vending machines are self-contained
units which dispense goods that must be kept cold or frozen.
Like equipment in other end-uses, the choice of substitute will
strongly depend on ambient conditions and the required operating
temperature.
j. Water coolers. Water coolers are also self-contained and
provide chilled water for drinking. They may or may not feature
detachable containers of water.
k. Commercial ice machines. These units are used in commercial
establishments to produce ice for consumer use, e.g., in hotels,
restaurants, and convenience stores. Thus, the cleanliness of
the ice is important. In addition, the machines are typically
smaller in size than industrial equipment. Commercial ice machines
are typically connected to a building's water supply.
l. Household refrigerators. Household refrigerators are intended
primarily for residential use, although they may be used outside
the home. Approximately 159 million units exist in the U.S.,
where the average residential refrigerator is an 18.4 ft3 automatic
defrost unit with a top mounted freezer. Cooling is provided
by a conventional single evaporator unit in a vapor compression
cycle. The evaporator is located in the freezer compartment,
and cooling to both compartments is typically achieved by
mechanically
driven air exchange between the compartments.
m. Household freezers. Household freezers only offer storage
space at freezing temperatures, unlike household refrigerators.
Two model types, upright and chest, provide a wide range of
sizes.
n. Residential dehumidifiers. Residential dehumidifiers are
primarily used to remove water vapor from ambient air for comfort
purposes. While air conditioning systems often combine cooling
and dehumidification, this application serves only the latter
purpose. Since air is cooled as it flows over the evaporator,
it loses moisture through condensation. It is then warmed as
it passes over the condenser coil. Dehumidifiers actually slightly
warm the surrounding air, since the compressor adds heat to
the cycle.
o. Motor vehicle air conditioning. Motor vehicle air
conditioning
systems (MVACS) provide comfort cooling for passengers in cars,
buses, planes, trains, and other forms of transportation. MVACS
pose risks related to widely varying ambient conditions, accidents,
do-it-yourself maintenance, and the location of the evaporator
inside the passenger compartment. Given the large number of
cars in the nation's fleet, and the variety of designs, new
substitutes must be used in accordance with established retrofit
procedures.
Flammability is a concern in all applications, but the
conditions
of use and the potential for accidents in this end-use increase
the likelihood of a fire. In addition, the number of car owners
who perform their own routine maintenance means that more people
will be exposed to potential hazards. Current systems are not
designed to use flammable refrigerants.
p. Residential air conditioning and heat pumps. HCFC-22,
a class II substance, is the dominant working fluid in residential
air conditioning and heat pumps. This end-use includes both
central units and window air conditioners. SNAP will begin
analyzing
class II substance substitutes in the near future. Results of
these analyses will appear in quarterly updates in the Federal
Register.
q. Heat transfer. This end-use includes all cooling systems
that rely on convection to remove heat from an area, rather
than relying on mechanical refrigeration. There are, generally
speaking, two types of systems: Systems with fluid pumps, referred
to as recirculating coolers, and those that rely on natural
convection currents, referred to as thermosiphons.
2. Substitutes for Refrigerants
Substitutes fall into eight broad categories. Seven of these
categories are chemical substitutes generally used in the same
cycle as the ozone-depleting substances they replace. They include
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
hydrocarbons, blends of refrigerants, ammonia, perfluorocarbons
(PFCs), and chlorine systems. The eighth category includes
alternative
technologies that generally do not rely on vapor compression
cycles.
a. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). EPA believes that
hydrochlorofluorocarbons
have an important role to play as transitional refrigerants.
HCFCs are chemically similar to CFCs except that they contain
hydrogen in addition to chlorine and fluorine. Because their
thermophysical properties are, in many cases, similar to CFCs,
equipment designed to use CFCs can often be retrofitted to operate
with HCFCs. In addition, new equipment can be designed specifically
for these compounds.
HCFCs contribute to the destruction of stratospheric ozone,
but to a much lesser extent than CFCs. Use of HCFCs as transitional
refrigerants will allow industry to move away from CFCs more
rapidly and, therefore, will offer significant environmental
and health benefits over the continued use of CFCs. Because
they contain hydrogen, the HCFCs break down more easily in the
atmosphere than do CFCs, and therefore have lower ODPs. Their
global warming potentials are also lower than those for the
CFCs. Production of HCFCs is controlled under the international
agreement set forth in the Montreal Protocol, which is being
implemented in the U.S. through the Clean Air Act. HCFCs were
initially scheduled to be phased out by 2030. As a result of
growing evidence indicating greater risks of ozone depletion,
however, the international community agreed in Copenhagen in
November 1992 to accelerate the phaseout of the ozone-depleting
compounds, including HCFCs. As a result, EPA published an
accelerated
phaseout of HCFCs on December 10, 1993 (58 FR 65018). The proposed
accelerated schedule places production and consumption limits
on the most potent ozone-depleting HCFCs first, with the production
of HCFCs with lower ozone depletion potentials (ODPs) permitted
over a longer period of time. There are clear environmental
and health benefits to be gained by allowing near-term use of
HCFCs until substitutes with zero ODP are developed.
b. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Hydrofluorocarbons do not contain
chlorine and do not contribute to destruction of stratospheric
ozone. However, some HFCs do have significant global warming
potentials (GWPs). Although a few HFCs have been in use for
some time, the potential for HFCs as a replacement for CFCs
has grown rapidly over the last several years. EPA is concerned
that rapid expansion of the use of some HFCs could contribute
to global warming. Nonetheless, HFCs as a class offer lower
overall risk than continued use of CFCs, as well as a near-term
option for moving away from CFCs.
c. Hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons do not contain chlorine or
bromine; they therefore also have zero ODP. Hydrocarbons degrade
in the lower atmosphere, contributing to ground-level pollution
such as smog, but they do not contribute directly to global
warming. Propane, ethane, propylene, and to some extent butane
are used as refrigerants in specialized industrial applications,
primarily in oil refineries and chemical plants, where they
are frequently available as part of the process stream and where
their use contributes only a slight increment to the overall
risk of fire or explosion. Because of the overall risks, these
systems are designed to meet rigid requirements for reliability,
durability, and safety.
Hydrocarbon refrigerants are also used in some home appliances.
In general, they are effective refrigerants and may provide
some gains in efficiency over CFCs. EPA believes refrigeration
end-uses may exist for this class of compounds, but such
determinations
will require analysis of appropriate controls to address the
risk of fire.
d. Blends. Blends of refrigerants offer significant
opportunities
for alternatives to class I substances. The number of single-
substance substitutes is limited; combinations greatly expand
the number of possible refrigerants. By varying the concentrations
of the constituents, manufacturers may design blends for specific
end-uses.
Blends generally fall into two categories: azeotropes and
zeotropes. Azeotropes behave like single refrigerants under
normal conditions. They boil and condense at constant temperature
and do not change composition across a phase change. Zeotropes,
however, exhibit temperature glide, meaning that as the refrigerant
flows across a heat exchanger, the temperature changes in response
to differential boiling or condensing of different constituents
in the blend. Known as fractionation, this process may pose
additional risks if any of the blend's components are flammable,
even if the blend as formulated is not. On the other hand,
equipment
designed to take advantage of zeotropic blends may reap energy
efficiency gains. EPA expects blends to play an important role
in the transition away from ODSs.
In some cases, the specific components of blends, as well
as their proportions, are confidential business information;
in others, only the proportions are confidential. With respect
to both types of blends, however, listings in this final rule
and in future updates will refer to only those blends which
have been submitted for review. Although several companies may
submit blends with the same components, only those compositions
specifically reviewed under SNAP will be listed as acceptable.
ASHRAE has issued numerical designations for many blends. All
blends will be assigned a generic name for use in public notices.
Substitutes that were included in the proposed rule will retain
the same generic names, but the listing will include any available
ASHRAE designations. Blends submitted since the proposed rule
will be listed using the ASHRAE designation when available.
If ASHRAE has not issued its designation, they will be assigned
new names. In most cases, the discussion in the listings will
include the blends' components. Blends that contain HCFCs will
be labeled ``HCFC Blend Alpha'', ``HCFC Blend Beta'', etc. This
designation is intended to ease identification of blends which
must be handled in accordance with other regulations described
below. Blends that have zero ODP will be given similar names
that describe their major components. An information sheet listing
the trade names and manufacturers of the blends, along with
a vendor list, may be obtained by contacting the SNAP refrigerants
sector expert.
e. Ammonia. Ammonia has been used as a medium to low temperature
refrigerant in vapor compression cycles for more than 100 years.
Ammonia has excellent refrigerant properties, a characteristic
pungent odor, no long-term atmospheric risks, and low cost.
It is, however, moderately flammable and toxic, although it
is not a cumulative poison. OSHA standards specify a 15 minute
short-term exposure limit of 35 ppm for ammonia.
Ammonia is used as the refrigerant in meat packing, chicken
processing, dairy, frozen juice, brewery, cold storage, and
other food processing and industrial applications. It is also
widely used to refrigerate holds in fishing vessels. Some
absorption
refrigeration and air conditioning systems use ammonia as well.
f. Perfluorocarbons. Unlike CFCs, HCFCs or HFCs,
perfluorocarbons
(PFCs) are fully fluorinated compounds. The principal environmental
characteristic of concern for these compounds is that they have
extremely long atmospheric lifetimes, often orders of magnitude
longer than those of the CFCs. These long lifetimes cause the
PFCs to have very high global warming potentials. Technology
for containment and recycling of PFCs is commercially available
and is recommended by manufacturers to offset any possible adverse
environmental effects.
One advantage of the PFCs is that, like HFCs, they do not
contribute to ozone depletion. In addition, these chemicals
are nonflammable and exhibit low toxicity, and they are not
subject to federal regulations concerning volatile organic
compounds
(VOCs), since they do not contribute to ground-level ozone
formation.
The Agency anticipates that in widespread use, these compounds
pose higher overall risk compared to other available alternatives
because of their relatively long lifetimes and associated high
GWPs. Because of these concerns, the Agency has found acceptable
only certain narrowly defined uses of perfluorinated compounds,
prohibiting their use where other alternatives with lower overall
risk are available. EPA has described these limited acceptable
uses as specifically as possible. Further, users should be aware
that, because of the environmental concerns detailed above,
any proposed uses of PFCs outside those described in this final
rule should be submitted for future review under SNAP.
g. Chlorine. Chlorine was listed in the proposed regulation
as an alternative refrigerant in chlorine liquefaction, a
processing
step in the manufacture of the chemical. When chilled below
its boiling point, chlorine can be stored as a liquid at
atmospheric
pressure, a method that for safety reasons is preferable to
storing the chemical as a pressured gas at ambient temperatures.
Although the refrigeration system will generally be physically
separate from the actual chlorine process stream, compatibility
of the refrigerant with liquid chlorine is critical because
of chlorine's high reactivity. CFC-12 has been widely used because
it does not react with chlorine.
Systems using chlorine as a refrigerant require specialized
compressors designed to resist chemical attack by liquid and
gaseous chlorine. EPA has determined that chlorine can be safely
used in refrigeration systems associated with chlorine-containing
industrial process streams. Such systems must be designed and
operated with the same safety considerations that apply to the
process stream. In particular, OSHA regulates this use under
its standard for Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous
Chemicals (29 CFR 1910.119).
h. Alternative technologies. Several technologies already
exist as alternatives to equipment using class I substances.
As a result of the CFC phaseout, they are gaining prominence
in the transition away from CFCs. Examples of these technologies
include evaporative cooling, desiccant cooling, and absorption
refrigeration and air conditioning. In addition, several
technologies
are currently under development. Significant progress has expanded
the applicability of these alternatives, and their environmental
benefits generally include zero ODP and low direct GWP. In
addition,
evaporative cooling offers significant energy savings, which
results in reduced indirect GWP.
3. Comment Response
a. Comments on acceptable substitutes. A commenter opposed
listing the use of HCFC-123 as acceptable because of toxicity
concerns. EPA has conducted worker exposure studies which indicate
that exposure can be limited to 1 ppm, substantially below the
industry-established acceptable exposure limit (AEL) of 30 ppm.
Based on these studies, EPA remains confident that HCFC-123
can be used safely when standard industrial hygiene practices
are followed. It is important to note, too, that the AEL is
a long-term exposure limit. Safety measures to limit short-term
exposures are important for all refrigerants.
Another commenter informed EPA that chlorine-based refrigeration
systems are generally physically separated from chlorine-containing
process streams. This separation invalidates the analogy to
hydrocarbon-based systems for industrial process refrigeration.
Hence, EPA's final determination that chlorine is acceptable
for this end-use includes the acknowledgement of OSHA standards
dictating safety considerations in the design and operation
of such systems.
b. Other comments. Several commenters requested additional
end-use categories, while others requested greater aggregation.
Some aggregation is necessary to minimize confusion and the
analysis of small differences among similar applications. Yet
EPA also recognizes that certain end-uses are fundamentally
different from others. In the NPRM, EPA identified major end-
uses within the refrigeration and air conditioning sector. For
purposes of the final rule, EPA is reluctant to change the end-
use categories from those listed in the proposed rule. Retaining
the original end-uses serves the goal of creating the certainty
needed to encourage transition away from ozone-depleting
substances.
However, this final rule does combine substitute listings
for various refrigerants within each end-use. For example,
industrial
process refrigeration now includes substitutes for CFC-11, CFC-
12, and R-502. The risk screens conducted by EPA analyzed the
use of substitutes within an end-use; the chemical being replaced
was usually not relevant to the analysis. Because it may be
important to distinguish among substitutes for certain substances
if they exhibit significantly different operational
characteristics,
such as condensing pressure or typical ambient conditions, the
listings do not combine centrifugal chillers into one end-use.
Rather, retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, and CFC-114 chillers
remain separate.
A commenter proposed that all blends consisting of individually
acceptable components be deemed acceptable. EPA believes that
blends pose analytical difficulties not encountered with single
refrigerants. Blends, unlike single compounds, have the potential
to separate into components during normal use and during leaks.
This process is called fractionation, and it is caused by
differences
in vapor pressure among the constituents.
For example, as a zeotropic blend enters the evaporator,
it is a liquid until it absorbs enough heat to reach the boiling
point of the component with the highest vapor pressure. As this
portion boils away, the remaining components will have a higher
overall boiling point, and the temperature will rise until the
second component begins to vaporize. This process may continue
until all the refrigerant is in vapor phase, or some may remain
a liquid even at the exit from the evaporator. Azeotropes and
near-azeotropes, however, exhibit small changes in temperature
in these two-phase parts of the system, and do not undergo
significant
composition changes during normal use.
During normal operation, pressure across the condenser and
evaporator remains relatively constant. During a leak, however,
system pressure decreases. In addition, the refrigerant is exposed
to ambient temperatures. As a result, fractionation is possible
during a leak when both vapor and liquid are present, even for
azeotropes.
As with all substitutes, flammability and materials
compatibility
testing are necessary for blends. For azeotropes, these data
are necessary for the single composition during normal operation.
For zeotropes, such testing is necessary at all compositions
occurring during normal operation. In addition, such tests should
be conducted during multi-phase leaks for all blends to determine
the extent and effects of fractionation. Even if the blend is
nonflammable as formulated, enrichment of a flammable component
through fractionation could result in a flammable mixture. In
addition, materials compatible with the blend as formulated
may not retain that compatibility if fractionation results in
a substantially different composition. Therefore, EPA believes
it is not appropriate to automatically find all blends of
acceptable
components also acceptable. Only specific compositions will
be designated acceptable, as described earlier.
Several commenters believed EPA was unclear in its distinctions
between new and retrofit substitutes. In response, EPA has
clarified
this difference in this final rule. A tension exists between
deeming substitutes acceptable for as wide a range of end-uses
as possible and providing some guidance to users on effective
substitutes.
Several commenters suggested duplicating listings for retrofits
and new equipment, but that duplication does not always serve
the goal of disseminating information about viable substitutes.
Certain substances may not be attractive for long-term use because
they contain HCFCs, and thus may only be listed for retrofits.
Alternatively, substitutes may not be easily implemented as
a retrofit. It should be noted, however, that an acceptability
determination for use in new equipment or as a retrofit option
does not imply that the alternative is unacceptable for use
in the other category.
The retrofit category within each end-use refers to the use
of substitutes with some modification to existing equipment
but without changing every component. Generally speaking, retrofit
refrigerants will not require completely new systems or redesign.
Drop-in replacements require minimal retrofitting, as in cases
where only the refrigerant needs to be replaced.
The new equipment category within each end-use refers to
the use of substitutes in entirely new systems. No existing
components will be used. This designation may be used for
refrigerants
which may require significant design changes. For example, use
of a flammable substitute may require some design changes to
mitigate potential risk. Submitters must demonstrate how those
risks can be addressed in new designs. In addition, alternative
technologies often require entirely different systems. For example,
evaporative cooling does not use a vapor compression cycle,
and therefore cannot be used as a retrofit option.
For purposes of submissions, the retrofit and new use categories
should be considered separate end-uses and listed separately
on the submission form.
4. Listing Decisions
a. Acceptable substitutes. These determinations are based
on data submitted to EPA and on the risk screen described in
the draft background document entitled ``Risk Screen on the
Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances:
Refrigerants''.
In accordance with the guiding principles for SNAP, substitutes
were compared both to the substance they replace and to each
other.
EPA believes the use of all acceptable substitutes presents
lower overall risk than the continued use of an ozone-depleting
substance. Not all substitutes will necessarily be appropriate
choices for all systems within an end-use. Engineering decisions
must take into account factors such as operating temperatures
and pressures, ambient conditions, and age of equipment, especially
during retrofits. For example, under industrial process
refrigeration,
both HFC-134a and HCFC-22 are listed as acceptable for retrofits.
However, these substances exhibit significantly different
thermodynamic
characteristics, and both may not be appropriate for use within
a given system. EPA believes such decisions are most appropriately
made by the equipment owner, manager, or contractor.
Users of HCFCs should be aware that an acceptability
determination
shall not be construed to release any user from compliance with
all other regulations pertaining to class II substances. These
include: (a) The prohibition against venting during servicing
under section 608, which was effective July 1, 1992; (b) recycling
requirements under section 608, which were effective July 13,
1993; (c) section 609 regulations regarding MVACS which were
effective August 13, 1992; and (d) the revised production phaseout
of class II substances under section 606, which was published
on December 10, 1993. In addition, users of non-chlorine
refrigerants
should be aware that an acceptability determination shall not
be construed to release any user from conformance with the venting
prohibition under section 608(c)(2), which takes effect November
15, 1995, at the latest.
Substitutes are listed as acceptable by end-use. These
substitutes
have only been found acceptable for use in the specific end-
uses for which they have been reviewed, as described in this
section. Users of blends should be aware that EPA has evaluated
and found acceptable in each case only the specific percentage
composition submitted for review; no others have been evaluated.
EPA strongly recommends that users of alternative refrigerants
adhere to the provisions of ASHRAE Standard 15-Safety Code for
Mechanical Refrigeration. ASHRAE Standard 34-Number Designation
and Safety Classification of Refrigerants is a useful reference
on refrigerant numerical designations. Users are also strongly
encouraged to contain, recycle, or reclaim all refrigerants.
(1) CFC-11 Centrifugal Chillers, Retrofit. (a) HCFC-123.
HCFC-123 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in retrofitted
centrifugal chillers. Because HCFC-123 contributes to ozone
depletion, it is considered a transitional alternative. Since
it poses much lower ozone-depleting risk than continued use
of CFCs, EPA has determined that its use is acceptable for these
end-uses. In addition, HCFC-123's GWP and atmospheric lifetime
are significantly lower than almost any other alternatives.
HCFC-123 is not flammable. Since HCFC-123 is classified as a
B1 refrigerant pursuant to ASHRAE standard 34, ASHRAE requires
that a refrigerant vapor detector be placed in the machinery
room. EPA strongly recommends that users of HCFC-123 adhere
to this requirement and any other requirements provided in ASHRAE
Standards 15 and 34. Worker-monitoring studies conducted by
EPA demonstrate that HCFC-123's 8-hour time-weighted average
concentration can be maintained at or under 1 ppm (less than
the industry-established AEL of 30 ppm), provided that such
standards are followed.
(2) CFC-12 Centrifugal Chillers, Retrofit. (a) HFC-134a.
HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in retrofitted
centrifugal chillers. HFC-134a does not contribute to ozone
depletion. HFC-134a's GWP and atmospheric lifetime are close
to those of other alternatives which are acceptable in this
end-use. While HFC-134a is compatible with most existing
refrigeration
and air conditioning equipment parts, it is not compatible with
the mineral oils currently used in such systems. An ester-based
lubricant should be used rather than mineral oils.
(3) CFC-113 Centrifugal Chillers, Retrofit. No substitutes
have been identified for CFC-113 in retrofitted centrifugal
chillers.
(4) CFC-114 Centrifugal Chillers, Retrofit. (a) HCFC-124.
HCFC-124 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-114 in retrofitted
centrifugal chillers. Because HCFC-124 contributes to ozone
depletion, it is considered a transitional alternative. However,
it represents a much lower ozone-depleting risk than the continued
use of CFCs. In addition, HCFC-124's GWP and atmospheric lifetime
are significantly lower than other alternatives. HCFC-124 is
not flammable.
(5) R-500 Centrifugal Chillers, Retrofit. (a) HFC-134a. HFC-
134a is acceptable as a substitute for R-500 in retrofitted
centrifugal chillers. See the discussion on HFC-134a under
retrofitted
CFC-12 centrifugal chillers.
(6) CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 Centrifugal
Chillers, New. (a) HCFC-123. HCFC-123 is acceptable as a substitute
for CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 in new centrifugal
chillers. See the discussion on HCFC-123 under retrofitted CFC-
11 centrifugal chillers.
(b) HCFC-124. HCFC-124 is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-114 in new centrifugal chillers. See the discussion on HCFC-
124 under retrofitted CFC-114 centrifugal chillers.
(c) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 in new centrifugal
chillers.
HCFC-22 has been used in a variety of air conditioning and
refrigeration
applications for many years. Like HCFC-123, HCFC-22 contributes
to ozone depletion and is considered a transitional alternative.
HCFC-22 exhibits a higher ODP than HCFC-123, and production
of it will be phased out according to the accelerated phase
out schedule. HCFC-22's GWP and atmospheric lifetime are higher
than other HCFCs. HCFC-22 is not flammable and is it compatible
with existing oils used in most refrigeration and air conditioning
equipment.
(d) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 in new centrifugal
chillers. See the discussion on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-
12 centrifugal chillers.
(e) HFC-227ea. HFC-227ea is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 in new centrifugal
chillers. HFC-227ea is a new chemical that has not seen widespread
use. It contains no chlorine, so it does not contribute to ozone
depletion. HFC-227ea's GWP and atmospheric lifetime are higher
than those of other alternatives which are acceptable in this
end-use. HFC-227ea is also being investigated as a component
of several blends.
(f) Ammonia. Ammonia is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 in new centrifugal
chillers.
Ammonia does not deplete the ozone or contribute to global warming.
Ammonia is flammable and toxic, but it may be used safely if
existing OSHA and ASHRAE standards are followed. Users should
check local building codes related to the use of ammonia.
(g) Evaporative cooling. Evaporative Cooling is acceptable
as an alternative technology to centrifugal chillers using CFC-
11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, or R-500. Evaporative cooling
does not contribute to ozone depletion or global warming and
has the potential to be more energy efficient than current
refrigeration
and air conditioning systems. Evaporative cooling uses no
chemicals,
but relies instead on water evaporation as a means of cooling.
It is in widespread use in office buildings in the western U.S.
Recent design improvements have greatly expanded its applicability
to other regions.
(h) Desiccant cooling. Desiccant cooling is acceptable as
an alternative technology to centrifugal chillers using CFC-
11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, or R-500. Desiccant cooling systems
do not contribute to ozone depletion or global warming. They
offer potential energy savings over the use of CFC-11. Desiccant
cooling is an alternate technology to the vapor compression
cycle.
(i) Ammonia/water absorption. Ammonia/water absorption is
acceptable as an alternative technology to centrifugal chillers
using CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, or R-500. Ammonia/water
absorption is an alternative technology to vapor compression
cycles. Ammonia is the refrigerant, and water is the absorber.
This alternative has zero ODP and GWP. For information on toxicity,
see the discussion of ammonia above. Users should check local
building codes related to the use of ammonia.
(j) Water/lithium bromide absorption. Water/lithium bromide
absorption is acceptable as an alternative technology to
centrifugal
chillers using CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, or R-500. Some
absorption systems use water as the refrigerant and lithium
bromide as the absorber. Lithium bromide has zero ODP and GWP.
It is low in toxicity and is nonflammable.
(k) Stirling cycle. Stirling Cycle systems are acceptable
as an alternative technology to centrifugal chillers using CFC-
11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, or R-500. These systems use a
different thermodynamic cycle from vapor compression equipment.
Helium is frequently used as the refrigerant. The Stirling cycle
does not include a phase change. Heat transfer is accomplished
through compression and expansion. These systems have been used
for several decades, primarily in refrigerated transport and
cryogenics.
(7) CFC-12 Reciprocating Chillers, Retrofit. (a) HFC-134a.
HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in retrofitted
reciprocating chillers. See the discussion on HFC-134a under
retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers.
(8) CFC-12 Reciprocating Chillers, New. (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-
22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in new reciprocating
chillers. See the discussion on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-
12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers.
(b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 in new reciprocating chillers. See the discussion on
HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers.
(c) HFC-227ea. HFC-227ea is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 in new reciprocating chillers. See the discussion on
HFC-227ea under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers.
(d) Evaporative cooling. Evaporative Cooling is acceptable
as an alternative technology to reciprocating chillers using
CFC-12. See the discussion on evaporative cooling under new
CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers.
(e) Desiccant cooling. Desiccant cooling is acceptable as
an alternative technology to reciprocating chillers using CFC-
12. See the discussion on desiccant cooling under new CFC-11,
CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers.
(f) Stirling cycle. Stirling Cycle systems are acceptable
as an alternative technology to reciprocating chillers using
CFC-12. See the discussion on the Stirling cycle under new CFC-
11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers.
(9) CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 Industrial Process Refrigeration,
Retrofit. Please note that different temperature regimes may
affect the applicability of substitutes within this end-use.
(a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, and R-502 in retrofitted industrial process
refrigeration.
See the discussion on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-
113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers.
(b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 in retrofitted industrial process
refrigeration. See the discussion on HFC-134a under retrofitted
CFC-12 centrifugal chillers.
(c) R-401A and R-401B. R-401A and R-401B, which consist of
HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, are acceptable as substitutes
for CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 in retrofitted industrial process
refrigeration. Two of the constituents in these blends are HCFCs
and contribute to ozone depletion, and production of these
compounds
will be phased out according to the accelerated schedule. While
the GWP of HCFC-22 is somewhat high, refrigerant leak regulations
should reduce its contribution to global warming. The GWPs of
the other components are low. Although these blends do contain
one flammable constituent, HFC-152a, the blends themselves are
not flammable. In addition, each blend is a near azeotrope,
and it does not fractionate in normal operation. Finally, leak
testing of each blend demonstrated that while the vapor and
liquid compositions changed, neither phase became flammable.
Testing of these blends with centrifugal compressors is inadequate,
and therefore such use is not recommended by the manufacturer.
Further testing may resolve this uncertainty.
(d) R-402A and R-402B. R-402A and R-402B, which consist of
HCFC-22, propane, and HFC-125, are acceptable as substitutes
for CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 in retrofitted industrial process
refrigeration. HCFC-22 contributes to ozone depletion, and will
be phased out according to the accelerated schedule. Although
these blends contain one flammable constituent, propane, the
blends themselves are not flammable. In addition, the blends
are near azeotropes, meaning they do not change composition
between the vapor and the liquid phase. Therefore, it is unlikely
that the blends would fractionate during normal operation,
resulting
in an enrichment of the flammable component. Finally, while
testing demonstrated that the vapor and liquid compositions
changed during leaks, neither phase became flammable. Testing
of these blends with centrifugal compressors is inadequate,
and therefore such use is not recommended by the manufacturer.
Further testing may resolve this uncertainty.
(e) R-404A. R-404A, which consists of HFC-125 and HFC-143a,
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502
in retrofitted industrial process refrigeration. None of this
blend's constituents contains chlorine, and thus this blend
poses no threat to stratospheric ozone. However, HFC-125 and
HFC-143a have very high GWPs. EPA strongly encourages recycling
and reclamation of this blend in order to reduce its direct
global warming impact. Although HFC-143a is flammable, the blend
is not. It is an azeotrope, so it will not fractionate during
operation. Leak testing has demonstrated that its composition
never becomes flammable.
(f) R-507. R-507, which consists of HFC-125, HFC-143a, and
HFC-134a, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12,
and R-502 in retrofitted industrial process refrigeration. None
of this blend's constituents contains chlorine, and thus this
blend poses no threat to stratospheric ozone. However, HFC-125
and HFC-143a have very high GWPs, and the GWP of HFC-134a is
somewhat high. EPA strongly encourages recycling and reclamation
of this blend in order to reduce its direct global warming impact.
Although HFC-143a is flammable, the blend is not. It is a near
azeotrope, so it will not fractionate during operation. Leak
testing has demonstrated that its composition never becomes
flammable.
(g) Ammonia. Ammonia is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, and R-502 in retrofitted industrial process
refrigeration.
See the discussion on ammonia under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-
113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers.
(h) Propane. Propane is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, and R-502 in retrofitted industrial process
refrigeration
equipment. Propane does not contribute to ozone depletion and
it exhibits a negligible GWP. Propane is flammable, and as such
EPA recommends but does not require that it only be used at
industrial facilities which manufacture or use hydrocarbons
in the process stream. Such facilities are designed to comply
with the safety standards required for managing flammable
chemicals.
(i) Propylene. Propylene is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 in retrofitted industrial process
refrigeration. Propylene does not contribute to ozone depletion,
nor does it contribute significantly to global warming. Propylene
is a flammable refrigerant and as such, EPA recommends but does
not require that it only be used at industrial facilities which
already manufacture or use hydrocarbons in the process stream.
Such facilities are designed to comply with the safety standards
required for managing flammable chemicals.
(j) Butane. Butane is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, and R-502 in retrofitted industrial process
refrigeration.
Butane does not contribute to ozone depletion, nor does it
contribute
significantly to global warming. Butane is a flammable refrigerant
and as such, EPA recommends but does not require that it only
be used at industrial facilities which already manufacture or
use hydrocarbons in the process stream. Such facilities are
designed to comply with the safety standards required for managing
flammable chemicals.
(k) Hydrocarbon Blend A. Hydrocarbon Blend A is acceptable
as a substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 in retrofitted
industrial process refrigeration equipment. This blend does
not contribute to ozone depletion, nor does it contribute
significantly
to global warming. This blend contains flammable refrigerants
and as such, EPA recommends but does not require that it only
be used at industrial facilities which already manufacture or
use hydrocarbons in the process stream. Such facilities are
designed to comply with the safety standards required for managing
flammable chemicals.
(l) Chlorine. Chlorine is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 in retrofitted industrial process
refrigeration equipment. Chlorine is a highly reactive chemical
and as such, EPA recommends but does not require that chlorine
only be used at industrial facilities which manufacture or use
chlorine in the process stream. Note, however, that OSHA's Process
Safety Management Standards apply to the use of chlorine.
(10) CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 Industrial Process Refrigeration,
New. Please note that different temperature regimes may affect
the applicability of substitutes within this end-use.
(a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, and R-502 in new industrial process refrigeration.
See the discussion on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-
113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers.
(b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 in new industrial process refrigeration.
See the discussion on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal
chillers.
(c) HFC-227ea. HFC-227ea is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 in new industrial process refrigeration. See the discussion
on HFC-227ea under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and
R-500 centrifugal chillers.
(d) R-402A and R-402B. R-402A and R-402B, which consist of
HCFC-22, propane, and HFC-125, are acceptable as substitutes
for CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 in new industrial process
refrigeration.
See the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11,
CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
(e) R-404A. R-404A, which consists of HFC-125 and HFC-143a,
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502
in new industrial process refrigeration. See the discussion
on this blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502
industrial
process refrigeration.
(f) R-507. R-507, which consists of HFC-125, HFC-143a, and
HFC-134a, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12,
and R-502 in new industrial process refrigeration. See the
discussion
on this blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502
industrial
process refrigeration.
(g) Ammonia. Ammonia is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, and R-502 in new industrial process refrigeration.
See the discussion on ammonia under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-
113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers.
(h) Propane. Propane is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, and R-502 in new industrial process refrigeration
equipment. See the discussion on propane under retrofitted CFC-
11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
(i) Propylene. Propylene is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 in new industrial process refrigeration.
See the discussion on propylene under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-
12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
(j) Butane. Butane is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, and R-502 in new industrial process refrigeration.
See the discussion on butane under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12,
and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
(k) Hydrocarbon Blend A. Hydrocarbon Blend A is acceptable
as a substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 in new industrial
process refrigeration equipment. See the discussion on this
blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial
process refrigeration.
(l) Chlorine. Chlorine is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 in new industrial process refrigeration
equipment. See the discussion on chlorine under retrofitted
CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
(m) Evaporative cooling. Evaporative cooling is acceptable
as an alternative technology to industrial process refrigeration
using CFC-11, CFC-12, or R-502. See the discussion on evaporative
cooling under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500
centrifugal chillers.
(n) Desiccant cooling. Desiccant cooling is acceptable as
an alternative technology to industrial process refrigeration
using CFC-11, CFC-12, or R-502. See the discussion on desiccant
cooling under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500
centrifugal chillers.
(o) Nitrogen direct gas expansion. Nitrogen direct gas expansion
is acceptable as an alternative technology to industrial process
refrigeration using CFC-12, R-500, or R-502. Nitrogen is expanded
within an enclosed area to absorb heat. The cycle is open; the
nitrogen is released to the atmosphere after absorbing heat
from the container. Nitrogen is a common gas that is nontoxic
and nonflammable.
(p) Stirling cycle. Stirling cycle systems are acceptable
as an alternative technology to industrial process refrigeration
using CFC-11, CFC-12, or R-502. See the discussion on the Stirling
cycle under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500
centrifugal chillers.
(11) R-400(60/40) and CFC-114 Industrial Process Air
Conditioning,
Retrofit. (a) HCFC-124. HCFC-124 is acceptable as a substitute
for R-400 (60/40) and CFC-114 in industrial process air
conditioning.
HCFC-124 has a very low ODP and GWP. HCFC-124 is the only
refrigerant
that has been submitted for this end-use, and EPA invites more
submissions and information related to substitutes.
(12) R-400(60/40) and CFC-114 Industrial Process Air
Conditioning,
New. (a) HCFC-124. HCFC-124 is acceptable as a substitute for
R-400 (60/40) and CFC-114 in industrial process air conditioning.
HCFC-124 has a very low ODP and GWP. It is nonflammable. HCFC-
124 is the only refrigerant that has been submitted for this
end-use, and EPA invites more submissions and information related
to substitutes.
(13) CFC-12 and R-502 Ice Skating Rinks, Retrofit. Please
note that different temperature regimes may affect the
applicability
of substitutes within this end-use.
(a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 and R-502 in retrofitted ice skating rinks. See the discussion
on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers.
(b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted ice skating rinks. See the
discussion
on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers.
(c) R-401A and R-401B. R-401A and R-401B, which consist of
HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, are acceptable as substitutes
for CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted ice skating rinks. See the
discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12,
and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
(d) Ammonia. Ammonia is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, and R-502 in retrofitted ice skating rinks. See
the discussion on ammonia under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113,
CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers.
(14) CFC-12 and R-502 Ice Skating Rinks, New. Please note
that different temperature regimes may affect the applicability
of substitutes within this end-use.
(a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 and R-502 in new ice skating rinks. See the discussion on
HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500
centrifugal chillers.
(b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 and R-502 in new ice skating rinks. See the discussion
on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers.
(c) Ammonia. Ammonia is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11, CFC-12, and R-502 in new ice skating rinks. See the discussion
on ammonia under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers.
(15) CFC-114 Uranium Isotope Separation Processing, Retrofit.
(a) Cycloperfluorobutane (C4F8). Cycloperfluorobutane (C4F8)
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-114 in uranium isotope
separation processing. C4F8 is a PFC. It has a very long lifetime
and a very high GWP. The Department of Energy (DOE) has examined
several other substitutes and none meets the requirements for
this application. DOE is pursuing a leak reduction program which
should further restrict emissions of this refrigerant.
(b) Perfluoro-n-butane (C4F10). Perfluoro-n-butane (C4F10)
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-114 in uranium isotope
separation processing. C4F10 is a PFC. It has a very long lifetime
and a very high GWP. The Department of Energy (DOE) has examined
several other substitutes and none meets the requirements for
this application. DOE is pursuing a leak reduction program which
should further restrict emissions of this refrigerant.
(c) Perfluoropentane (C5F12). Perfluoropentane (C5F12) is
acceptable as a substitute for CFC-114 in uranium isotope
separation
processing. C5F12 is a PFC. It has a very long lifetime and
a very high GWP. EPA strongly encourages users to pursue leak
reduction strategies and to recover the fluid when the unit
is retired.
(d) Perfluorohexane (C6F14). Perfluorohexane (C6F14) is
acceptable
as a substitute for CFC-114 in uranium isotope separation
processing.
C6F14 is a PFC. It has a very long lifetime and a very high
GWP. EPA strongly encourages users to pursue leak reduction
strategies and to recover the fluid when the unit is retired.
(e) Perfluoro-n-methyl morpholine (C5F11NO). Perfluoro-n-
methly morpholine (C5F11NO) is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-114 in uranium isotope separation processing. C5F11NO is
a PFC. It has a very long lifetime and a very high GWP. EPA
strongly encourages users to pursue leak reduction strategies
and to recover the fluid when the unit is retired.
(16) CFC-12 and R-502 Cold Storage Warehouses, Retrofit.
Please note that different temperature regimes may affect the
applicability of substitutes within this end-use.
(a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 and R-502 in retrofitted cold storage warehouses. See the
discussion on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-
114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers.
(b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted cold storage warehouses. See
the discussion on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal
chillers.
(c) R-401A and R-401B. R-401A and R-401B, which consist of
HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, are acceptable as substitutes
for CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted cold storage warehouses.
Testing of these blends with centrifugal compressors is inadequate,
and therefore such use is not recommended by the manufacturer.
Further testing may resolve this uncertainty. For further
information,
see the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11,
CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
(d) R-402A and R-402B. R-402A and R-402B, which consist of
HCFC-22, propane, and HFC-125, are acceptable as substitutes
for CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted cold storage warehouses.
Testing of these blends with centrifugal compressors is inadequate,
and therefore such use is not recommended by the manufacturer.
Further testing may resolve this uncertainty. For further
information,
see the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11,
CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
(e) R-404A. R-404A, which consists of HFC-125 and HFC-143a,
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted
cold storage warehouses. See the discussion on this blend under
retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process
refrigeration.
(f) R-507. R-507, which consists of HFC-125, HFC-143a, and
HFC-134a, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 and R-502
in retrofitted cold storage warehouses. See the discussion on
this blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial
process refrigeration.
(17) CFC-12 and R-502 Cold Storage Warehouses, New. Please
note that different temperature regimes may affect the
applicability
of substitutes within this end-use.
(a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 and R-502 in new cold storage warehouses. See the discussion
on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers.
(b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 and R-502 in new cold storage warehouses. See the discussion
on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers.
(c) HFC-227ea. HFC-227ea is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 in new cold storage warehouses. See the discussion on
HFC-227ea under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers.
(d) R-402A and R-402B. R-402A and R-402B, which consist of
HCFC-22, propane, and HFC-125, are acceptable as substitutes
for CFC-12 and R-502 in new cold storage warehouses. Testing
of these blends with centrifugal compressors is inadequate,
and therefore such use is not recommended by the manufacturer.
Further testing may resolve this uncertainty. For further
information,
see the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11,
CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
(e) R-404A. R-404A, which consists of HFC-125 and HFC-143a,
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 and R-502 in new cold
storage warehouses. See the discussion on this blend under
retrofitted
CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
(f) R-507. R-507, which consists of HFC-125, HFC-143a, and
HFC-134a, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 and R-502
in new cold storage warehouses. See the discussion on this blend
under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process
refrigeration.
(g) Ammonia. Ammonia is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 and R-502 in new cold storage warehouses. See the discussion
on ammonia under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers.
(h) Evaporative cooling. Evaporative cooling is acceptable
as an alternative technology to cold storage warehouses using
CFC-12 or R-502. See the discussion on evaporative cooling under
new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal
chillers.
(i) Desiccant cooling. Desiccant cooling is acceptable as
an alternative technology to cold storage warehouses using CFC-
12 or R-502. See the discussion on desiccant cooling under new
CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers.
(j) High to low pressure stepdown. High to low pressure stepdown
process is acceptable as an alternative technology to cold storage
warehouses using CFC-12 or R-502. This process takes advantage
of the work potential of pressurized natural gas. As its pressure
is reduced from transmission pipes to the distribution system,
the gas cools. This refrigeration is then used to cool a transfer
medium such as water, which then cools the refrigerated space.
It uses very little energy and produces no global warming
emissions,
since the gas is not burned.
(k) Stirling cycle. Stirling cycle systems are acceptable
as an alternative technology to cold storage warehouses using
CFC-12 or R-502. See the discussion on the Stirling cycle under
new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal
chillers.
(18) CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 Refrigerated Transport, Retrofit.
Please note that different temperature regimes may affect the
applicability of substitutes within this end-use.
(a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12, R-500, and R-502 in retrofitted refrigerated transport.
See the discussion on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-
113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers.
(b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in retrofitted refrigerated transport.
See the discussion on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal
chillers.
(c) R-401A and R-401B. R-401A and R-401B, which consist of
HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, are acceptable as substitutes
for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in retrofitted refrigerated transport.
See the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11,
CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
(d) R-402A and R-402B. R-402A and R-402B, which consist of
HCFC-22, propane, and HFC-125, are acceptable as substitutes
for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in retrofitted refrigerated transport.
See the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11,
CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
(e) R-404A. R-404A, which consists of HFC-125 and HFC-143a,
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in
retrofitted refrigerated transport. See the discussion on this
blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial
process refrigeration.
(f) R-507. R-507, which consists of HFC-125, HFC-143a, and
HFC-134a, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and
R-502 in retrofitted refrigerated transport. See the discussion
on this blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502
industrial
process refrigeration.
(19) CFC-12 and R-502 Refrigerated Transport, New. Please
note that different temperature regimes may affect the
applicability
of substitutes within this end-use.
(a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12, R-500, and R-502 in new refrigerated transport. See the
discussion on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-
114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers.
(b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in new refrigerated transport. See
the discussion on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal
chillers.
(c) R-402A and R-402B. R-402A and R-402B, which consist of
HCFC-22, propane, and HFC-125, are acceptable as substitutes
for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in new refrigerated transport.
See the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11,
CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
(d) R-404A. R-404A, which consists of HFC-125 and HFC-143a,
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in
retrofitted new refrigerated transport. See the discussion on
this blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial
process refrigeration.
(e) R-507. R-507, which consists of HFC-125, HFC-143a, and
HFC-134a, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and
R-502 in new refrigerated transport. See the discussion on this
blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial
process refrigeration.
(f) Stirling cycle. Stirling cycle systems are acceptable
as an alternative technology to refrigerated transport using
CFC-12, R-500, or R-502. Stirling cycle systems have been in
use for many years in this end-use. For further information,
see the discussion on the Stirling cycle under new CFC-11, CFC-
12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers.
(g) Nitrogen direct gas expansion. Nitrogen direct gas expansion
is acceptable as an alternative technology to refrigerated
transport
using CFC-12, R-500, or R-502. Nitrogen is expanded within a
refrigerated transport unit to absorb heat. The cycle is open;
the nitrogen is released to the atmosphere after absorbing heat
from the container. Nitrogen is a common gas that is nontoxic
and nonflammable. It has been used successfully for many years
in this end-use.
(20) CFC-12 and R-502 Retail Food Refrigeration, Retrofit.
Please note that different temperature regimes may affect the
applicability of substitutes within this end-use.
(a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 and R-502 in retrofitted retail food refrigeration. See the
discussion on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-
114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers.
(b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted retail food refrigeration. See
the discussion on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal
chillers.
(c) R-401A and R-401B. R-401A and R-401B, which consist of
HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, are acceptable as substitutes
for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in retrofitted retail food
refrigeration.
See the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11,
CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
(d) R-402A and R-402B. R-402A and R-402B, which consist of
HCFC-22, propane, and HFC-125, are acceptable as substitutes
for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in retrofitted retail food
refrigeration.
See the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11,
CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
(e) R-404A. R-404A, which consists of HFC-125 and HFC-143a,
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in
retrofitted retail food refrigeration. See the discussion on
this blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial
process refrigeration.
(f) R-507. R-507, which consists of HFC-125, HFC-143a, and
HFC-134a, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and
R-502 in retrofitted retail food refrigeration. See the discussion
on this blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502
industrial
process refrigeration.
(21) CFC-12 and R-502 Retail Food Refrigeration, New. Please
note that different temperature regimes may affect the
applicability
of substitutes within this end-use.
(a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 and R-502 in new retail food refrigeration. See the discussion
on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers.
(b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 and R-502 in new retail food refrigeration. See the
discussion
on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers.
(c) HFC-227ea. HFC-227ea is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 in new retail food refrigeration. See the discussion
on HFC-227ea under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and
R-500 centrifugal chillers.
(d) R-402A and R-402B. R-402A and R-402B, which consist of
HCFC-22, propane, and HFC-125, are acceptable as substitutes
for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in new retail food refrigeration.
See the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11,
CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
(e) R-404A. R-404A, which consists of HFC-125 and HFC-143a,
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in
new retail food refrigeration. See the discussion on this blend
under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process
refrigeration.
(f) R-507. R-507, which consists of HFC-125, HFC-143a, and
HFC-134a, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and
R-502 in new retail food refrigeration. See the discussion on
this blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial
process refrigeration.
(g) Ammonia. Ammonia is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 and R-502 in new retail food refrigeration. See the discussion
on ammonia under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers.
(h) Stirling Cycle. Stirling cycle systems are acceptable
as an alternative technology to retail food refrigeration using
CFC-12 or R-502. See the discussion on the Stirling cycle under
new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal
chillers.
(22) CFC-12 and R-502 Commercial Ice Machines, Retrofit.
Please note that different temperature regimes may affect the
applicability of substitutes within this end-use.
(a) R-401A and R-401B. R-401A and R-401B, which consist of
HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, are acceptable as substitutes
for CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted commercial ice machines.
See the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11,
CFC-12 and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
(b) R-402A and R-402B. R-402A and R-402B, which consist of
HCFC-22, propane, and HFC-125, are acceptable as substitutes
for CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted commercial ice machines.
See the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11,
CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
(c) R-404A. R-404A, which consists of HFC-125 and HFC-143a,
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in
retrofitted commercial ice machines. See the discussion on this
blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial
process refrigeration.
(d) R-507. R-507, which consists of HFC-125, HFC-143a, and
HFC-134a, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and
R-502 in retrofitted commercial ice machines. See the discussion
on this blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502
industrial
process refrigeration.
(23) CFC-12 and R-502 Commercial Ice Machines, New. Please
note that different temperature regimes may affect the
applicability
of substitutes within this end-use.
(a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 and R-502 in new commercial ice machines. See the discussion
on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers.
(b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 and R-502 in new commercial ice machines. See the discussion
on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers.
(c) R-402A and R-402B. R-402A and R-402B, which consist of
HCFC-22, propane, and HFC-125, are acceptable as substitutes
for CFC-12 and R-502 in new commercial ice machines. See the
discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12,
and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
(d) R-404A. R-404A, which consists of HFC-125 and HFC-143a,
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in
new commercial ice machines. See the discussion on this blend
under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial process
refrigeration.
(e) R-507. R-507, which consists of HFC-125, HFC-143a, and
HFC-134a, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and
R-502 in new commercial ice machines. See the discussion on
this blend under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12, and R-502 industrial
process refrigeration.
(f) Ammonia. Ammonia is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 and R-502 in new commercial ice machines. See the discussion
on ammonia under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers.
(g) Stirling cycle. Stirling cycle systems are acceptable
as an alternative technology to commercial ice machines using
CFC-12 or R-502. See the discussion on the Stirling cycle under
new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal
chillers.
(24) CFC-12 Vending Machines, Retrofit. (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-
22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in retrofitted vending
machines. See the discussion on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-
12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers.
(b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 in retrofitted vending machines. See the discussion on
HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers.
(c) R-401A and R-401B. R-401A and R-401B, which consist of
HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, are acceptable as substitutes
for CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted vending machines. See the
discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12
and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
(25) CFC-12 Vending Machines, New. (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is
acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in new vending machines.
See the discussion on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-
113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers.
(b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 in new vending machines. See the discussion on HFC-134a
under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers.
(c) Stirling cycle. Stirling cycle systems are acceptable
as an alternative technology to vending machines using CFC-12.
See the discussion on the Stirling cycle under new CFC-11, CFC-
12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers.
(26) CFC-12 Water Coolers, Retrofit. (a) HFC-134a. HFC-134a
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in retrofitted water
coolers. See the discussion on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-
12 centrifugal chillers.
(b) R-401A and R-401B. R-401A and R-401B, which consist of
HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, are acceptable as substitutes
for CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted water coolers. See the
discussion
on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-12 and R-502
industrial
process refrigeration.
(27) CFC-12 Water Coolers, New. (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is
acceptable
as a substitute for CFC-12 in new water coolers. See the discussion
on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers.
(b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 in new water coolers. See the discussion on HFC-134a
under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers.
(c) Stirling cycle. Stirling cycle systems are acceptable
as an alternative technology to water coolers using CFC-12.
See the discussion on the Stirling cycle under new CFC-11, CFC-
12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers.
(28) CFC-12 Household Refrigerators, Retrofit. (a) HCFC-22.
HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 and R-502 in
retrofitted household refrigerators. See the discussion on HCFC-
22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500
centrifugal
chillers.
(b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 in retrofitted household refrigerators. See the discussion
on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers.
(c) R-401A and R-401B. R-401A and R-401B, which consist of
HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, are acceptable as substitutes
for CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted household refrigerators.
See the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11,
CFC-12 and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
(d) HCFC Blend Alpha. HCFC Blend Alpha, which consists of
HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 in retrofitted household refrigerators. This blend's components
contribute significantly less to ozone depletion than CFC-12.
However, the two components have the highest ODPs of all
refrigerant
alternatives, and will be phased out under the accelerated phaseout
schedule. In addition, the GWPs of the components are high compared
to most of the other alternatives in this end-use. Although
this blend does contain a flammable constituent, testing has
shown that the blend itself is not flammable and that it must
experience significant fractionation before flammability becomes
a risk. Given the small refrigerant charge size and the hermetic
nature of refrigerators, it is unlikely for a leak resulting
in such fractionation to occur.
(29) CFC-12 Household Refrigerators, New. (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-
22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 and R-502 in new
household refrigerators. See the discussion on HCFC-22 under
new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal
chillers.
(b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 in new household refrigerators. See the discussion on
HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers.
(c) HFC-152a. HFC-152a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 in new household refrigerators. HFC-152a does not contribute
to ozone depletion. In addition, HFC-152a's GWP and atmospheric
lifetime are significantly lower than those of most alternatives.
Although HFC-152a is flammable, a risk assessment demonstrated
it could be used safely in this end-use.
(d) HCFC Blend Alpha. HCFC Blend Alpha, which consists of
HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 in new household refrigerators. See the discussion on this
blend under retrofitted CFC-12 household refrigerators.
(e) R200b blend. R200b blend is acceptable as a substitute
for CFC-12 in new household refrigerators. R200b does not
contribute
to ozone depletion. In addition, the GWPs and atmospheric lifetimes
of the blend's constituents are less than those of CFC-12. However,
the GWP of one component is high compared to those of other
alternatives for this end-use. One component of R200b is flammable,
but a risk assessment has shown that use of R200b in household
refrigerators poses negligible additional risk of fire, given
the hermetic nature of the equipment, the small charge, and
the low probability of ignition.
(f) Stirling cycle. Stirling cycle systems are acceptable
as an alternative technology to household refrigerators using
CFC-12. Research and development efforts are underway to produce
household refrigerators using this cycle. Further information
is discussed under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and
R-500 centrifugal chillers.
(30) CFC-12 and R-502 Household Freezers, Retrofit. (a) HCFC-
22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 and R-502
in retrofitted household freezers. See the discussion on HCFC-
22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500
centrifugal
chillers.
(b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted household freezers. See the
discussion on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal
chillers.
(c) R-401A and R-401B. R-401A and R-401B, which consist of
HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, are acceptable as substitutes
for CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted household freezers. See
the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11, CFC-
12 and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
(31) CFC-12 and R-502 Household Freezers, New. (a) HCFC-22.
HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 and R-502 in
new household freezers. See the discussion on HCFC-22 under
new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal
chillers.
(b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 and R-502 in new household freezers. See the discussion
on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers.
(c) HFC-152a. HFC-152a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 and R-502 in new household refrigerators. HFC-152a does
not contribute to ozone depletion. In addition, HFC-152a's GWP
and atmospheric lifetime are significantly lower than those
of most alternatives. Although HFC-152a is flammable, a risk
assessment demonstrated it could be used safely in this end-
use.
(d) Stirling cycle. Stirling cycle systems are acceptable
as an alternative technology to household freezers using CFC-
12 or R-502. See the discussion on the Stirling cycle under
new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal
chillers.
(32) CFC-12 and R-500 Residential Dehumidifiers, Retrofit.
Please note that different temperature regimes may affect the
applicability of substitutes within this end-use.
(a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 in retrofitted residential dehumidifiers. See the discussion
on HCFC-22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-
500 centrifugal chillers.
(b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 in retrofitted residential dehumidifiers. See the discussion
on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers.
(c) R-401A and R-401B. R-401A and R-401B, which consist of
HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, are acceptable as substitutes
for CFC-12 and R-502 in retrofitted residential dehumidifiers.
See the discussion on these blends under retrofitted CFC-11,
CFC-12 and R-502 industrial process refrigeration.
(33) CFC-12 and R-500 Residential Dehumidifiers, New. Please
note that different temperature regimes may affect the
applicability
of substitutes within this end-use.
(a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
12 in new residential dehumidifiers. See the discussion on HCFC-
22 under new CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500
centrifugal
chillers.
(b) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 in new residential dehumidifiers. See the discussion
on HFC-134a under retrofitted CFC-12 centrifugal chillers.
(34) CFC-12 Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners, Retrofit. (a)
HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12
in retrofitted motor vehicle air conditioners. HFC-134a does
not contribute to ozone depletion. HFC-134a's GWP and atmospheric
lifetime are close to those of other alternatives which have
been determined to be acceptable for this end-use. However,
HFC-134a's contribution to global warming could be significant
in leaky end-uses such as MVACS. EPA has determined that the
use of HFC-134a in these applications is acceptable because
industry continues to develop technology to limit emissions.
In addition, the number of available substitutes for use in
MVACS is currently limited. HFC-134a is not flammable and its
toxicity is low. While HFC-134a is compatible with most existing
refrigeration and air conditioning equipment parts, it is not
compatible with the mineral oils currently used in such systems.
An ester-based lubricant should be used rather than mineral
oils.
(b) R-401C. R-401C, which consists of HCFC-22, HFC-152a,
and HCFC-124, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in
retrofitted
motor vehicle air conditioners. HCFC-22 and HCFC-124 contribute
to ozone depletion. The production of HCFC-22 will be phased
out according to the accelerated phaseout schedule. The GWP
of HCFC-22 is somewhat higher than other alternatives for this
end-use. Experimental data indicate that HCFC-22 may leak through
flexible hosing in mobile air conditioners at a high rate. In
order to preserve the blend's composition and to reduce its
contribution to global warming, EPA strongly recommends using
barrier hoses when hose assemblies need to be replaced during
a retrofit procedure. The GWPs of the other components are low.
Although this blend does contain one flammable constituent,
the blend itself is not flammable. In addition, this blend is
a near azeotrope, meaning it does not change composition during
evaporation and compression. Finally, although testing demonstrated
that the vapor and liquid compositions changed during leaks,
neither phase became flammable.
(35) CFC-12 Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners, New. (a) HFC-
134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in new
motor vehicle air conditioners. HFC-134a does not contribute
to ozone depletion. HFC-134a's GWP and atmospheric lifetime
are close to those of other alternatives which have been determined
to be acceptable for this end-use. However, HFC-134a's contribution
to global warming could be significant in leaky end-uses such
as MVACS. EPA has determined that the use of HFC-134a in these
applications is acceptable because industry continues to develop
technology to limit emissions. In addition, the number of available
substitutes for use in MVACS is currently limited. HFC-134a
is not flammable and its toxicity is low. While HFC-134a is
compatible with most existing refrigeration and air conditioning
equipment parts, it is not compatible with the mineral oils
currently used in such systems. An ester-based lubricant should
be used rather than mineral oils.
(b) R-401C. R-401C, which consists of HCFC-22, HFC-152a,
and HCFC-124, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in new
motor vehicle air conditioners. HCFC-22 and HCFC-124 contribute
to ozone depletion. The production of HCFC-22 will be phased
out according to the accelerated phaseout schedule. The GWP
of HCFC-22 is somewhat higher than other alternatives for this
end-use. Experimental data indicate that HCFC-22 may leak through
flexible hosing in mobile air conditioners at a high rate. In
order to preserve the blend's composition and to reduce its
contribution to global warming, EPA strongly recommends using
barrier hoses when hose assemblies need to be replaced during
a retrofit procedure. The GWPs of the other components are low.
Although this blend does contain one flammable constituent,
the blend itself is not flammable. In addition, this blend is
a near azeotrope, meaning it does not change composition during
evaporation and compression. Finally, although testing demonstrated
that the vapor and liquid compositions changed during leaks,
neither phase became flammable.
(c) Evaporative cooling. Evaporative cooling is acceptable
as an alternative technology to motor vehicle air conditioners
using CFC-12. Evaporative cooling does not contribute to ozone
depletion or global warming and has the potential to be more
energy efficient than current refrigeration and air conditioning
systems. Evaporative cooling uses no chemicals, but relies instead
on water evaporation as a means of cooling. It is in widespread
use in transit buses in the western U.S. Recent design improvements
have greatly expanded its applicability to other regions.
(d) CO2 cooling. CO2 cooling systems are acceptable as an
alternative technology to motor vehicle air conditioners using
CFC-12. CO2 systems for motor vehicle air conditioning are
currently
under development. EPA believes that with continued development,
such systems could be available within 5 years, and thus they
are potentially available substitutes. CO2 was historically
used in refrigeration systems. It is a well-known, nontoxic,
nonflammable gas. Its GWP is defined as 1, and all other GWPs
are indexed to it. Since it is readily available as a waste
gas, no additional chemical will need to be produced. Thus,
the use of CO2 as a refrigerant will not contribute to global
warming.
(e) Stirling cycle. Stirling cycle systems are acceptable
as an alternative technology to motor vehicle air conditioners
using CFC-12. A full scale Stirling cycle motor vehicle air
conditioning system has been built. Further development is
necessary
to facilitate practical implementation. For further information
see the discussion on the Stirling cycle under new CFC-11, CFC-
12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and R-500 centrifugal chillers.
(36) Heat transfer. Although EPA did not originally intend
to review this end-use, the Agency reconsidered after reexamining
the potential size of annual sales of substitutes. Thus, EPA
is currently reviewing submissions for the use of PFCs in heat
transfer systems. EPA anticipates including its final determination
in the first SNAP update.
b. Unacceptable substitutes. (1) HCFC-22/HCFC-142b/CFC-12
blend. A HCFC-22/HCFC-142b/CFC-12 blend is unacceptable as a
substitute for CFC-12 in:
Commercial comfort air conditioning;
Industrial process refrigeration systems;
Ice skating rinks;
Cold storage warehouses;
Refrigerated transport;
Retail food refrigeration;
Vending machines;
Water coolers;
Commercial ice machines;
Household refrigerators;
Household freezers;
Residential dehumidifiers; and
Motor vehicle air conditioning.
It is also unacceptable as a substitute for HCFC-22 in residential
and packaged HCFC-22 air conditioning. Other substitutes for
CFC-12 exist which contain no class I substances. In addition,
because this blend contains CFC-12 (which has an ODP 20 times
that of HCFC-22), it poses a greater risk to stratospheric ozone
than the use of HCFC-22 alone.
(2) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b is unacceptable as a substitute
for CFC-11 in new centrifugal chillers. This substance has a
high ozone depletion potential. At least one other substitute
exists that presents lower overall risk.
(3) Hydrocarbon Blend A. Hydrocarbon Blend A is unacceptable
as a substitute for CFC-12 in:
Commercial comfort air conditioning;
Ice skating rinks;
Cold storage warehouses;
Refrigerated transport;
Retail food refrigeration;
Vending machines;
Water coolers;
Commercial ice machines;
Household refrigerators;
Household freezers;
Residential dehumidifiers; and
Motor vehicle air conditioning.
Flammability is the primary concern. EPA believes the use of
this substitute in very leaky uses like motor vehicle air
conditioning
may pose a high risk of fire. EPA requires a risk assessment
be conducted to demonstrate this blend may be safely used in
any CFC-12 end-uses.
E. Foams
1. Overview
Foam plastics accounted for approximately 18 percent of all
U.S. consumption of ozone-depleting chemicals on an ODP-weighted
basis in 1990. Five class I chemicals-CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113,
CFC-114, and methyl chloroform-are used as blowing agents in
foam production. These five compounds are used in a wide variety
of applications.
Foam plastics manufactured with CFCs fall into four major
categories: polyurethane, phenolic, extruded polystyrene, and
polyolefin. Historically, CFC-11 and CFC-113, which remain in
a liquid state at room temperature, have been used as blowing
agents in polyurethane and phenolic foams. CFC-12 and CFC-114,
which have lower boiling points than CFC-11 and CFC-113 and
are gases at room temperature, are used in polyolefin and
polystyrene
foams. In addition to CFCs, methyl chloroform is used as a blowing
agent in some flexible polyurethane foams.
Due to the wide variety of applications that foams represent,
the Agency has divided its analysis of foam plastics into the
following ten distinct end-use sectors:
Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock;
Rigid polyurethane appliance;
Rigid polyurethane spray and commercial refrigeration,
and sandwich panels;
Rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams;
Polystyrene extruded insulation boardstock and billet;
Phenolic insulation board;
Flexible polyurethane;
Polyurethane integral skin;
Polystyrene extruded sheet; and
Polyolefin.
The SNAP determinations in this final rule distinguish between
these ten end-use sectors because the mix of potential alternatives
to Class I blowing agents, and potential emission and exposure
profiles, differ for each. Appendix B at the end of this preamble
lists in tabular form the Agency's determinations on substitutes
in the foam sector. These determinations are based on the risk
screens described in the background document entitled, ``Risk
Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting
Substances: Foam-Blowing Agents'' and discussed in supporting
memoranda. The table also includes as ``pending'' substitutes
for which the Agency has not yet issued determinations. Vendors
or users of substitutes not described in Appendix B should submit
information on these uses, so that the Agency can review them
and issue a SNAP determination.
2. Alternative Blowing Agents
Under the SNAP program, the evaluation of alternatives for
CFCs depends on a number of factors. These include toxicity,
flammability, environmental concerns, and, in the case of
insulating
foams, the insulating efficiency of alternatives.
Toxicity concerns associated with the use of alternative
chemicals relate to the exposure of workers and consumers to
the chemicals or to the decomposition products these chemicals
may form slowly over time in foam products. The likely degree
of human health risk associated with an alternative depends
not only on the nature of a substitute chemical but also on
the chemical composition, manufacturing process, and product
applications that characterize the foam end-use sector into
which that substitute will be introduced.
Flammability concerns, like toxicity concerns, have to do
with possible danger to workers and consumers. Such danger includes
possible ignition of materials during manufacturing, storage,
or transportation, and the fire hazard posed by the final product.
Alternatives to CFCs have varying degrees of flammability. As
in the case of toxicity, however, the composition, production
processes, and end-use applications that characterize each foam
type dictate the potential risks associated with flammability.
In addition to posing toxicity and flammability risks,
alternatives
may have deleterious effects on the environment. Such effects
may include stratospheric ozone depletion, global warming, and
contribution to smog or tropospheric ozone formation. HCFCs
have, in varying degrees, the potential to deplete ozone; both
HCFCs and HFCs have global warming potential; and various potential
alternatives, especially hydrocarbons, are volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) that contribute to the formation of ozone,
or smog, in the lower atmosphere.
The use of alternative blowing agents can have an adverse
affect on the insulating capacity of foam products due to higher
thermal conductivity of the substitute. The overall risk screen
for substitutes under SNAP takes into account indirect
contributions
to global warming.
a. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons. Because of their relatively
low thermal conductivity, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are
considered necessary transitional alternatives to CFC blowing
agents in thermal insulating foams. Two HCFCs, HCFC-123 and
HCFC-141b, can serve as replacements for CFC-11 in many end-
use applications. Because of limited availability of HCFC-123,
HCFC141b represents the more likely short-term possibility for
replacing CFC-11 in several of the insulating foam sectors.
As a result, the Agency has determined that HCFC-141b, despite
its relatively high ODP of 0.11, is an acceptable transitional
alternative to CFC-11 for several foam end-uses. Other HCFC
alternatives are HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b. Although these compounds
are commercially available and have lower ODPs than HCFC-141b,
each has a boiling point significantly lower than CFC-11. As
a result, conversion to HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b from CFC-11 generally
entails significant investment in technical and process
modification.
HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b do, however, present viable, near-term
alternatives to CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene boardstock and
billet foams.
Production of HCFCs is controlled by the Clean Air Act and
under section 605 is scheduled for phase-out by 2030. However,
due to new data concerning greater risks of ozone depletion,
EPA promulgated an accelerated phase-out schedule (58 FR 65018,
12/10/93). Given the technical and safety concerns associated
with many non-HCFC alternatives, however, disallowing the interim
use of HCFCs in insulating foam end-uses, including the use
of HCFC-141b and HCFC-22, would have adverse effects on human
health and the environment.
Effective January 1, 1994, plastic foam products which contain
or are manufactured with HCFCs are banned from sale or distribution
into interstate commerce under section 610 of the CAA. Under
section 610, thermal insulation foam products are, however,
exempted from this ban. Foam insulation product means a product
containing or consisting of the following types of foam: (1)
Closed cell rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate foam; (2)
closed cell rigid polystyrene boardstock foam; (3) closed cell
rigid phenolic foam; and (4) closed cell rigid polyethylene
foam when such foam is suitable in shape, thickness and design
to be used as a product that provides thermal insulation around
pipes used in heating, plumbing, refrigeration, or industrial
process systems. Any use of acceptable HCFC substitutes listed
under SNAP must comply with restrictions under the section 610
Non-Essential Ban.
b. Hydrofluorocarbons. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) represent
a zero-ODP alternative to CFC blowing agents in many sectors.
From the standpoint of stratospheric ozone depletion alone,
HFCs are preferable to HCFCs as alternative blowing agents.
The relatively higher thermal conductivity of HFCs, however,
is likely to hamper the insulating capabilities of HFC-blown
foams unless significant changes in the foam formulation or
process modifications are adopted.
The HFCs hold more promise as near- or intermediate-term
alternatives for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene foams, particularly
in extruded polystyrene sheet foams. However, issues such as
flammability, global warming potential, cost, and the solubility
of HFCs in polystyrene polymer remain of concern for the industry.
Conversion to HFC-152a may entail significant capital investment
in order to ensure worker safety against fire hazards. Moreover,
in the case of insulating foams, manufacturers will need to
guarantee that foams blown with HFC-152a meet the building code
requirements that apply to the flammability of building materials.
c. Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6. Saturated light
hydrocarbons
C3-C6, most of which are readily available as bulk chemicals,
have the advantage of being low cost. These chemicals are also
halogen free, thus they are both zero-ODP and zero-GWP. Saturated
light hydrocarbons C3-C6 are currently being used in extruded
polystyrene, polyurethane, and polyolefin non-insulating foam
end-uses.
Hydrocarbons have significantly higher thermal conductivities
than do any of the CFCs. Conversion to hydrocarbons could thus
lead to the production of foams with lower insulating efficiency
and, possibly, to a reduction in the energy efficiency of insulated
items. Formulation changes and process modifications have been
introduced to increase the thermal insulating efficiency of
hydrocarbon-blown foams. Cyclopentane is a leading alternative
blowing-agent candidate for insulating foams because of its
high boiling point and other physical properties similar to
CFC-11.
Conversion to hydrocarbons may entail significant capital
investment in order to ensure worker safety against fire hazards.
Moreover, in the case of insulating foams, manufacturers will
need to guarantee that foams blown with hydrocarbons meet the
building code requirements that apply to the flammability of
building materials.
Hydrocarbons are VOCs and may contribute to the formation
of ground-level ozone, or smog, in the lower atmosphere. Any
use of hydrocarbon blowing agents is subject to the federal,
state and local restrictions that apply to VOCs, and conversion
to hydrocarbons could therefore involve further capital investment
to comply with these restrictions.
d. Other blowing agents. Two other blowing agents, methylene
chloride and acetone, have been identified as substitutes for
CFC-11 in flexible polyurethane foams. Methylene chloride, which
already serves as an auxiliary blowing agent for most grades
of flexible polyurethane foam, is commercially available, and
is relatively low cost. Because of its toxicity, it poses a
potential risk to workers and residents in nearby communities.
However, the Agency's analysis of use of this chemical as a
blowing agent indicates risks can be controlled by adhering
to existing regulatory standards. Methylene chloride use is
further restricted in several states and localities, and is
listed as a hazardous waste under RCRA and, thus, users must
comply with applicable RCRA waste disposal requirements. The
Agency is also in the process of addressing residual risks to
the general population through emissions to air under title
III section 112 of the CAA. The Agency expects to issue maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) rules governing methylene
chloride use in the foams sector by 1997. Methylene chloride
is not a VOC, and thus, does not contribute to the formation
of tropospheric ozone.
When used as a blowing agent, acetone is capable of yielding
all grades of flexible polyurethane foam. It can serve as an
alternative blowing agent where methylene chloride use is
infeasible.
Acetone is a VOC, and must be controlled as such. In addition,
plant modifications may be necessary to accommodate acetone's
flammability.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an acceptable substitute for all
foam end-uses. Any CO2 blend is acceptable as long as the other
constituents of the blend are acceptable under SNAP. CO2 does
contribute to global warming. In addition, CO2 has the highest
thermal conductivity of the SNAP-listed chemical alternatives,
and will lower the thermal capacity of insulating foams unless
significant foam formulation or process modifications are adopted.
e. Alternative manufacturing processes. The AB Technology
is a commercially available and technically feasible process
for replacing CFCs or other auxiliary blowing agents for most
conventional flexible foam grades. AB Technology employs formic
acid in conjunction with water as the blowing agent for producing
flexible polyurethane foam. The process is based on using the
reaction of formic acid with an isocyanate to produce carbon
monoxide in addition to the water/isocyanate reaction normally
used to generate carbon dioxide gas for the expansion of foam.
OSHA has set a permissible exposure level (PEL) for carbon monoxide
of 35 ppm of a time weighted average with a ceiling not to exceed
200 ppm.
3. Comment Response
The majority of public comments received on the foams sector
in the proposed rule focused on three issues: The viability
or availability of substitutes; the need for listing of alternative
technologies or manufacturing processes, and the need for
notification
under SNAP for use of blends or mixture of blowing agents.
a. Viability or availability of listed substitutes. Several
commenters suggested that the NPRM did not sufficiently address
the performance and practicality of use of acceptable substitutes.
Commenters were especially concerned about alternative blowing
agents used in thermal insulation applications, and whether
acceptable substitutes represented existing or experimental
use. For example, several commenters stated that if the alternative
blowing agent will affect the insulating capacity of a foam
it should be part of the SNAP analysis, and the outcome should
be discussed as part of the listing decision. Another commenter
contended that for many of the end-uses, not all of the listed
HCFC substitutes are technically viable, but each should be
listed anyway to maximize the breadth of options. This commenter
also reported that uses of some of the HFCs and hydrocarbons
are still in development and, therefore do not represent actual
alternatives.
EPA recognizes that the use of alternative blowing agents
in insulation products can affect the energy efficiency of the
final product. In this final rule, the overall risk
characterization
for substitutes under SNAP specifically takes into account indirect
contributions to global warming. However, EPA also recognizes
that the changes in foam formulation or product thickness can
result in products with insulation efficiency equivalent to
CFC-blown foam. Therefore, EPA believes it is appropriate to
consider and comment on the difference in thermal conductivity
of alternative blowing agents as compared to the CFC being
replaced,
and compared to other acceptable substitutes. However, it would
be inappropriate to comment on the expected performance of a
foam product using one blowing agent versus another, given that
formulations are highly proprietary and can vary significantly
from manufacturer-to-manufacturer. Further, EPA believes it
is preferable to identify a broad range of alternatives, and
let the market determine which alternative produce the best
performing insulation products.
Several commenters requested clarification on the definition
of hydrocarbons. One commenter suggested a more specific definition
for hydrocarbons of ``saturated light hydrocarbons, C3-C6.''
The Agency agrees with these commenters. Since the broad
use of hydrocarbon in the NPRM may be viewed as potentially
precluding other viable substitutes, and because the alternate
definition suggested by the commenter encompasses those
specifically
listed hydrocarbons as well as more recently identified materials
being tested in foams such as cyclopentane, this definition
has been adopted by EPA in the final rule.
b. Alternative technologies or manufacturing processes. Several
commenters argued that EPA should not issue its seal of approval
for substitutes that are alternative products, unless and until
the Agency evaluates them with the same degree of detail that
HCFCs were evaluated, particularly with regard to toxicity,
technical feasibility, flammability, and energy impacts.
The Agency believes that alternative products and alternative
manufacturing processes will play an important role in the
transition
from ODSs in many sectors. In light of public comment, the Agency
recognized that the SNAP data requirements and the SNAP evaluation
process proposed in the NPRM were biased toward chemical
substitutes.
The Agency also agrees with public comment that review of non-
chemical alternatives must be supported by appropriate analysis.
In this final rule, the Agency has made revisions to the SNAP
Information Notice to better account for the different information
requirements associated with non-chemical alternatives and
increased
the discussion of the Agency's analysis of non-chemical
alternatives
in the background documents.
c. Use of blends. Several commenters argued that EPA's proposed
requirement for notification and review of chemical alternative
blends was unnecessary and burdensome for the foams sector.
The comments proposed that any combination or blend of individually
acceptable blowing agents should be permitted without additional
notification to SNAP. One commenter suggested EPA clarify that
the term ``blend'' when used in the SNAP rule does not refer
to individual, separately-``acceptable'' substitutes, two or
more of which may be used in the same manufacturing process.
In light of these public comments, the Agency re-examined
the analytical basis for reviewing blends, to determine whether
the potential human health and environmental risks would be
different for blends or mixtures of chemicals than those of
individual chemicals that were determined to be acceptable for
use in the foams manufacturing process under SNAP. In particular,
the Agency was concerned with potential synergistic effects
of the chemical blends, and that the decomposition product profile
would differ from that of a single chemical.
The Agency has determined that because of the potential for
formation and emission of decomposition products in rigid closed
cell foams, notification and review under SNAP is required for
blends of chemical alternatives in foam end-uses that encompass
residential products where chronic consumer exposure could occur.
These end-uses are: Polyurethane rigid laminated boardstock,
polystyrene extruded boardstock and billet foams, phenolic foams,
and polyolefin foams. This analysis is detailed in the SNAP
technical background document, ``Risk Screen on the Use of
Substitutes
for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: Foam Blowing Agents.''
In contrast, for open-celled foams where the blowing agent is
fully emitted from the foams within hours or days of manufacture,
the formation of decomposition products is not a factor in
decisionmaking.
For this final rule, use of blends or mixtures of substitutes
listed as acceptable under the SNAP program in open-celled or
closed-cell or semi-rigid end-uses not designated above does
not require notification.
4. Listing Decisions
a. Acceptable substitutes. (1) Rigid polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate
laminated boardstock. (a) HCFC-123. HCFC-123 is acceptable as
an alternative blowing agent to CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane
and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock foam. From the standpoint
of technical feasibility, HCFC-123 represents a viable alternative
to CFC-11 as a potential blowing agent. More specifically, the
physical properties, thermal conductivity, and aging of foams
blown with HCFC-123 are similar to those blown with CFC-11.
As a result, HCFC-123, which has an ozone depleting potential
significantly lower than that of CFC-11, has the potential to
replace CFC-11 in many applications. Nonetheless, availability
of HCFC-123 is limited at present. The acceptable exposure limit
(AEL) for HCFC-123 is 30 ppm.
(b) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b is acceptable as an alternative
to CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated
boardstock foam. Although its ODP of 0.11 is relatively high,
HCFC-141b offers almost immediate transition out of CFC uses
in this sector. Not only does HCFC-141b offer a technically
feasible alternative to CFC-11, but it is currently available
in quantities sufficient to meet industrial demand. HCFC-141b
is scheduled for phase-out from production on January 1, 2003
under the accelerated phase out rule (58 FR 65018) under section
606 of the CAA.
(c) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-
11 in rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock
foam. HCFC-22 offers an alternative with significantly less
potential to deplete ozone than CFC-11. Plant or process
modifications
may be required to allow use of blowing agents like HCFC-142b
that have significantly lower boiling points than CFC-11. HCFC-
22 is subject to the accelerated phase out rule (58 FR 65018)
under section 606 of the CAA.
(d) HCFC-142b. HCFC-142b is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated
boardstock foam. HCFC-142b offers an alternative with significantly
lower potential to deplete ozone than CFC-11. Plant or process
modifications may be required to allow use of blowing agents
like HCFC-142b that have significantly lower boiling points
than CFC-11. HCFC-142b is subject to the accelerated phase out
rule (58 FR 65018).
(e) HCFC-22/HCFC-141b. The HCFC-22/HCFC-142b blend is acceptable
as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate
laminated boardstock foam. HCFC-22 has an occupational exposure
limit (OEL) of 250 ppm, whereas HCFC-141b has an OEL of 1000
ppm.
(f) HCFC-22/HCFC-142b. HCFC-22/HCFC-142b blends are acceptable
as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate
laminated boardstock foam. This blend offers an alternative
with significantly less potential to deplete ozone than CFC-
11. Plant or process modifications may be required to allow
use of blowing agents like HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b that have low
boiling points than CFC-11.
(g) HCFC-141b/HCFC-123. The HCFC-141b/HCFC-123 blend is
acceptable
as an alternative to CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate
laminated boardstock foam. As noted above, HCFC-141b, because
of its commercial availability offers an immediate opportunity
to replace CFC-11. HCFC-123 has limited availability. However,
because the ODP of HCFC-123 is lower than that of HCFC-141b,
the blend has a lower ODP than HCFC-141b alone.
(h) HCFC-22/HCFC-141b. The HCFC-22/HCFC-142b blend is acceptable
as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate
laminated boardstock foam. Because both components of the blend
are commercially available in large enough quantities to meet
industry demand, it offers a near-term vehicle for replacing
CFC-11 in laminated boardstock foams. HCFC-22 has an occupational
exposure limit (OEL) of 250 ppm, whereas HCFC-141b has an OEL
of 1000 ppm.
(i) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated
boardstock foam. HFC-134a offers the potential for a
non-ozonedepleting
alternative to CFC-11 blowing agents in rigid polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock foams. Plant modifications
may be necessary to accommodate the use of HFC-134a because
its boiling point is lower than that of CFC-11. In addition,
the cost of HFC-134a is relatively high, and the use of HFC-
134a may cause significant increases in thermal conductivity,
with a concomitant loss in the insulating capacity of foams
blown with HFC-134a. HFC-134a also has a relatively high global
warming potential compared with other available alternatives.
(j) HFC-152a. HFC-152a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated
boardstock foam. HFC-152a offers the potential for a
non-ozonedepleting
alternative to CFC-11 blowing agents in rigid polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock. Use of HFC-152a as a
blowing agent in rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated
boardstock foam has raised concern over the potential for
significant
increases in thermal conductivity. Process changes may be necessary
to accommodate the use of HFC-152a, and plant modifications
may be necessary to manage its flammability. Also, foams blown
with HFC-152a will need to conform with building code requirements
that relate to flammable materials.
(k) Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6. Saturated Light
Hydrocarbons
C3-C6 are acceptable as substitutes for CFC-11 in rigid
polyurethane
and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock foam. These hydrocarbons
have zero-ODP and zero-GWP. Plant or process modifications may
be necessary to accommodate the use of saturated light hydrocarbons
C3-C6. These materials also pose flammability concerns which
may require capital investment to manage. Foams blown with
hydrocarbons
will need to conform with building code requirements that relate
to flammable materials. Finally, the thermal conductivity is
greater than CFC-11 blowing agents which may effect the thermal
capacity of final products. Saturated light hydrocarbons are
VOCs and must be controlled as such under Title I of the CAA.
(l) 2-Chloropropane. 2-Chloropropane is acceptable as a
substitute
for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated
boardstock foam. At present, because 2-chloropropane is a
proprietary
process, its commercial availability may be limited. Moreover,
2-chloropropane is flammable and its use may require extensive
modification of existing equipment.
(m) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is acceptable as a substitute
for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated
boardstock foam.
(2) Polyurethane, rigid appliance foam. (a) HCFC-123. HCFC-
123 (or blends thereof), for the reasons described in the section
on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock,
is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane
appliance foam.
(b) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b (or blends thereof), for the reasons
described in the section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate
laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-
11 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam. The Appliance Research
Consortium (ARC), a subsidiary of the Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (AHAM), convened an independent panel of
toxicologists
to evaluate the risk of potential exposure from foods stored
in refrigerators manufactured with HCFC-141b as the blowing
agent in the insulating foam. The panel evaluated the same
toxicological
data available to EPA, and concluded that the use of HCFC-141b
in this intended application is generally recognized as safe
(GRAS) per section 201(s) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
21 USC section 321(s).{1}
³ {1} Peter de la Cruz, Evaluation of HCFC-141b
Potential
³Dietary Exposure, Keller and Heckman, January, 1994.
(c) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 (or blends thereof), for reasons described
in the section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated
boardstock, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid
polyurethane appliance foam.
(d) HCFC-142b. HCFC-142b (or blends thereof) is acceptable
as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam.
HCFC-142b offers an alternative with significantly less potential
to deplete stratospheric ozone than CFC-11. Nevertheless, certain
technical problems persist. Namely, plant modifications may
be required to allow the use of blowing agents like HCFC-142b
that have low boiling points.
(e) HFC-134a. HFC-134a (or blends thereof), for the reasons
described in the section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate
laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-
11 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam.
(f) HFC-152a. HFC-152a (or blends thereof), for the reasons
described in the section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate
laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-
11 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam.
(g) Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6. Saturated light
hydrocarbons
C3-C6 (or blends thereof) are acceptable as substitutes for
CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam. Saturated light
hydrocarbons C3-C6 offer the potential of a non-ozone-depleting
alternative to the use of CFC-11 blowing agents in rigid
polyurethane
appliance foam. Plant modifications may be necessary to accommodate
the flammability of Saturated Light Hydrocarbons C3-C6. In
addition,
the potential for significant increases in thermal conductivity
may reduce insulating capacity. Foams blown with saturated light
hydrocarbons C3-C6 must conform with building code requirements
that relate to flammable materials. Saturated light hydrocarbons
C3-C6 are VOCs and will be subject to control as such under
Title I of the CAA.
(h) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (or blends thereof) is
acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane
appliance foam.
(3) Rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration foam, spray
foam, and sandwich panels. (a) HCFC-123. HCFC-123, for the reasons
described in the section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate
laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-
11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration
foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels.
(b) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b (or blends thereof), for the reasons
described in the section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate
laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-
11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration
foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels.
(c) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 (or blends thereof) is acceptable as
a substitute for CFC-11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane commercial
refrigeration foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels. HCFC-22
offers an alternative with significantly less potential to deplete
ozone than either CFC-11 or CFC-12. However, significant process
changes could be necessary to accommodate the low boiling point
of HCFC-22.
(d) HCFC-142b. HCFC-142b (or blends thereof), for the reasons
described in the section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate
laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-
11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration
foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels.
(e) HFC-134a. HFC-134a (or blends thereof), for the reasons
described in the section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate
laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-
11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration
foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels.
(f) HFC-152a. HFC-152a (or blends thereof), for the reasons
described in the section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate
laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-
11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration
foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels.
(g) Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6. Saturated light
hydrocarbons
C3-C6 (or blends thereof), for the reasons described in the
section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated
boardstock, are acceptable alternative blowing agents for CFC-
11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration
foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels.
(h) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (or blends thereof) is
an acceptable alternative blowing agent for CFC-11 in rigid
polyurethane commercial refrigeration foam, spray foam, and
sandwich panels.
(4) Polyurethane slabstock and other foams. (a) HCFC-123.
HCFC-123 (or blends thereof) is acceptable as an alternative
to CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams. From
the standpoint of technical feasibility, HCFC-123 represents
a viable alternative to CFC-11 as a potential blowing agent.
More specifically, the physical properties, thermal conductivity,
and aging of foams blown with HCFC-123 are similar to those
blown with CFC-11. As a result, HCFC-123, which has an ozone
depleting potential significantly lower than that of CFC-11,
has the potential to replace CFC-11 in many applications.
Nonetheless,
commercial availability of HCFC-123 is limited at present.
(b) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b (or blends thereof) is acceptable
as an alternative to CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane slabstock
and other foams. Although its ODP of 0.11 is relatively high,
HCFC-141b offers almost immediate transition out of CFCs in
this sector. Not only does HCFC-141b offer a technically feasible
alternative to CFC-11, it is currently available in sufficient
quantities to meet industry demand. The use of HCFCs in
polyurethane
slabstock and other foams is subject to further restriction
under section 610 of the CAA, which banned the use of class
II substances in noninsulating foams after January 1, 1994.
(c) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 (or blends thereof) is acceptable as
a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane slabstock and
other foams. HCFC-22 offers an alternative with significantly
less potential to deplete ozone than either CFC-11 or CFC-12.
However, significant process changes may be necessary to
accommodate
the low boiling point of HCFC-22.
(d) HFC-134a. HFC-134a (or blends thereof), for the reasons
described in the section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate
laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-
11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams.
(e) HFC-152a. HFC-152a (or blends thereof), for the reasons
described in the section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate
laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-
11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams.
(f) Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6. Saturated light
hydrocarbons
C3-C6 (or blends thereof), for the reasons described in the
section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated
boardstock, are acceptable alternative blowing agents for CFC-
11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams.
(g) Carbon Dioxide. Carbon dioxide (or blends thereof) is
an acceptable alternative blowing agent for CFC-11 and CFC-12
in rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams.
(5) Extruded Polystyrene Boardstock and Billet. (a) HCFC-
22. HCFC-22 is an acceptable alternative blowing agent for CFC-
12 in extruded polystyrene boardstock and billet foam. HCFC-
22 offers an alternative with significantly less potential to
deplete ozone than CFC-12. HCFC-22, however, has a relatively
high permeation rate out of polystyrene, thus affecting insulation
performance. Users must be in compliance with the section 610
Nonessential Products Containing Class II Substances Ban.
(b) HCFC-142b. HCFC-142b is an acceptable alternative blowing
agent for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene boardstock foam. HCFC-
142b offers an alternative with significantly less potential
to deplete ozone than either CFC-11 or CFC-12. Users must be
in compliance with the section 610 Non-essential Products
Containing
Class II Substances Ban.
(c) HCFC-22/HCFC-142b. The HCFC-22/HCFC-142b blend is acceptable
as a substitute for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene boardstock
and billet foam. The blend offers an alternative with significantly
less potential to deplete ozone than CFC-12. Users must be in
compliance with section 610 Nonessential Products Containing
Class II Substances.
(d) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene boardstock and billet foam. HFC-
134a offers the potential for a non-ozone-depleting alternative
to CFC-12 blowing agents in extruded polystyrene boardstock
and billet foam. HFC-134a, because of its low flammability and
encouraging performance in toxicological testing, exhibits definite
advantages from the standpoints of environmental risk and worker
and consumer safety. However, HFC-134a has relatively high thermal
conductivity, is costly, and has the potential to contribute
to global warming. In addition, the compound has poor solubility
in polystyrene polymer, which could limit its usefulness as
an alternative blowing agent from a technical standpoint. HFC-
134a also has a relatively high global warming potential compared
to other available alternatives.
(e) HFC-152a. HFC-152a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene boardstock and billet foam. HFC-
152a offers the potential for a non-ozone-depleting alternative
to CFC-12 blowing agents in extruded polystyrene boardstock.
However, the high flammability of HFC-152a when combined with
its properties of high thermal conductivity, low solubility
in polystyrene polymer, and high permeability through polystyrene
limit the extent to which HFC-152a is likely to replace CFC-
12. Plant modifications may be needed to accommodate the
flammability
of HFC-152a, and foams blown with HFC-152a will need to conform
with building code requirements that relate to flammable materials.
(f) Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6. Saturated light
hydrocarbons
C3-C6 are acceptable as substitutes for CFC-12 in polystyrene
boardstock and billet foam. Of the Saturated Light Hydrocarbons
C3-C6, pentane, isopentane, butane, and isobutane have been
demonstrated as feasible blowing agents in polystyrene. In fact,
saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6 have been used for years
in the manufacture of extruded polystyrene sheet products. However,
saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6 have several disadvantages
as blowing agents in extruded polystyrene boardstock and billet
foam. Replacement of CFC-12 blowing agents with Saturated Light
Hydrocarbons C3-C6 may reduce the insulating efficiency in this
end-use. Controlling the flammability of saturated light
hydrocarbons
C3-C6 may entail significant investment in plant conversion
to accommodate them as alternatives to CFC-12. Foams blown with
saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6 will need to conform with
building code requirements that relate to flammable materials.
Finally, saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6 are VOCs and must
be controlled as such under Title I of the CAA.
(g) HCFC-22/Saturated Light Hydrocarbons C3-C6. Blends of
HCFC-22/saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6, for the reasons
described and with the caveats outlined above for HCFC-22 and
Saturated Light Hydrocarbons C3-C6, are acceptable substitutes
for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene boardstock and billet foam.
(h) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is an acceptable alternative
blowing agent for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene boardstock
and billet foam.
(6) Phenolic insulation board. (a) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b,
for the reasons described in the section on rigid polyurethane
and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, is acceptable as
an alternative to CFC-11 and CFC-113 in phenolic insulation
board.
(b) HCFC-142b. HCFC-142b, for the reasons described in the
section on rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated
boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 and CFC-
113 in phenolic insulation board.
(c) HCFC-22. HCFC-22, for the reasons described in the section
on rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration foams, spray
foams, and sandwich panels, is acceptable as an alternative
to CFC-11 and CFC-113 in phenolic insulation board.
(d) HCFC-22/HCFC-142b. Blends of HCFC-22/HCFC-142b, for reasons
described above and with the caveats outlined above for HCFC-
22 and HCFC-142b, are acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11
and CFC-113 in phenolic insulation board.
(e) Saturated Light Hydrocarbons C3-C6. Saturated light
hydrocarbons
C3-C6, for the reasons described in the section on rigid
polyurethane
and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, are acceptable
alternatives
to CFC-11 and CFC-113 in phenolic insulation board.
(f) HCFC-22/Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6.
HCFC-22/Saturated
light hydrocarbon C3-C6 blends are acceptable as substitutes
for CFC-11 and CFC-113 in phenolic insulation board.
HCFC-22/saturated
light hydrocarbon C3-C6 blends offer an alternative with
significantly
less potential to deplete ozone than either CFC-11 or CFC-113.
However, extensive plant modifications may be necessary to
accommodate
use of these blends. In addition, there are concerns about the
potential for significant increases in thermal conductivity
resulting from the replacement of CFC-11 and CFC-113 with a
blend. Also, foams blown with saturated light hydrocarbons C3-
C6 will need to conform with building code requirements that
relate to flammable materials. Saturated light hydrocarbons
C3-C6 are VOCs and must be controlled as such under Title I
of the CAA, and HCFC-22 is subject to the phase-out of Class
II compounds under sections 605 and 606 of the CAA.
(g) HFC-143a. HFC-143a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-11 and CFC-12 in phenolic insulation board. HFC-143a has
a higher global warming potential than other substitutes available.
(h) 2-Chloropropane 2-Chloropropane is acceptable as a
substitute
for CFC-11 and CFC-12 in phenolic insulation board. At present,
because 2-chloropropane is a proprietary technology. Moreover,
2-chloropropane is flammable and its use may require extensive
modification of existing equipment.
(i) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is an acceptable alternative
blowing agent for CFC-11 and CFC-12 in phenolic insulation board.
(7) Flexible polyurethane foam. (a) Methylene chloride.
Methylene
chloride (or blends thereof) is acceptable as a blowing agent
in flexible polyurethane foams. Methylene chloride is already
used as an auxiliary blowing agent in the manufacture of most
flexible polyurethane slabstock foams and has proven adequate
in yielding foams of many densities and degrees of softness.
Replacement of CFC-11 or methyl chloroform blowing agents with
methylene chloride can reduce the potential for stratospheric
ozone depletion resulting from the production of flexible
polyurethane
foams.
Nevertheless, there is concern over the potential health
and safety issues posed by methylene chloride. In fact, due
to these concerns, some local and regional restrictions apply
to the use of methylene chloride. To assess these risks in the
application under discussion, EPA used data collected by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for the
proposed revision of the permissible exposure level (PEL) for
methylene chloride. The Agency's estimate for total population
risk for methylene chloride was based on average plant emissions
derived from OSHA's analysis, and while not negligible, was
within the range of existing Agency decisions on acceptable
risk. For further detail, refer to the background document entitled
``Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting
Substances: Foams''.
In light of the results of Agency analysis, EPA decided to
find acceptable the use of methylene chloride subject to existing
or future restrictions because it will allow immediate transition
from class I substances in this end-use. Potential users should
note that methylene chloride use will be subject to future controls
for hazardous air pollutants under Title III section 112 of
the CAA. In addition, use of the compound must conform to all
relevant workplace safety standards; OSHA has proposed permissible
exposure levels (PELs) for methylene chloride of 25 ppm on a
time-weighted average (TWA). Once such additional controls have
been adopted, use of this substitute must comply with any other
applicable requirements, such as state restrictions. Use is
also subject to waste disposal requirements under RCRA.
(b) Acetone. Acetone (or blends thereof) is acceptable as
a blowing agent for flexible polyurethane foams. In those areas
where methylene chloride use is deemed unacceptable, acetone
may provide another non-ODP alternative to CFC-11 and methyl
chloroform. All grades of flexible polyurethane foam produced
with CFCs can be produced using acetone as an auxiliary blowing
agent. Acetone does not have an ozone depletion potential, and
its global warming potential is negligible. Nevertheless, acetone
is highly flammable and its use requires precautions to ensure
safety to workers as prescribed by OSHA. In addition, use of
this compound is subject to various federal, state, or local
controls as a VOC under Title I of the CAA.
(c) HFC-134a. HFC-134a (or blends thereof) is acceptable
as a substitute for CFC-11 in flexible polyurethane foam. HFC-
134a is a non-ozone-depleting alternative to CFC-11 blowing
agents in flexible polyurethane foam. Plant modifications may
be necessary to accommodate the use of HFC-134a because its
boiling point is lower than that of CFC-11.
(d) HFC-152a. HFC-152a (or use thereof) is acceptable as
a substitute for CFC-11 in flexible polyurethane foam. HFC-152a
is a non-ozone-depleting alternative to CFC-11 blowing agents
in flexible polyurethane foam. Process changes may be necessary
to accommodate the use of HFC-152a, and plant modifications
may be necessary to manage its flammability.
(e) AB Technology. AB Technology is acceptable as an alternative
process in flexible polyurethane foams. The AB Technology generates
carbon monoxide as the chemical blowing agent. Precautions should
be taken to insure the safety of workers from exposure to elevated
levels of carbon monoxide, particularly at the latter phases
of production where ventilation is generally not as efficient
as on the foam line. OSHA has set a permissible exposure level
(PEL) for carbon monoxide of 35 ppm on a time-weighted average
(TWA) with a ceiling of 200 ppm.
(f) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (or blends thereof) is
an acceptable alternative process in flexible polyurethane foams.
(8) Polyurethane integral skin foams. (a) HCFC-123. HCFC-
123 (or blends thereof) is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-
11 in integral skin foams. The physical and chemical properties
of HCFC-123 are similar to CFC-11. As a result, HCFC-123, which
has an ozone depleting potential significantly lower than that
of CFC-11, has the potential to replace CFC-11 in many integral
skin applications. Nonetheless, commercial availability of HCFC-
123 is limited at present. The use of HCFC-123 in integral skin
foams is subject to significant restriction under section 610
of the CAA, which bans the use of class II substances in
noninsulating
foams after January 1, 1994. The ban exempts only certain integral
skin foams used to provide for motor vehicle safety.
(b) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b (or blends thereof) is acceptable
as an alternative to CFC-11 in integral skin foams. Although
its ODP of 0.11 is relatively high, HCFC-141b offers an acceptable
transition substitute out of CFC-11 in integral skin foams.
The use of HCFC-141b in integral skin foams, however, is subject
to significant restriction under section 610 of the CAA, which
banned the use of class II substances in noninsulating foams
after January 1, 1994. The ban exempts only certain integral
skin foams used to provide for motor vehicle safety.
(c) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 (or blends thereof) is acceptable as
a substitute for CFC-11 in integral skin foam. HCFC-22 offers
an alternative with significantly less potential to deplete
ozone than CFC-11. However, process changes may be necessary
to accommodate the low boiling point of HCFC-22. The use of
HCFC-22 in integral skin foams is subject to significant
restrictions
under section 610 of the CAA, which banned the use of class
II substances in noninsulating foams after January 1, 1994.
The ban exempts only certain integral skin foams used to provide
for motor vehicle safety.
(d) HFC-134a. HFC-134a (or blends thereof) is acceptable
as a substitute for CFC-11 in polyurethane integral skin foam.
HFC-134a is a non-ozone-depleting alternative to CFC-11 blowing
agents in polyurethane integral skin foam. Plant or process
modifications may be necessary to accommodate the use of HFC-
134a because its boiling point is lower than that of CFC-11.
(e) HFC-152a. HFC-152a (or blends thereof) is acceptable
as a substitute for CFC-11 in polyurethane integral skin foam.
HFC-152a is a non-ozone-depleting alternative to CFC-11 blowing
agents in polyurethane integral skin. Plant or process changes
may be necessary to accommodate the use of HFC-152a, and plant
modifications may be necessary to manage its flammability. Also,
foams blown with HFC-152a will need to conform with any product
safety requirements that relate to flammable materials.
(f) Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6. Saturated light
hydrocarbons
C3-C6 (or blends thereof) are acceptable as substitutes for
CFC-11 in integral skin foams. Saturated light hydrocarbons
C3-C6 offer the possibility of a non-ODP replacement for CFC-
11 in integral skin foams. Plant or process modifications may
be necessary to accommodate the flammability of saturated light
hydrocarbons C3-C6 and to make the necessary technical and process
modifications.
(g) Methylene chloride. Methylene chloride (or blends thereof)
is acceptable as a blowing agent in integral skin foam. See
methylene chloride discussion under Polyurethane Flexible Foams
for additional details on toxicity issues. Use is subject to
waste disposal requirements under RCRA.
(h) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (or blends thereof) is
acceptable as a blowing agent in integral skin foams.
(9) Extruded polystyrene sheet foam. (a) HFC-134a. HFC-134a
(or blends thereof) is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12
in extruded polystyrene sheet foam. HFC-134a is a non-ozone-
depleting alternative to CFC-12 blowing agents in polystyrene
sheet foam.
(b) HFC-152a. HFC-152a (or blends thereof) is acceptable
as a substitute for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene sheet foam.
HFC-152a is a non-ozone-depleting alternative to CFC-12 blowing
agents in extruded polystyrene sheet foams. The compound is
commercially available and its low molecular weight suggests
that its blowing efficiency will be double that of CFC-12. Plant
or process modifications may be needed to accommodate the
flammability
of HFC-152a.
(c) Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6. Saturated light
hydrocarbons
C3-C6 (or blends thereof) are acceptable as substitutes for
CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene sheet foam. Saturated light
hydrocarbons
C3-C6 offer the potential of a non-ozone-depleting alternative
to the use of CFC-12 blowing agents in extruded polystyrene
sheet. At present, pentane and butane are used extensively as
blowing agents in extruded polystyrene sheet. These compounds
are widely available at low cost and offer excellent solubility
with the polystyrene polymer.
(d) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (or blends thereof) is
acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene
sheet foam.
(10) Polyolefin foams. (a) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable
as a substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114 in polyolefin
foams. HCFC-22 offers an alternative with significantly less
potential to deplete ozone than CFC-11, CFC-12, or CFC-114.
Under the section 610 Non-Essential Use Ban, HCFC use in polyolefin
foams is restricted to thermal insulating applications of
polyethylene
foams where such foam is suitable in shape, thickness and design
to be used as a product that provides thermal insulation around
pipes used for heating, plumbing, refrigeration, or industrial
process systems.
(b) HCFC-142b. HCFC-142b is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114 in polyolefin foams. HCFC-142b offers
an alternative with significantly less potential to deplete
ozone than CFC-11, CFC-12, or CFC-114. Under the section 610
Non-Essential Use Ban, HCFC use in polyolefin foams is restricted
to thermal insulating applications of polyethylene foams where
such foam is suitable in shape, thickness and design to be used
as a product that provides thermal insulation around pipes used
for heating, plumbing, refrigeration, or industrial process
systems.
(c) HCFC-22/HCFC-142b. HCFC-22/HCFC-142b blends are acceptable,
for reasons described and the caveats outlined above, as a
substitute
for CFC-11, CFC-12 and CFC-114 in polyolefin foam. Under the
section 610 Non-Essential Use Ban, HCFC use in polyolefin foams
is restricted to thermal insulating applications of polyethylene
foams where such foam is suitable in shape, thickness and design
to be used as a product that provides thermal insulation around
pipes used for heating, plumbing, refrigeration, or industrial
process systems.
(d) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114 in polyolefin foams. HFC-134a offers
the potential for a non-ozone-depleting alternative to CFC-11,
CFC-12, and CFC-114 in polyolefin foams. HFC-134a, because of
its low flammability and encouraging performance in toxicological
testing, exhibits definite advantages from the standpoints of
worker and consumer safety. HFC-134a does, however, contribute
to global warming.
(e) HFC-143a. HFC-143a is acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114 in polyolefin foams. HFC-143a has
a higher global warming potential than other acceptable substitutes
in this end-use.
(f) HFC-152a. HFC-152a, for the reasons described in the
section on extruded polystyrene sheet foam, is acceptable as
an alternative to CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114 in polyolefin
foams. Plant or process modifications may be needed to accommodate
the flammability of HFC-152a.
(g) Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6. Saturated light
hydrocarbons
C3-C6 are acceptable as substitutes for CFC-11, CFC-12, and
CFC-114 in polyolefin foams.
(h) HCFC-22/Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6.
HCFC-22/Saturated
light hydrocarbons C3-C6 blends, for the reasons described and
with the caveats outlined above, are acceptable substitutes
for CFC-11, CFC-12 and CFC-114 in polyolefin foams. Under the
section 610 Non-Essential Use Ban, HCFC use in polyolefin foams
is restricted to thermal insulating applications of polyethylene
foams where such foam is suitable in shape, thickness and design
to be used as a product that provides thermal insulation around
pipes used for heating, plumbing, refrigeration, or industrial
process systems.
(i) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is acceptable as a substitute
for CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114 in polyolefin foams.
b. Unacceptable substitutes. The final rule listing a foam
blowing agent as unacceptable in a specific foam use sector
constitutes a ban on the use of that alternative to Class I
compounds. This decision will be effective 30 days after
publication
of this final rule.
(1) Polyolefin foams. The use of HCFC-141b (or blends thereof)
is unacceptable as an alternative blowing agent in polyolefin
foams. HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11, almost equivalent to that
of methyl chloroform, a Class I substance. The Agency believes
that non-ozone depleting alternatives are sufficiently available
to render the use of HCFC-141b unnecessary in this application.
F. Solvent Cleaning
1. Overview
On an ozone-depletion weighted basis, solvents constitute
approximately 15 percent of the chemicals targeted for phase-
out under the Montreal Protocol. In the U.S., the two class
I chemicals used as industrial solvents are CFC-113 (C2F3C13-
trifluorotrichloroethane) and methyl chloroform (C2H3C13-1,1,1-
trichloroethane). The SNAP determinations issued in the solvent
cleaning sector focus on substitutes for CFC-113 and methyl
chloroform (MCF) when used in industrial cleaning equipment,
since this application comprises the largest use of ozone-depleting
solvents.
Other cleaning applications for ozone-depleting solvents
exist as well, such as in dry cleaning of textiles or in hand
cleaning or maintenance cleaning as a spray. In addition, these
solvents are used as bearer media (such as lubricant carriers),
mold release agents, component testing agents, or in other non-
cleaning applications. CFC-11 is also occasionally used as a
cleaning solvent in specialized applications. For the reasons
described earlier in this Preamble, the Agency intends to exclude
cleaning substitutes for CFC-113, MCF and CFC-11 in these
applications-
with the exception of aerosol substitutes-from the SNAP
determinations
at this time. As a result, the Agency is not at this time issuing
any determinations on acceptability of such substitutes, and
will neither approve nor restrict their uses. Aerosol substitutes
are covered in a separate section of this Preamble.
Appendix B at the end of this Preamble lists in tabular form
the Agency's determinations on substitutes in the cleaning sector.
These listings are based on the risk screens described in the
background document entitled ``Risk Screen on the Use of
Substitutes
for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: Solvent Cleaning'' and
discussed in associated supporting memoranda. The table includes
as ``pending'' a few substitutes for which the Agency has not
yet issued determinations. Vendors or users of cleaning substitutes
not described in appendix B should submit information on these
uses, so that the Agency can review them and issue a SNAP
determination.
The three major end uses that in the past employed CFC-113
and MCF are metals cleaning, electronics cleaning, and precision
cleaning. Metals cleaning applications usually involve removing
cutting oils and residual metal filings. This sector relies
principally on MCF as a cleaning solvent. In contrast, the
electronics
industry uses principally CFC-113, for instance, to remove flux
residues left after mounting parts on printed circuit boards.
Precision cleaning also uses mostly CFC-113. This last application
comprises a broad category of industrial cleaning operations
and can cover uses ranging from preparation of pacemakers to
manufacture of direct access storage devices (DASDs) for computers.
The following sections present substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF
in these three end uses and discuss the acceptability listings
presented in appendix B.
2. Substitutes in Solvents Cleaning
a. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). HCFC-141b or HCFC-141b
blends with alcohols are the principal HCFC alternative solvents
to CFC-113/MCF cleaning. These alternatives can be used in vapor
degreasing equipment, principally for electronics or precision
cleaning, and in some cases existing CFC-113 or MCF equipment
can be retrofitted for use with HCFC-141b alternatives. From
an environmental standpoint, the critical characteristic of
HCFC-141b is that it has a relatively high ODP-0.11-the highest
of all the HCFCs.
Another HCFC, HCFC-123, is generally not considered to have
widespread application as a cleaner. Although this HCFC has
the capacity to remove many soils, it is such an aggressive
cleaner that it frequently degrades the surface of the part
being cleaned. The company-set AEL for HCFC-123 was recently
raised from 10ppm to 30ppm based on new toxicity findings. These
new data mean that the exposure limit could be met with existing
equipment, and the Agency intends to list HCFC-123 under separate
rule-making as acceptable subject to adherence to the exposure
limit.
HCFC-225, a third HCFC, is widely viewed as having potential
as a cleaning agent, especially for manufacture and maintenance
of precision parts and equipment. However, this chemical is
not yet in widespread production or use and is only now starting
to be commercially available. Preliminary toxicity findings
suggest that of the two HCFC-225 isomers, HCFC-225ca and HCFC-
225cb, toxicity concerns associated with the ca-isomer may warrant
a comparatively low company-set occupational exposure limit.
As a result, EPA intends under separate rule-making to propose
HCFC-225 as acceptable subject to adherence to this limit. The
Agency anticipates that companies will readily be able to meet
this requirement since the ca-isomer is sold commercially in
a blend with the less toxic cb-isomer. In addition, equipment
using HCFC-225 is usually designed for precision operations
and has inherently low emissions.
b. Semi-aqueous cleaners. Semi-aqueous cleaners are alternatives
for cleaning in all three sectors. These cleaners employ
hydrocarbons/surfactants
either emulsified in water solutions or applied in concentrated
form and then rinsed with water. Since both approaches involve
water as part of the formulation, the system is commonly referred
to as ``semi-aqueous.'' The principal categories of chemicals
used in these formulations are terpenes, C6-C20 petroleum
hydrocarbons
(both naturally or synthetically derived), or oxygenated organic
solvents (such as alcohols). An extensive discussion of various
semi-aqueous cleaning alternatives may be found in the Industry
Cooperative for Ozone Layer Protection (ICOLP) documents on
the subject. Users can obtain these documents from the EPA.
c. Aqueous cleaners. Aqueous cleaners, unlike semi-aqueous,
uses water as the primary solvent. These formulations are used
mostly for metals cleaning, but companies are beginning to explore
options using these substitutes in other cleaning applications.
In aqueous formulations, detergents and surfactants are combined
in water with a variety of additives such as organic solvents
(e.g., high-boiling point alcohols), builders, saponifiers,
inhibitors, emulsifiers, pH buffers and antifoaming agents.
The cleaning process is comparable to that used in semiaqueous
applications and consists of combinations of a wash phase, a
rinse phase, and a drying phase. An important difference is
that the wash tank is frequently heated to improve soil removal.
The final step, drying, is separate from the cleaning step and
can be accomplished by use of heat or a drying agent. These
alternatives are discussed extensively in the ICOLP documents.
d. Straight organic solvent cleaning. Organic solvents can
be used to replace CFC-113 and MCF in certain cleaning operations.
This classification is defined to include terpenes, C6-C20
petroleum
hydrocarbons (both naturally and synthetically derived), and
oxygenated organic solvents such as alcohols, ethers (including
propylene glycol ethers), esters and ketones. These compounds
are commonly used in solvent tanks at room temperature, although
the solvents can also be used in-line cleaning systems or be
heated to increase solvency power. If heated, the solvents must
be used in equipment designed to control vapor losses.
These solvents, unlike class I and II compounds, do not
contribute
to stratospheric ozone depletion, and generally have short
atmospheric
lifetimes. Yet many of the organic solvents are regulated as
VOCs because they can contribute to ground-level ozone formation.
In addition, certain of the organic solvents are toxic to human
health and are subject to waste handling standards under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and to workplace
standards set by Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA). For example, xylene and toluene may be used as substitutes
but are, once they become wastes, regulated under RCRA as listed
or characteristic wastes.
e. Other chlorinated solvents. In addition to MCF and CFC-
113, the three other commonly used chlorinated solvents are
trichloroethylene (``TCE''), methylene chloride (``meth''),
and perchloroethylene (``perc''). Unlike MCF and CFC-113, these
chlorinated solvents have very short atmospheric lifetimes and
are not considered to contribute to ozone depletion. However,
all three have known toxicity problems and are regulated as
Hazardous Air Pollutants under section 112 of title III of the
Clean Air Act. They are also subject to waste handling standards
under RCRA and to workplace standards set by OSHA. Additionally,
TCE and perc exhibit photochemical reactivity, and are regulated
as smog precursors.
The phaseout of CFC-113 and MCF has prompted a renewed interest
in meth, TCE, and perc, despite these toxicity concerns. The
three solvents are mostly viewed as potential metal cleaning
substitutes, especially since they can be used in conventional
vapor degreasing equipment. In fact, these three solvents were
the preferred industrial solvents until concerns about their
toxicity and anticipated lowering of the OSHA Permissible Exposure
Limits (PELs) resulted in a switch by some users to MCF.
In response to such concerns, equipment vendors have now
developed equipment for using these solvents that significantly
limit their emissions. The availability of such equipment has
prompted environmental agencies in other western countries,
such as Germany, to relax restrictions on the use of these
chemicals.
Such equipment, although expensive, can now be purchased in
the United States.
f. No-clean alternatives. No-clean alternatives involve the
use of fluxes or cutting oils that need not be removed after
the manufactured part is fully formed. It offers an efficient
solution to the cleaning problem, since it sidesteps the need
for cleaning altogether. This type of substitute represents
one of the few process changes possible in the solvents cleaning
sector. Water-removable products are products where the soils
or fluxes can be removed using water as opposed to other types
of chemical solvents. In electronics cleaning, where these two
approaches are in more widespread use, no-clean or water-removable
alternatives rely either on special fluxes or on a soldering
process that eliminates or reduces the residues otherwise removed
through the cleaning step.
In metal preparations, an increasing common process change
is to use vanishing oils. These oils are refined mineral spirits,
usually odorless, that flash off after the metal forming step
is completed thus eliminating the need for cleaning. Technically,
this process can be referred to as a ``no-clean'' process, although
that term is usually reserved for electronics manufacture.
g. Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are fully
fluorinated
compounds, unlike either CFCs, HCFCs or HFCs. Perfluorocarbons
presently employed or being investigated for commercial
applications
for cleaning are C5F12, C6F12, C6F14, C7F16, C8F18, C5F11NO,
C6F13NO, C7F15NO, and C8F16.
These compounds are being discussed as part of innovative
cleaning and drying systems to replace ozone-depleting solvents
used in cleaning. These systems would use an aqueous or solvent
cleaner bath with PFCs for rinsing and/or drying. Although the
PFCs technically are being used as drying agents in this system,
it is due to the replacement of CFC-113 as a cleaner that the
PFCs are being used, which is why PFCs are addressed in the
solvent cleaning sector. PFCs also have solvent displacement
properties (including for displacement of water), that may make
their use necessary. Although these systems have the technical
potential to meet a number of cleaning needs, the expense of
the PFCs may limit widespread commercial interest in systems
that use these compounds.
The environmental characteristics of concern for these compounds
are high global warming potential (5,000-10,000 times greater
than CO2) and long atmospheric lifetimes (3,000-5,000 years).
Although the actual contributions to global warming depend upon
the quantities of PFCs emitted, the warming effects of PFCs
are essentially irreversible. In other respects, PFCs are benign
and are generally nontoxic, nonflammable, and do not contribute
to ground-level ozone formation. Environmental concerns associated
with use of PFCs are discussed in the comment response section
of this preamble, section III.D. Technology for containment
and recycling of PFCs is commercially available and is recommended
by manufacturers to offset any possible adverse environmental
effects.
h. Monochlorotoluene/benzotrifluorides. Monochlorotoluene
and benzotrifluorides are of commercial interest as solvent
substitutes in a variety of cleaning applications. These compounds
can be used either in isolation or in various mixtures, depending
on desired chemical properties. The Agency is still receiving
toxicity and exposure information on these formulations and
will issue a SNAP determination for these substitutes when SNAP
review is complete.
i. Volatile methyl siloxanes. Cyclic and linear volatile
methyl siloxanes (VMSs) are currently undergoing investigation
for use as substitutes for class I compounds in metals, electronics
and precision cleaning. Because of their chemical properties,
these compounds show promise as substitutes for cleaning precision
guidance equipment in the defense and aerospace industries.
In addition, the volatile methyl siloxanes have high purity
and are therefore relatively easy to recover and recycle. In
the cleaning system using VMSs, the fluids are used to clean
parts in a closed header system using a totally enclosed process.
The parts are drained and then dried using vacuum baking.
j. Supercritical fluid cleaning, plasma cleaning, UV-ozone
cleaning. Supercritical fluid cleaning, plasma cleaning and
UV-ozone cleaning are all three high-technology methods of cleaning
parts. These substitutes are mostly of interest for cleaning
electronic parts or for precision cleaning, although supercritical
carbon dioxide is being investigated for metal cleaning
applications
as well.
k. Dibromomethane. The Agency has received notification that
dibromomethane (also referred to as methylene bromide) can be
used as a substitute cleaning agent. This chemical has an ozone
depletion potential of .17, although it is not yet listed under
the Clean Air Act. In addition, dibromomethane is believed to
be more toxic than methylene chloride, although toxicity studies
are scarce since industrial applications in the past have been
limited. As a result, the Agency intends to propose this substitute
as unacceptable in a separate rule-making.
l. HFC-4310mee. HFC-4310mee will soon be commercially available
as a solvent cleaning agent. The Agency has received preliminary
data on this chemical, and anticipates that its use will be
limited due to global warming concerns to applications where
it can replace longer-lived PFCs or where its special chemical
properties make it the only viable substitute for a class I
or II compound. This chemical will be undergoing review under
the Premanufacture Notice program of the Toxic Substances Control
Act.
Other HFCs are also being developed for solvent usage, although
their composition is still proprietary.
3. Comment Response
The majority of public comments received on the proposed
solvents cleaning SNAP decisions focused on the determinations
for perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and for chlorinated solvents. Most
commenters on PFCs requested that the Agency expand the
acceptability
determination for PFCs to parts other than computer components,
as stated in the SNAP Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM).
Although many commenters agreed that a measure of control due
to global warming effects was necessary, several companies
described
in detail situations where PFCs are believed to be the only
viable alternative to CFC-113 and methyl chloroform. The Agency
agrees with these commenters, and the final SNAP determination
lists the PFCs as acceptable in all cases where no other
alternative
meets performance or safety standards. This approach does not
diverge significantly from that described in the NPRM, in which
EPA noted its intention to examine the possibility that PFCs
may be necessary for cleaning other parts in addition to computer
components.
Opinions on the chlorinated solvents diverged widely. A number
of commenters disagreed with the Agency's decision to list these
chemicals as acceptable substitutes for solvents cleaning. This
viewpoint was countered by other commenters who strongly agreed
with the continuing need to use chlorinated solvents. The Agency
has not altered its decision on these chemicals, and remains
convinced that with responsible control measures and housekeeping
practices, potential risks from these solvents can be significantly
reduced and that overall risks to human health and the environment
will not increase significantly as a result of substitution.
4. Listing Decisions
a. Acceptable substitutes. (1) Metals cleaning. (a) Semi-
aqueous/aqueous cleaners. Semi-aqueous and aqueous cleaners
are acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in metals cleaning.
The determinations in this action cover semi-aqueous cleaners
using terpenes, petroleum hydrocarbons, and alcohols. To complete
its modeling of the ability of aqueous and semi-aqueous substitutes
to replace CFC-113 and MCF in existing applications, the Agency
examined their ability to meet cleaning requirements in the
metals cleaning sector. Each of these alternatives has the
potential
to service as much as 70 percent of the metals cleaning market.
To date, companies have shown the greatest interest in aqueous
formulations for metals cleaning, which is why the Agency has
reviewed this option in its first round of SNAP determinations.
Concern over the water-based cleaners has historically focussed
on the potential for adverse effects on aquatic life following
discharge of wastewaters to surface water bodies. Examples of
these effects include death to aquatic microorganisms, fish
teratogenicity, or ecosystem effects such as inhibition of algal
growth or bioconcentration. In this case, the Agency wanted
to ensure that, in restricting the use of CFC-113 and methyl
chloroform, it would not simply be replacing risks from air
emissions with equal risks from contaminated water effluent.
To complete its risk analysis for the aqueous and semi-aqueous
formulations, the Agency developed a screening methodology designed
to characterize risks presented by typical manufacturing setups
using these formulations. The diversity of chemicals used in
aqueous and semi-aqueous cleaning complicated this undertaking.
To complete its screen, the Agency projected concentrations
in water for the most toxic chemical that could be used in the
water-based formulations. These concentrations were based on
the maximum possible concentration in the formulation and case
studies documenting actual release profiles for several sample
processes. The predicted concentrations obtained using this
approach were then compared with toxicity values for this ``worst''
chemical.
This analysis suggests that most risks presented by use of
water-based cleaners can be controlled by standard process
management
practices (e.g., planned discard schedules for wash and rinse
solutions in cleaner tanks) and by adhering to existing
requirements
for wastewater treatment imposed by municipal or state authorities.
This screening approach, although it does not examine the toxicity
of each chemical and mixture or project exposures for each possible
formulation, does provide adequate perspective on the risks
of these compounds compared with risks from continued use of
CFCs.
Although the Agency is listing water-based substitutes as
acceptable, it urges companies to install systems that permit
re-use and recycling of the formulation wherever possible to
limit discharge of these chemicals. This step can offer both
important benefits to aquatic systems as well as reduce operating
costs of cleaning systems.
Users should also note that EPA is preparing new effluent
limitations and standards that will affect metals cleaning under
the Clean Water Act for the Metal Products and Machinery sector.
These standards, the first portion of which is expected to be
issued in November 1994, will address any remaining uncontrolled
risks deriving from the use of water-based cleaners in this
industry. Phase I covers sectors such as stationary industrial
equipment, hardware, and aircraft. Phase II, to be issued later,
covers among other sectors manufacture, rebuild, or maintenance
of buses, trucks, railroads, and shipbuilding.
(b) Straight organic solvent cleaning. Straight organic solvent
cleaning is an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in
the metals cleaning sector. This acceptability determination
extends to organic solvents used as individual chemicals as
well as in combinations. Although these compounds can be toxic
to human health and are considered VOCs, the Agency's risk screen
shows that these risks can be addressed through existing regulatory
controls. In occupational settings where toxicity is a concern,
such as for acetone or for certain ketones, OSHA has set PELs
designed to control risks. One class of organic solvents about
which there has recently been increased concern for possible
health effects is glycol ethers. However, the glycol ethers
identified in this case are ethylene glycol ethers, whereas
for solvent cleaning purposes companies customarily use propylene
glycol ethers. Propylene glycol ethers are generally not believed
to exhibit the same degree of toxicity as the ethylene glycol
ethers. Controls also exist for sources of VOC emissions and
for handling of the organic solvents as hazardous wastes under
RCRA.
Regulatory standards are not the only method of mitigating
the environmental effects of these chemicals. Many manufacturers
and distributors of these solvents have instituted programs
or can refer companies to programs that will reclaim and process
spent solvent-either on or off-site-for further use. The Agency
encourages companies using organic solvents to seek out such
programs. In addition, companies should consider the principles
of pollution prevention when instituting cleaning with organic
solvents and adopt emissions control measures such as appropriate
freeboard and automated hoists that will reduce pollution at
its source.
(c) Other chlorinated solvents. Trichloroethylene (TCE),
perchloroethylene (perc) and methylene chloride (meth) are all
acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the metals cleaning
sector. These alternatives have the chemical properties to meet
the cleaning needs of up to 80 percent of the metals cleaning
sector, although the Agency anticipates that the actual market
share for the non-ozone-depleting chlorinated solvents will
not expand to the maximum extent feasible. Because of the high
toxicity of these compounds, they have the potential to pose
risks to workers and residents in nearby communities. However,
the Agency's analysis of use of these compounds as cleaning
agents indicates that these risks can be controlled by adhering
to existing regulatory standards. OSHA has determined, for
instance,
that it is possible to use these solvents in a manner that
minimizes
risks to workers. To reach this conclusion, OSHA conducted
extensive
analyses of the toxicity and technical feasibility of using
perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, or methylene chloride
(54 FR 2329-2984, January 19, 1989, and 56 FR 57036-57141, November
7, 1991). OSHA found that the new PEL of 50 ppm for
trichloroethylene
was feasible in metal cleaning operations (54 FR 2433) and after
conducting an extensive study of metal degreasing control
technologies,
the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health concluded
that an exposure limit of 25 ppm for TCE could also be achieved.
More recently, in its proposed standard for methylene chloride,
OSHA found that a PEL of 25 ppm is technically feasible during
metal cleaning operations with the use of appropriate local
exhaust ventilation and work practices.
In addition, these solvents are all listed as hazardous wastes
under RCRA (F001, U080, U210, U228) and thus must comply with
applicable RCRA waste disposal requirements. The SNAP risk screen
did note the potential for adverse effects without additional
controls. However, the Agency is in the process of addressing
residual risks to the general population through releases to
air under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Section 112 requires
EPA to establish Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
standards for use of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). All three
non-OD chlorinated solvents are listed as HAPs, and the Agency
issued a proposal describing MACT rules governing their use
in industrial cleaning in November 1993. The final regulation
is expected to be issued by the end of 1994.
Finally, through the voluntary ``33/50'' pollution prevention
program, the EPA is encouraging companies to decrease emissions
of TCE, perc, and meth, in addition to 14 other specific chemicals.
Companies participating in this program voluntarily commit to
decreasing emissions 33 percent by the end of 1992 and 50 percent
by the end of 1995, using pollution prevention strategies. The
Agency is committed in the long term to urge companies to
participate
in pollution prevention programs such as 33/50, and to continue
to find new ways to use and emit less polluting and lower toxicity
compounds. EPA urges even companies not participating in the
33/50 program to explore and adopt housekeeping practices, chemical
handling procedures, and equipment configurations that lead
to lower chemical consumption.
(d) Supercritical carbon dioxide. Supercritical carbon dioxide
is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in the metals
cleaning sector. The Agency's risk screen did not identify any
environmental effects with significant concerns for this
substitute.
(e) Vanishing oils. Vanishing oils are acceptable substitutes
for CFC-113 and MCF in the metals cleaning sector. Although
these materials are VOCs, extensive regulations exist at the
Federal, state, and local level to control any new VOC uses.
In addition, newer vanishing oils often have higher flashpoints,
enabling them to be flashed and captured in ovens.
(f) Volatile methyl siloxanes (dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane,
hexamethyldisiloxane, octamethyltrisiloxane,
decamethyltetrasiloxane).
The volatile methyl siloxanes dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane,
hexamethyldisiloxane, octamethyltrisiloxane, and
decamethyltetrasiloxane
are acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the metals
cleaning sector. The Agency's risk screen for these chemicals
indicated that exposure to these substitutes are generally below
levels that would raise concern for health risks. Two of the
volatile methyl siloxanes, octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane and
decamethylcyclopentasiloxane, have low company-set exposure
limits, and these chemicals will be handled under a separate
rulemaking.
(2) Electronics cleaning. a. (Semi-aqueous/aqueous
cleaners).Semi-
aqueous and aqueous cleaners are acceptable substitutes for
CFC-113 and MCF in electronics cleaning. The justification for
this determination is described in the section on metals cleaning.
In this case, the Agency estimated that up to 80 percent of
the cleaning market could be captured by semi-aqueous cleaners
and that up to 60 percent of the market could be served by aqueous
cleaners. As in metals cleaning, the Agency urges companies
to adopt pollution prevention practices and to select formulations
with low overall toxicity.
Effluent limitations and standards that affect use of water-
based formulations in the electronics cleaning sector will be
proposed under the Clean Water Act for the Phase I Metal Products
and Machinery sector by November 1994. Phase I includes electronic
equipment along with other manufacturing areas such as aerospace,
hardware and mobile industrial equipment. Phase II, to be issued
later, covers household and office equipment in addition to
sectors such as motor vehicles and shipbuilding.
(b) No-clean substitutes. No-clean processes are acceptable
substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in electronics cleaning. The
Agency's analysis estimates that, over time, as much as seventy
percent of the electronics cleaning market could switch to no-
clean processes-a projection that is borne out by the high degree
of interest shown by electronics companies in these substitutes.
Concerns for risks deriving from use of no-clean processes
focus primarily on worker safety. To examine these risks, the
Agency looked at critical factors that distinguish no-clean
processes from conventional electronics assembly. These differences
center on changes in the proportions of chemicals used in
formulations,
rather than on differences in the identity of chemicals selected.
The analysis determined that occupational risks deriving from
these differences are already well-documented and controlled,
for example, through requirements specified on key Materials
Safety Data Sheets and existing workplace regulations implemented
by OSHA.
Additionally, the shifts in proportions of chemicals used
in the formulation result in less waste than is normally generated
through the traditional manufacturing process, resulting in
a lower probability of overall adverse effects to the general
population. The Agency also investigated the production of waste
before and after the actual cleaning process and found that
waste generation at these points in the production process would
not be greater than what is seen with CFC-113 or MCF use.
This acceptability listing also applies to water-removable
fluxes and inert gas soldering.
(c) Straight organic solvent cleaning. Straight organic solvent
cleaning is an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in
the electronics cleaning sector. This acceptability determination
extends to organic solvents used as individual chemicals as
well as in combinations. The Agency's justification for this
decision is described in the section on acceptable substitutes
for metals cleaning.
(d) Other chlorinated solvents. Trichloroethylene (TCE),
perchloroethylene (perc) and methylene chloride (meth) are all
acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the electronics
cleaning sector. The reasons for this decision are described
in the metals cleaning discussion. Although these solvents have
not received as much commercial interest for electronics cleaning
as for metals cleaning applications, the Agency did receive
a request to review these chemicals for electronics cleaning.
Although the Agency's risk screen focused on use of these
chemicals in metals cleaning operations, the screen suggests
that release profiles for these chemicals in electronics cleaning
will be either the same or lower. As a result, the Agency has
reached the same conclusion with respect to electronics cleaning
as in the metals cleaning analysis, namely that any risks due
to the inherent toxicity of these chemicals could be controlled
by existing and future regulatory standards.
(e) Supercritical fluid cleaning, plasma cleaning, UV-ozone
cleaning. Supercritical fluid cleaning, plasma cleaning, UV-
ozone cleaning are all acceptable as substitutes for CFC-113
and MCF in electronics cleaning. The Agency did not identify
any environmental issues associated with use of these substitutes.
While ozone is hazardous to human health, OSHA has already set
standards for use of this compound in the workplace.
(f) Volatile methyl siloxanes (dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane,
hexamethyldisiloxane, octamethyltrisiloxane,
decamethyltetrasiloxane).
The volatile methyl siloxanes dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane,
hexamethyldisiloxane, octamethyltrisiloxane, and
decamethyltetrasiloxane
are acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the electronics
cleaning sector. The Agency's risk screen for these chemicals
indicated that exposure to these substitutes are generally below
levels that would raise concern for health risks. Two of the
volatile methyl siloxanes, octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane and
decamethylcyclopentasiloxane, have low company-set exposure
limits, and these chemicals will be handled under a separate
rule-making.
(3) Precision cleaning. (a) Semi-aqueous/aqueous cleaners.
Semi-aqueous and aqueous cleaners are acceptable substitutes
for CFC-113 and MCF in precision cleaning. The reasons for this
decision are the same as those described in the metals cleaning
section. Each of these alternatives has the potential to service
approximately 65 percent of the precision cleaning market. This
figure may overestimate the technical potential for water-based
cleaners in this sector, since this end use sector faces the
greatest technical constraints in implementing new cleaning
alternatives.
The Agency did not specifically examine risks from water-
based formulations used in precision cleaning since the processes
are typically either similar to those used in metals cleaning
or have lower throughputs and therefore fewer discharges.
Therefore,
the analysis assumed that these risks from precision cleaning
would be either comparable to or less than risks associated
with use of water-based formulations for metals cleaning.
(b) Other chlorinated solvents. Other chlorinated solvents
are acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in precision
cleaning. The reasons for this decision are described in the
section on metals cleaning. For the analysis of risks from these
substitutes in the precision cleaning end use sector, the Agency
made the same assumptions as in its analysis for electronics
cleaning applications of water-based formulations, namely that
exposures would be equal to or less than exposures in the metals
cleaning sector since the processes for precision cleaning are
similar or even of lower emissions than those for metals cleaning.
Consequently, the Agency believes that risks would also be either
equivalent or lower.
(c) Straight organic solvent cleaning. Straight organic solvent
cleaning is an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in
precision cleaning. This acceptability determination extends
to organic solvents used as individual chemicals as well as
in combinations. The Agency's justification for this decision
is described in the section on acceptable substitutes for metals
cleaning.
(d) Supercritical fluid cleaning, plasma cleaning, UV-ozone
cleaning. Supercritical fluid cleaning, plasma cleaning, UV-
ozone cleaning are all acceptable as substitutes for CFC-113
and MCF in precision cleaning. The Agency did not identify any
environmental issues associated with use of these substitutes.
While ozone is hazardous to human health, OSHA has already set
standards for use of this compound in the workplace.
(e) Volatile Methyl Siloxanes (dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane,
hexamethyldisiloxane, octamethyltrisiloxane,
decamethyltetrasiloxane).
The volatile methyl siloxanes dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane,
hexamethyldisiloxane, octamethyltrisiloxane, and
decamethyltetrasiloxane
are acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the precision
cleaning sector. The Agency's risk screen for these chemicals
indicated that exposure to these substitutes are generally below
levels that would raise concern for health risks. Two of the
volatile methyl siloxanes, octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane and
decamethylcyclopentasiloxane, have low company-set exposure
limits, and these chemicals will be handled under a separate
rule-making.
b. Substitutes acceptable subject to use conditions. (None).
c. Substitutes acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.
(1) Metals Cleaning. (None). (2) Electronics Cleaning. (a)
Perfluorocarbons.
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are acceptable substitutes for CFC-113
and MCF in the electronics cleaning sector for high-performance,
precision-engineering cleaning applications only where reasonable
efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives
are not technically feasible due to performance or safety
requirements.
PFCs covered by this determination are C5F12, C6F12, C6F14,
C7F16, C8F18, C5F11NO, C6F13NO, C7F15NO, and C8F16O. The uses
of PFCs in solvent cleaning are restricted due to global warming
concerns. PFCs display intrinsic properties that point to their
potential to be contributors to global warming. All PFCs, for
instance, have very long atmospheric lifetimes. As an example,
C5F12 (perfluoropentane) has a lifetime of approximately 4,100
years. This means that for practical purposes, any global warming
effects from PFCs are irreversible. In contrast, the lifetime
of CFC-113 is, at 110 years, 40 times smaller. Since greenhouse
gases come from many diverse sources, even small emissions of
PFCs warrant controls if global warming is to be successfully
mitigated. The risk screen for the solvent cleaning sector
discusses
the atmospheric properties of PFCs and provides a more detailed
discussion of why PFCs merit being listed as acceptable only
for narrowed uses.
Despite concerns about the global warming potential of PFCs,
the Agency has listed this niche application as an acceptable
use of perfluorocarbons because, for certain high-performance,
precision-engineered components and equipment, a PFC-based cleaning
system may be the only viable alternative available to replace
use of class I or II compounds.
The characteristics of components or equipment that may require
PFC-based cleaning are if the part:
Requires extremely low levels of remaining particulate
and residue for adequate performance (as opposed to cosmetic
appearance).
Possesses complex geometric configurations and or capillary
spaces (as small as 1 micron) which greatly hinder cleaning
and drying.
Contains or is made of materials sensitive to corrosion,
oxidation or other damage from water (such as ceramics, gallium
arsenide, silicon nitride, or magnesium), where that damage
would degrade subsequent performance of the product.
Contains temperature-sensitive materials that cannot maintain
their integrity at the high drying temperatures of alternative
systems.
Contains materials that are hydrophilic or otherwise impaired
by contact with water.
Is extremely fragile, requiring the use of a low viscosity,
very low surface tension fluid.
Is contaminated with specialized halogenated lubricants
or damping fluids such as perfluoropolyethers.
Is a low-volume prototype under development for research,
testing and evaluation purposes.
Users should note that the presence of one of these parameters
alone does not necessarily indicate the need to use a PFC. For
instance, a water-sensitive part could potentially also be cleaned
using a solvent wash, solvent rinse without PFCs.
Examples of components where PFCs may be necessary are:
Precision optical and electro-optical systems such as
components
for highpowered lasers or weapon targeting systems.
Specialized electrical, semiconductor and electronic
components,
connectors and assemblies such as precision electronic components
used for military and avionics applications.
Sensitive medical devices and medical equipment components
such as electronic circuitry for pacemakers (does not include
prosthetic devices).
Precision telecommunications and communications components
such as microwave hybrid components for electronic warfare.
High-performance computer components and computer electro-
mechanical assemblies such as direct access storage devices.
Other examples are listed in the section on precision cleaning.
Examples of parts where alternatives other than PFCs exist are
electronic parts for low-value, mass-produced consumer or standard
machined metal parts.
A specific example under electronics cleaning where PFCs
may be necessary exists in manufacture of certain direct access
storage devices (DASDs) for computers. To make the technical
improvements demanded of the storage devices, such as faster
access times and higher recording densities, companies have
been required to use magnetically superior materials. These
materials are extremely prone to corrosion from water and are
vulnerable to any contamination introduced in the manufacturing
process, such as organic or particulate matter. Consequently,
the storage device itself must be a miniature ``clean room''
if it is to perform correctly. Manufacturers of some DASDs can
use water-based cleaners in much of the production process,
but may need to rely on the PFCs as water-displacement agents
to achieve the required high degree of cleanliness while protecting
the water-sensitive materials in the device.
As the acceptability determination states, before users adopt
PFCs as part of a substitute cleaning system, they must ascertain
that ``other alternatives are not technically feasible due to
performance or safety requirements.'' This statement implies
users will undertake a thorough technical investigation of
alternatives
before implementing the PFCs. A determination, for instance,
that PFCs are necessary simply ``because my parts cannot tolerate
water,'' is insufficient. Similarly, companies should avoid
rejecting an alternative simply because it is flammable or toxic,
since equipment now exists which may be feasible for some uses
that makes it possible for a broad spectrum of alternatives
to meet performance and safety standards.
Users may contact vendors of alternatives to explore with
experts on these alternatives whether or not they would work.
This effort may involve a detailed discussion of the type of
parts, e.g., function, substrate, geometry, and cleanliness
standards. A possible approach is to actually arrange for the
parts to be tested with other cleaning alternatives. For example,
a concern regarding the flammability of isopropyl alcohol is
not sufficient reason to reject this alternative, unless the
user has contacted vendors and examined the newer styles of
equipment and found them insufficiently safe. To assist users
in their evaluation, EPA has prepared a list of vendors selling
substitutes for cleaning solvents. Although EPA does not require
users to report their test results in a certification to the
Agency, companies must keep these results on file for future
reference.
In cases where users must rely on PFCs due to lack of other
options, they should make every effort to:
Adopt closed systems and recover, recycle and destroy where
possible.
Pre-clean where possible with other alternatives so as
to avoid unnecessary use of PFCs.
Reduce emissions to a minimum through equipment features
and conservation practices that address idling losses, liquid
dragout, and operator variables (adequate freeboard, chillers,
welded piping, programmable hoists, operator training, etc.).
Continue to search for long-term alternatives.
The Agency believes that it is reasonable to expect users
to achieve favorable CFC/PFC replacement ratios since PFCs have
relatively higher boiling points. In addition, the high price
of PFCs makes additional containment cost-effective. Companies
forced to use PFCs due to lack of other alternatives may use
the PFC-based equipment to clean and dry other precision parts,
but only if the amount of PFCs needed to stock the equipment
does not increase.
Prospective users should also note that companies now
investigating
PFC use contend that within 2-3 years, it will be possible to
replace the PFCs in cleaning equipment with HFCs or other options
that have zero ozone depletion potential and significantly lower
global warming potential. As a result, they view use of the
PFCs as an important but transitional solution to their cleaning
needs. If PFCs are chosen, it is important for users to begin
working with chemical manufacturers to start testing and qualifying
these new materials to help speed conversion when alternative
chemicals become commercially available.
Users of PFCs should note that if other alternatives such
as HFCs or other cleaning substitutes are later found to meet
performance or safety standards, the Agency could be subject
to a petition requesting it to list PFCs as unacceptable
substitutes
due to availability of other alternatives. If such claims are
determined to be accurate and EPA limits the acceptability listing
even further, EPA may grandfather existing uses but only to
the extent warranted by cost and timing considerations associated
with testing and retrofitting.
(3) Precision cleaning. (a) Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons
(PFCs) are acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the
precision cleaning sector only for high-performance, precision-
engineering cleaning applications where reasonable efforts have
been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically
feasible due to performance or safety requirements. PFCs covered
by this determination are C5F12, C6F12, C6F14, C7F16, C8F18,
C5F11NO, C6F13NO, C7F15NO, and C8F16O. The electronics cleaning
section discusses the justification for this narrowed use
acceptability
listing.
Despite concerns about the global warming potential of PFCs,
the Agency has listed this narrowed application as an acceptable
use of perfluorocarbons in precision cleaning because, for certain
high-performance, precision-engineered components and equipment,
a PFC-based system may be the only viable alternative available
to replace use of class I or II compounds.
Types of precision components that may require PFC-based
cleaning include:
High-performance guidance, navigation and tracking systems
such as gyroscopes and accelerometers.
High-performance aerospace and avionics components and
equipment such as liquid oxygen systems or rotational hand
controllers.
Critical analytical devices and their components used for
gas chromatography where low residue levels are essential.
Optical components made from plastics damaged irreparably
by water or other solvents or coated or mounted with specialized
materials.
Interested users should review the section on PFCs under
electronics cleaning for a full discussion of the considerations,
limitations, and requirements associated with selecting this
alternative.
d. Unacceptable substitutes. (1) Metals cleaning. (a) HCFC-
141b and its blends. HCFC-141b and its blends are unacceptable
as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in metals cleaning, with
acceptability subject to narrowed use limitations to be granted
by EPA, if necessary, as CFC-113 replacements after the effective
date of this listing. The effective date for this listing is
30 days after the date of the final rule for uses of HCFC-141b
and its blends in new equipment (including retrofits made after
the effective date) and as of January 1, 1996, for uses of HCFC-
141b and its blends in existing equipment. For purposes of this
SNAP determination, ``existing equipment'' is defined to include
equipment that companies have shown a clear intention to use
and have purchased before the effective date of the SNAP
determination,
even if that equipment has not yet been installed.
As discussed earlier in this action in Section VI.B., the
Agency is authorized to grandfather existing uses from a
prohibition
where appropriate under the four-part test established in Sierra
Club v. EPA, supra. The Agency has conducted the four analyses
required under this test, and has concluded that the balance
of equities favors a grandfathering period of two years for
uses of HCFC-141b in existing equipment in this application.
The prohibition set forth in this action clearly represents
a departure from previously established practice, as use of
the substitute was allowed previously. Existing users of HCFC-
141b who switched from class I substances into this solvent
invested in this substitute on the assumption that it would
be a sufficient improvement over the class I use. Prohibiting
their use of the substitute immediately would impose a severe
economic burden on these users. These factors taken together
outweigh any statutory interest in applying the new rule
immediately
to existing users. This is especially true since the restriction
applies immediately to new equipment using HCFC-141b, which
creates no incentive for continued investment in equipment using
HCFC-141b in this application.
The Agency's basis for proposing to restrict use of HCFC-
141b is that this compound has a comparatively high ODP-0.11.
This is the highest ODP of all the HCFCs; in fact, the ODP for
HCFC-141b is nearly equal to the ODP for MCF (0.12). For this
reason, the Agency concludes that replacing MCF with HCFC-141b
is unacceptable, since using HCFC-141b in place of MCF would
not provide the environmental benefits that the phase-out was
designed to achieve.
To analyze the impacts from use of HCFC-141b as a CFC-113
replacement, the Agency estimated HCFC-141b use over time in
each of the cleaning end uses, and projected health effects
due to ozone depletion with the help of the Atmospheric
Stabilization
Framework model. The modeling period starts in 1990 and measures
health effects expected for people born before 2030.
The findings of this modeling show adverse health effects
of the magnitude commonly associated with the use of
ozone-depleting
compounds. For example, in the case of metals cleaning, the
Agency projected that use of HCFC-141b to replace MCF where
technically feasible could yield approximately 40,000 additional
skin cancer cases and approximately 1,000 additional skin cancer
fatalities compared to use of non-ozone-depleting substitutes.
The Agency believes that these figures and the availability
of superior substitutes as described in the section on acceptable
substitutes justify the proposal to list HCFC-141b as an
unacceptable
substitute. The Agency believes that, in almost all applications,
other solvent cleaning substitutes are available that meet industry
performance and safety criteria. To reach its decision on HCFC-
141b use, the Agency also took into account the cost of other
alternatives. The analysis suggested that, although HCFC-141b
can be used with modification to existing equipment, the capital
costs for the retrofit and the materials costs in combination
would be so high as to render other alternatives comparatively
affordable, even though they require new equipment.
HCFC-141b will be restricted as a substitute only where other
alternatives exist to CFC-113 for the application in question.
Several companies have already contacted the Agency, indicating
that they have tested available alternatives to CFC-113, and
that in some cases only HCFC-141b meets performance or safety
criteria. The most commonly cited reasons for needing to use
HCFC-141b are either applications where a non-flammable solvent
is required or where sensitive parts could be destroyed by use
of other cleaning systems.
For these applications of HCFC-141b, the Agency may find
that the uses are acceptable subject to limitations if it
determines
that these critical uses persist beyond the grandfathering period
provided in the listing. For EPA to issue a narrowed use
acceptability
listing, companies who believe they may need to use HCFC-141b
past the effective date must first contact EPA, since the Agency
has not yet received any indication from users of a technical
need to use HCFC-141b past the grandfathering period granted
under the unacceptability listing. Narrowed use acceptability
listings are described in more detail in section VII. of the
Preamble. Companies interested in submitting a SNAP application
for a narrowed use are encouraged to contact the Agency at least
90 days in advance of the expiration of the grandfathering period.
Companies that intend to use HCFC-141b within the parameters
of the final unacceptability listing and who will cease using
HCFC-141b after the expiration of the grandfathering period
need not contact the Agency.
The Agency believes that the decision to restrict HCFC-141b
use as a CFC-113/MCF substitute for metals cleaning will have
little effect on industry since few vendors of HCFC-141b have
been selling HCFC-141b as a metals cleaning substitute. Companies
in this end use sector that want to replace CFC-113 with HCFC-
141b and use it beyond the date described in this SNAP
determination
should review the section referenced above. The Agency expects
to receive few such requests, however, since most metals cleaning
is currently performed with MCF.
(2) Electronics cleaning. (a) HCFC-141b and its blends. HCFC-
141b and its blends are unacceptable as substitutes for CFC-
113 and MCF in electronics cleaning, with acceptability subject
to narrowed use limitations to be granted by EPA, if necessary,
as CFC-113 replacements after the effective date of this listing.
The effective date for this prohibition is 30 days after the
date of the final rule for new equipment (including retrofits
made after the effective date) and January 1, 1996 for existing
equipment. The structure and reasons for this unacceptability
listing are the same as those for the decision on HCFC-141b
as a metals cleaning substitute. As in the metals cleaning sector,
the Agency will grant narrowed use acceptability listings in
limited cases for use beyond the grandfathering period of the
listing, as necessary. As discussed earlier in this action in
section VI.B., the Agency is authorized to grandfather existing
uses from a prohibition where appropriate under the four-part
test established in Sierra Club v. EPA, supra.
The Agency has conducted the four analyses required under
this test, and it has concluded that the balance of equities
favors a grandfathering period of two years for existing equipment
in this application. The prohibition set forth in this action
clearly represents a departure from previously established
practice,
as use of the substitute was allowed previously. Existing users
of HCFC-141b who switched from class I substances into this
solvent invested in this substitute on the assumption that it
would be considered an acceptable substitute. It would impose
a severe economic burden on these users to prohibit their use
of the substitute immediately, with no provision of time to
allow them to recover their investment in existing equipment
or acquire new equipment in a timely fashion. These factors
taken together appear to outweigh any statutory interest in
applying the new rule immediately to existing users, especially
since the restriction would apply immediately to new equipment
using HCFC-141b, which would serve to prevent further ozone
depletion from use of HCFC-141b in this application.
As with metals cleaning applications for HCFC-141b, the Agency
modeled potential HCFC-141b use in electronics cleaning
applications
over time, and projected health effects due to ozone depletion
with the help of the Atmospheric Stabilization Framework model.
For electronics cleaning, the maximum market penetration for
HCFC-141b as a replacement for CFC-113 is 90 percent. With this
penetration, the model predicted approximately 400 additional
skin cancer fatalities and 30,000 additional skin cancer cases
compared to uses of non-ozone-depleting substitutes.
(3) Precision cleaning. (a) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b and its
blends are unacceptable as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in
precision cleaning, with acceptability subject to narrowed use
limitations to be granted by EPA, if necessary, as CFC-113
replacements
after the effective date of this listing. The effective date
for this listing is 30 days after the date of the final rule
for new equipment and as of January 1, 1996, for existing
equipment.
The structure and reasons for this decision are described in
the section on metals cleaning. As discussed earlier in this
action in section VI.B., the Agency is authorized to grandfather
existing uses from a prohibition where appropriate under the
four-part test established in Sierra Club v. EPA, supra.
The Agency has conducted the four analyses required under
this test, and it has concluded that the balance of equities
favors a grandfathering period of two years for existing equipment
in this application. The prohibition set forth in this action
clearly represents a departure from previously established
practice,
as use of the substitute was allowed previously. Existing users
of HCFC-141b who switched from class I substances into this
solvent invested in this substitute on the assumption that it
would be considered an acceptable substitute. It would impose
a severe economic burden on these users to prohibit their use
of the substitute immediately, with no provision of time to
allow them to recover their investment in existing equipment
or acquire new equipment in a timely fashion. These factors
taken together outweigh any statutory interest in applying the
new rule immediately to existing users, especially since the
restriction would apply immediately to new equipment using HCFC-
141b, which would serve to prevent further ozone depletion from
use of HCFC-141b in this application.
In the case of precision cleaning uses of HCFC-141b, the
Agency's modeling of HCFC-141b use as a CFC-113 replacement
projected approximately 5,000 additional skin cancer cases when
compared to use of non-ozone-depleting substitutes.
As in the case of other cleaning applications, the Agency
finds unacceptable substitutions of HCFC-141b to replace MCF,
since these compounds have nearly identical ODPs. Here again,
the Agency will grant, if necessary, a limited narrowed use
acceptability listings for CFC-113 past the exemption granted
in the grandfathering period. However, the Agency expects only
few requests for permission to use HCFC-141b to come from this
sector, since most companies who requested exemptions to date
to have stated that they view their use of HCFC-141b only as
an interim solution. EPA believes that, absent future indications
from such companies, all uses of HCFC-141b can be terminated
by the effective date of the unacceptability listing.
G. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
1. Overview
Halons are gaseous or easily vaporizable halocarbons used
primarily for putting out fires, but also for explosion protection.
The two halons used most widely in the United States are Halon
1211 (chlorodifluorobromomethane) and Halon 1301
(trifluorobromomethane).
Halon 1211 is used primarily in streaming applications and Halon
1301 is typically used in total flooding applications. Some
limited use of Halon 2402 also exists in the United States,
but only as an extinguishant in engine nacelles (the streamlined
enclosure surrounding the engine) on older aircraft and in the
guidance system of Minuteman missiles.
Halons are used in a wide range of fire protection applications
because they combine five characteristics. First, they are highly
effective against solid, liquid/gaseous, and electrical fires
(referred to as Class A, B, and C fires, respectively). Second,
they are clean agents; that is, they dissipate rapidly, leaving
no residue and thereby avoiding secondary damage to the property
they are protecting. Third, halons do not conduct electricity
and can be used in areas containing live electrical equipment.
Fourth, halons are gaseous substances that can penetrate in
and around physical objects to extinguish fires in otherwise
inaccessible areas. Finally, halons are generally safe for limited
human exposure when used with proper exposure controls.
Despite these advantages, halons are among the most ozone-
depleting chemicals in use today. Halon 1301 has an estimated
ODP of 10; Halon 1211 has an estimated ODP of 3. Thus, while
total halon production (measured in metric tons) comprised just
2 percent of the total production of class I substances in 1986,
halons represented 23 percent of the total estimated ozone
depletion
potential of CFCs and halons combined.
The greatest releases of halon into the atmosphere occur
not in extinguishing fires, but during testing and training,
service and repair, and accidental discharges. Data generated
as part of the Montreal Protocol's technology assessment indicate
that only 15 percent of annual Halon 1211 emissions and 18 percent
of Halon 1301 emissions occur as a result of use to extinguish
actual fires. These figures indicate that significant gains
can be made in protecting the ozone layer by revising testing
and training procedures and by limiting unnecessary discharges
through better detection and dispensing systems for halon and
halon alternatives.
Additional information on specific halon uses can be found
in the Montreal Protocol 1991 Assessment or in other background
material in the public docket. The determinations found in this
section are based on the risk screen described in the background
document entitled ``Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for
Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: Fire Extinguishing and
Explosion
Protection (Halon Substitutes)'', and in supplementary assessments
included in the public docket.
2. Substitutes for Halons
The fire protection community has made considerable progress
in identifying and developing substitutes for halons in fire
protection applications. Several manufacturers have submitted
information regarding substitute streaming and total flooding
agents, and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
has initiated efforts to develop standards for their use in
total flooding scenarios (NFPA 2001). In addition, manufacturers
are seeking Underwriters Laboratories (UL) and Factory Mutual
Research Corporation (FMRC) certification for systems employing
the new agents. The Agency's review of halon substitutes is
intended not to replace, but to complement the guidance of the
fire protection community in directing the transition away from
halons to substitutes posing lower overall risk.
Many recent efforts to develop substitutes for halon have
focused on halocarbon chemicals. These are considered potential
``replacements'' for halon because they possess halon-like
properties
(gaseous, non-conducting) and because they can be used on Class
A, B, and C fires. Some of the replacement chemicals are chemical
action agents which, like halons, suppress fires by interfering
with the free radical chain reactions that sustain a fire. Others
are physical action agents which cool, dilute, or smother the
fire (separating the air and fuel). In general, chemical action
agents are much more effective fire suppressants than physical
action agents.
Halocarbons represent only a portion of agents available
for fire protection, and in fact appear to be a decreasing portion
as users more and more are choosing to install ``alternative''
systems. Water, carbon dioxide, foam, and dry chemical are already
in widespread use as fire extinguishants and may capture some
of the former halon market. Water mist, powdered aerosols and
inert gases are new technologies that are also likely to claim
part of the former halon market. EPA encourages users to assess
their risk management schemes and, where possible, to minimize
reliance on chemical agents. Nonchemical alternatives should
be seriously evaluated to determine whether they afford the
necessary level of protection in any given application.
In assessing toxicity of a halocarbon, EPA pays special
attention
to consumer and worker exposure to discharges during fire
emergencies
and accidental discharges. In these acute, episodic exposures
to the halon substitutes, cardiac sensitization is of particular
interest. The term cardiac sensitization refers to an increased
susceptibility of the heart to adrenaline (or other catecholamines)
which may result in potentially fatal heart arrhythmias.
Several studies involving human exposure in a laboratory
setting establish the potential significance for human health
of animal data on cardiac sensitization. Evaluating the safety
of potential halon substitutes requires the measurement of the
No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) and the Lowest Observed
Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) of cardiac sensitization in an
appropriate species, usually the dog. EPA uses the NOAEL value
as the basis to ensure protection of the worker population.
The protocols used to determine the cardiotoxic NOAEL and LOAEL
concentrations for each agent are conservative. The cardiotoxicity
effect levels are measured in animals that have been made more
sensitive to these effects by the administration of epinephrine
concentrations which are just below the concentrations at which
epinephrine alone causes cardiotoxicity. The concentration of
epinephrine required to cause this heightened sensitivity is
approximately ten times greater than the concentration a human
being would be likely to secrete under stress.
The determination of the safety of either a flooding or
streaming
agent substitute is also dependent on a number of other related
factors. For total flood systems, the magnitude of exposure
will depend on the design concentration of the flooding agent
(as determined by the substitute's extinguishing concentration
plus 20 percent, as specified by NFPA guidelines) and the length
of time it takes a person to evacuate the area in which the
agent is released. In assessing exposure and consequent use
conditions, the design concentration of a total flood substitute
is compared to its cardiotoxic NOAEL and LOAEL levels. Generally,
if the design concentration is higher than the agent's LOAEL
level, then the agent is not suitable for use in normally occupied
areas. EPA is adopting the OSHA standard (29 CFR 1910, subpart
L) section 1910.162, which limits the exposure to an agent based
upon the length of time it takes to evacuate an area. In addition,
EPA makes note that OSHA standard 1910.160 also applies to gaseous
total flood systems.
In addition, EPA recognizes that agents should not be used
at a concentration that significantly displaces oxygen in the
lungs. Most of the CFC and halon substitutes are gaseous, heavier-
than-air compounds, which following a leak or catastrophic emission
may tend to pool near the ground, i.e. in the breathing zone.
Since these agents are, in the main, colorless with minimal
odor and little toxicity or irritant effect, they can lead to
asphyxiation by oxygen displacement if the unwary inadvertently
walk into an area of oxygen depletion. The designer of a total
flood system should be particularly alert to this possibility
during discharge and subsequent dispersion of the agent in the
space. For compounds which do not elicit a cardiotoxic effect
until very high concentrations have been reached, care should
be taken that sufficient oxygen remains in the room so that
asphyxiation will not occur.
In contrast to total flooding agents, exposure to substitute
streaming agents can be expected to vary greatly depending on
the amount of agent released, the time needed to extinguish
a fire, the size of the room or enclosure in which a fire occurs,
the size of the fire, the proximity of the person to the point
of discharge of the agent, the rate at which fresh air infiltrates
the space, and the air exchange rate near the fire. Assessment
of exposure in streaming applications is much more complicated.
EPA employs the `box model' to assess consumer exposure, which
has been widely used for many years to estimate probable exposures
of workers to hazardous airborne materials, and has been described
in detail by the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) and is discussed in detail in the background
documents. The box model takes into consideration assumptions
on volume of the space in which the extinguishant is used, rate
at which fresh air infiltrates the space, amount and rate of
agent release, area of the fire, location of the worker, and
the air exchange rate in the vicinity of the fire. Values obtained
through the box model, compared to cardiotoxic NOAEL/LOAEL values,
provide a screen for assessing risk. However, EPA has found
that the model often overstates the actual exposure to an agent,
and therefore, EPA requires personal monitoring tests be conducted
in actual use scenarios in order to complete the assessment.
Evaluating halon substitutes also requires assessing the
efficacy of substitute agents. The efficacy of a fire protection
agent can be compared using a cup burner or full scale test
to obtain the extinguishing concentration in a particular fuel.
NFPA standards require an additional 20 percent be added to
obtain the design concentration. Most values identified in this
rule are obtained by cup burner, while some are obtained by
full scale testing, and most are in heptane. This measure is
included in the discussion of halon substitutes for information
and comparative purposes, and EPA does not assert that the efficacy
values listed here are appropriate for all fire or explosion
hazards. The user community is cautioned to consult the appropriate
NFPA standard, relevant OSHA regulations, and professional fire
consultants to determine actual requirements.
After concluding the analysis of halon alternatives, EPA
in some cases finds acceptable the use of an agent only under
certain conditions. In implementing its use of conditions, the
Agency has sought to avoid overlap with other existing regulatory
authorities. EPA believes that section 612 clearly authorizes
imposition of use conditions to ensure safe use of replacement
agents. EPA's mandate is to list agents that ``reduce the overall
risk to human health and the environment'' for ``specific uses.''
In light of this authorization, EPA is only intending to set
conditions for the safe use of halon substitutes in the workplace
until OSHA incorporates specific language addressing gaseous
agents into OSHA regulation. Under OSHA Public Law 91-596, section
4(b)(1), OSHA is precluded from regulating an area currently
being regulated by another federal agency. EPA is specifically
deferring to OSHA, and has no intention to assume responsibility
for regulating workplace safety especially with respect to fire
protection. EPA's workplace use conditions will not bar OSHA
from regulating under its Public Law 91-596 authority. The
substitutes
for halons in fire protection applications are discussed in
the next section by class of chemical.
a. Brominated hydrofluorocarbons. Brominated hydrofluorocarbons
(HBFCs) are effective halon substitutes. Because these substances
contain bromine, they act as chemical action agents in the same
manner as the halons. In fact, some HBFCs are more effective
than Halons 1211 and 1301 in specific applications. For this
reason, HBFCs can replace Halons 1211 and 1301 on nearly a one-
to-one basis and appear to have significant applicability in
existing systems. However, the presence of bromine also means
that these agents have higher ozone-depleting potentials than
other halon substitutes.
At this time, only one HBFC, HBFC-22B1, is expected to be
commercially available in the near term. HBFC-22B1 can, however,
serve only as an interim substitute for halons. The substance
has an ODP of 0.74 and has been listed as a class I substances.
Under the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act, production
of HBFC-22B1 is required to end January 1, 1996.
b. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons. A number of
hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HCFCs) have also been suggested as halon replacements. These
include HCFC-22, HCFC-123, and HCFC-124. These HCFCs will
extinguish
fires but because they are physical action agents, they are
considerably less effective than halons or HBFCs. Thus, high
concentrations must be achieved to extinguish fires. Further,
although the ozone depletion potential of HCFCs is considerably
lower than that of either halons or HBFCs, they are listed as
class II chemicals under the Clean Air Act. The production of
HCFC-141b will be phased out beginning January 1, 2003; HCFC-
22 and HCFC-142b beginning January 1, 2020; and all other HCFCs
beginning January 1, 2030 (58 FR 65018, December 10, 1993).
In addition, under section 610(d) of the CAA as amended,
HCFCs in pressurized dispensers are banned from sale or
distribution
after January 1, 1994. Under the final rulemaking for section
610 (58 FR 69637, December 30, 1993) EPA interpreted section
610(d) to exclude HCFCs which are part of an installed `system.'
The final rule exempts total flooding systems and those streaming
applications which incorporate fixed, automatic systems. However,
section 610(d) only allows the sale of an HCFC in a portable
fire extinguisher where other unregulated agents are not suitable
for the intended applications. Because alternatives are available
for residential uses, EPA intends to publish a proposed rulemaking
under section 612 to update the SNAP list of acceptable substitutes
and to ban the sale and use of HCFCs in portable fire extinguishers
for residential applications. However, in commercial (including
industrial and military) settings, the variety of hazards are
too broad to create standards through rulemaking, and therefore
under section 610(d) EPA has established industry-based mechanisms
for controlling the sale of HCFCs.
Generally, while HCFCs can serve only as interim halon
substitutes
due to their scheduled phaseout as class II substances, EPA
believes that they serve an important transitional role in the
phaseout of class I substances. HCFC-22 has been suggested as
a total flooding agent, but this compound is unlikely to be
used as a single agent in normally occupied areas due to its
cardiotoxic profile.
HCFC-123 is being proposed as a streaming agent to replace
Halon 1211, both in pure form and in blends. HCFC-123 could
replace Halon 1211 at a ratio of 1.8 by weight-a ratio considerably
better than that of most other streaming substitutes. HCFC-123
has the lowest ODP of all the HCFCs proposed as halon substitutes,
and its global warming potential (GWP) is half that of other
HCFC substitutes.
HCFC-124 is being proposed as both a total flooding agent
and a streaming agent, both alone and in blends. HCFC-124 has
relatively low ODP and GWP values. Animal testing indicates
that the substance may be lethal to rats at a level greater
than 23 percent over a four hour period. Due to its cardiotoxic
profile, this agent is not suitable for use in total flooding
applications in normally occupied areas. However, pending personal
monitoring tests to assess actual exposure, it is possible that
this agent could be used as a streaming agent.
c. Hydrofluorocarbons. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) have also
been suggested as halon substitutes. HFCs are physical action
agents and are less effective than halons or HBFCs. Due to their
reduced efficacy, larger storage volumes are required for use
in fire protection systems. Their great advantage over halons,
HBFCs, and HCFCs is that HFCs have an ozone depletion potential
of zero. However, when exposed to fires, HFCs potentially decompose
into greater amounts of hydrogen fluoride (HF) than do HCFCs,
depending on the number of fluorines in the molecule. Discharge
of these chemicals onto a fire must be rapid or early to prevent
the buildup of large amounts of these decomposition products.
In addition, HFCs can potentially contribute to global climate
change. Because of this potential, HFCs are included in President
Clinton's Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP). Under this plan,
EPA is directed to limit uses of greenhouse gases as substitutes
for ozone-depleting compounds. Because EPA is simultaneously
also interested in promoting the broader shift away from ozone-
depleting compounds, any limits on use will be imposed wherever
possible in ways that preserve as much flexibility for those
trying to move to alternatives as possible. To minimize unnecessary
emissions of greenhouse gases, EPA is recommending that users
limit testing only to that which is essential to meet safety
or performance requirements; recover HFCs from the fire protection
system in conjunction with testing or servicing; and recycle
recovered agent for later use or destruction. Manufacturers
of these agents must recognize their responsibility to prevent
unnecessary emissions of these gases. Product stewardship programs
may be a useful mechanism to help users meet these requirements.
EPA will reexamine how to control unnecessary emissions of
greenhouse
gases in the future.
HFC-23, HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, and HFC-227ea have all
been proposed as total flooding agents. HFC-134a and HFC-227ea
have also been proposed as streaming agents. HFCs tend to possess
less risk of acute cardiotoxicity than do the HCFCs or HBFC-
22B1.
HFC-32 has been determined to be flammable, with a large
flammability range, and is therefore inappropriate as a halon
substitute. In the next SNAP update, EPA intends to propose
listing this agent as unacceptable in total flood applications.
d. Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are fully
fluorinated
compounds which do not contribute to ozone depletion. In addition,
PFCs are nonflammable, essentially non-toxic, and are not VOCs.
PFCs are effective fire protection agents, having the lowest
required extinguishing concentration of any of the suggested
substitutes other than HBFCs. However, these compounds have
high molecular weights, which create weight and storage replacement
ratios that are somewhat higher than the HCFCs and many of the
HFC candidates. Two PFCs have been submitted as halon replacements:
Perfluorobutane (C4F10) as a total flood replacement for Halon
1301, and perfluorohexane (C6F14) as a substitute for Halon
1211. In the NPRM, these agents were referred to as FC 3-1-10
and FC 5-1-14, respectively.
The principal environmental characteristic of concern for
PFCs is that they have long atmospheric lifetimes and have the
potential to contribute to global climate change. PFCs are also
included in the CCAP which broadly instructs EPA to use section
612, as well as voluntary programs, to control emissions.
While PFCs are extremely persistent, their favorable toxicity
profile makes these agents attractive for use in occupied areas.
Thus, EPA believes that there are instances in which PFCs represent
the only viable alternative to transition away from the CFCs
or halons.
The Agency is finding use of PFCs acceptable only for
applications
where reasonable efforts have been made to determine that no
other alternatives are technically feasible due to performance
or safety requirements. However, as with all of the substitutes
which are greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances, EPA
recommends that users limit testing only to that which is essential
to meet safety or performance requirements; recover agent from
the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or
servicing;
and recycle or destroy agent that is recovered from a system.
In addition, EPA encourages manufacturers to develop aggressive
product stewardship programs to help users avoid such unnecessary
emissions. EPA will reexamine how to control unnecessary emissions
of greenhouse gases in the future.
e. Chlorofluorocarbons. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have also
been proposed as halon alternatives, either individually or
in blends. These compounds are also class I substances, however,
and as a matter of policy EPA will not encourage shifting from
one class I substance to another, despite the fact that the
ODPs of the CFCs are significantly lower than those of Halons
1211 and 1301. EPA does not believe it is appropriate to encourage
shifting to substitutes that are required to be phased out in
the near term. In addition, the sale and distribution of CFCs
in pressurized dispensers (in this sector, portable fire
extinguishers)
are controlled under section 610(b) of the CAA.
f. Blends. A number of manufacturers have proposed proprietary
blends of chemicals for fire protection applications. These
blends combine a variety of CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs, PFCs, inert gases,
and other additives to achieve desired levels of effectiveness,
toxicity, and decomposition products. Most of these blends contain
constituents that have non-zero ODPs and GWPs. In assessing
the ODP and GWP of such blends, the Agency has examined both
the weighted average of the constituents and the individual
characteristics of the constituents. Because toxicity varies
with the exact composition of the blend, EPA requires
cardiotoxicity
tests to be conducted on the blend itself, rather than being
inferred from the constituents.
g. Non-halocarbon alternative agents. Non-halocarbon alternative
agents such as CO2, dry chemical, foams, and water that are
currently in widespread use and that are covered in NFPA standards
and OSHA regulations may also be used as substitutes for halon.
These agents are not as widely applicable as the halocarbon
substitutes, and must be used where recommended by the
manufacturers
and approved by standard-setting entities such as the NFPA.
In addition, several manufacturers have developed new
technologies
to adapt traditional agents to the halon market. Two manufacturers
have developed inert gas blends as Halon 1301 substitutes in
total flood systems. One of them, containing CO2 mixed with
inert gases has already been included in the new NFPA 2001
standard.
Water sprinkler systems are capturing part of the halon
substitute
market, often in conjunction with improved detection systems
and risk management programs which isolate the degree of liability
in a given fire event. A promising new water technology
incorporates
fine water droplets to create a water mist or fog. It has been
suggested that water mist systems are safe for use on Class
A and B fires, and even can be used on Class C electrical fires
without causing secondary damage. Because the environmental,
health and safety issues of the various types of water mist
systems have not yet been fully addressed, EPA is listing water
mist as pending in this rule, and will work with NFPA,
manufacturers,
and others in order to include it in the next SNAP update.
Again, while dry chemicals are in widespread use, another
new technology for both the total flooding and streaming markets
involves the use of powdered aerosols, which combine fine powder
particulates with gas to achieve a total flood effect.
While foams are also in widespread use, one manufacturer
has prepared a blend of etoxylated linear alcohol and sulfonated
soap for use in streaming applications. This blend is not a
clean agent, but offers another alternative technology where
secondary damage can be tolerated. It presents benefits of rapid
cool-down, prevention of reignition, and decrease in the quantity
of water required to extinguish fires.
3. Response to Comments
Key issues included in the public comment are addressed in
this section. For a complete discussion of public comments
received,
refer to the ``Response to Comments'' document in the public
docket. The issues addressed in this section include: Alternative
technologies, efficacy and design, use conditions, narrowed
use restrictions, and halon categories and subdivisions.
a. Alternative technologies. As halon is being phased out,
there is a growing interest in not only clean chemical substitutes
but also in reassessing the use of conventional substitutes,
adopting new risk management strategies and using alternative
technologies. Several commenters expressed the view that
alternatives
such as water and CO2 are not clean agent chemical substitutes,
but rather conventional suppression system substitutes, and
have been in widespread use for many years. Thus, these commenters
stated that such alternatives are outside the scope of SNAP
and that EPA should only list clean agent chemical substitutes.
They indicated that it would be counterproductive to list all
acceptable substitutes and alternatives under SNAP, which are
better addressed by the entire fire protection community, and
that doing so would restrict trade and development of new
technology.
One commenter said it was unclear what purpose would be served
by attempting to list all substitutes and alternatives, including
a variety of system technologies.
Section 612 of the Clean Air Act specifies that class I and
class II substances shall be replaced by ``chemicals, product
substitutes, or alternative manufacturing processes that reduce
overall risks to human health and the environment'' and directs
EPA to assist in identifying such substitutes and alternatives,
promote their development, maintain a public clearinghouse,
and publish lists of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes
for specific uses. EPA interprets this language as a broad mandate
to include alternative technologies. For the fire suppression
and explosion protection sector, EPA is defining alternative
technology to be any non-halocarbon substance discharged for
the purpose of fire suppression or explosion protection. Thus,
water mist, inert gas mixtures, powdered aerosols and any other
`not in kind' alternative to CFCs and halons are alternative
technologies. EPA believes that its assessment of potential
human health and environmental impacts of these new technologies
does, in fact, speed their acceptance and adoption by removing
uncertainty about their safe use. In addition, while water
sprinklers,
carbon dioxide, foam, and dry chemical are currently in use,
these substances fall within the definition of alternative
technology.
EPA will simply list these as acceptable and note their applicable
NFPA standards.
EPA will assess each class of alternative technology and
determine whether a separate review is prudent due to variations
in formulation and design of similar technologies, or whether
it is possible to construct a broad listing of acceptability
that covers several manufacturers. In this final rule, EPA is
listing each water mist technology as well as inert gas blends
and powdered aerosols separately due to the unique formulation,
design and intended use of each. An acceptable or unacceptable
listing of a particular alternative technology is not generalizable
to similar technologies from other manufacturers.
b. Efficacy and design issues. Many commenters state that
in the NPRM, EPA has assumed that a single design concentration
(obtained from a cup burner test for heptane) is applicable
for all fire hazards and requested that EPA remove all reference
to design concentration. However, several commenters noted that
listing of the design concentration was useful in comparing
the relative efficacy of substitute agents, as long as EPA is
clear about the source of the data.
In addition, many commenters feel that while EPA states that
the SNAP rule ``is intended not to replace, but to complement
the guidance of the fire protection community,'' EPA has
``dangerously
oversimplified'' the many factors that must be taken into
consideration
in designing a system, and a listing of ``acceptability'' implies
that any alternative will work in a safe and effective manner.
One commenter specifically requested that EPA remove all references
to design and installation requirements.
Many commenters believe that EPA should not comment on the
efficacy of substitutes, as this is outside the scope of the
SNAP rule, and that EPA should only comment on environmental
and toxicological concerns. The commenters believe EPA should
only list the agent name, EPA's decision, NOAEL, and any specific
environmental or regulatory concerns (such as ODP, GWP, or future
phaseout date.) One commenter is concerned that EPA's involvement
in efficacy issues will cause users to select agents that will
result in less effective and more expensive protection than
is needed, and will make American industry less competitive
in world markets.
One commenter summed up the requests of many others, suggesting
that, at a minimum, EPA should include cautionary wording that
a listing of `acceptable' does not imply the agent will work
in any given application. Further, EPA should point out that
the efficacy of an agent is dependent on the application system
and should encourage users to consult current consensus fire
codes and standards such as those developed by NFPA.
By contrast, EPA believes that efficacy of a substitute agent
must be a consideration in decision making, because EPA's charge
is to ensure that substitutes are not on balance more risky
than the ozone-depleting compounds being replaced. A substitute
which is not effective cannot be considered safer than the halon
being replaced. In addition, design concentration is germane
to a discussion of potential exposure and its consequent effects
on human health.
In addition, while most agents submitted under SNAP are
relatively
effective, the analysis of efficacy assists in the assessment
of the availability of substitutes in various niche markets.
EPA intends to accept as many viable substitutes as possible.
If, due to technical concerns such as weight or storage volume
equivalency, there are few or no substitutes available in a
given application, EPA must ensure that it does not restrict
the few available choices based on other issues, such as
environmental
concerns. EPA's primary task in SNAP is to facilitate the move
away from ozone-depleting compounds, and this goal cannot be
served in the fire extinguishing sector without a full
understanding
of the characteristics of the available substitutes.
However, the Agency agrees with the commenters that data
sources should be clearly identified. EPA does not intend to
imply that cup burner data for heptane dictates the proper design
concentration for all applications and for all fire hazards,
nor does EPA intend to imply that a listing of `acceptable'
means that an agent may be used in any application without
professional
consultation. In this final rule, EPA reaffirms the need for
all potential users to consult NFPA technical standards, OSHA
regulations, and fire protection professionals for actual design
considerations.
c. Use conditions. In response to EPA's request for comment
on whether section 612 authorizes the agency to set use conditions,
several commenters argued that setting use conditions is not
within the purview of section 612. Some commenters stated that
EPA has exceeded its scope of authority under the Clean Air
Act, and that EPA should defer regulation of workplace safety
to OSHA, which is the appropriate entity. Other commenters stated
that EPA failed to consult with OSHA and thus overstepped its
authority by setting workplace conditions.
Other commenters feel it is proper for EPA to establish exposure
limits on new agents as it will ensure public safety until OSHA
regulations are complete, especially where there is little
historical
exposure information to rely on.
EPA believes that section 612 clearly authorizes imposition
of use conditions to ensure safe use of replacement agents.
EPA's mandate is to list agents that ``reduce the overall risk
to human health and the environment'' for ``specific uses.''
Where use of a substitute without conditions would increase
overall risk, EPA is authorized to find the use of such substitutes
totally unacceptable. Included in this is the authority to find
acceptable the use of the substitute only if used in a manner
that reduces overall risk, and to find unacceptable its use
in all other cases.
Further, EPA's use conditions on workplace safety for halon
substitutes will exist only in the interim, until OSHA incorporates
specific language addressing gaseous agents in the OSHA law.
Under OSHA Public Law 91-596, section 4(b)(1), OSHA is precluded
from regulating an area currently being regulated by other federal
agencies. EPA is specifically deferring to OSHA, and has no
intention to assume responsibility for regulating workplace
safety in regard to fire protection. Consequently, EPA's use
conditions are effective only until OSHA acts and will terminate
by their own terms once OSHA establishes standards.
OSHA 1910.162 governs the use of all gaseous agents in
fixed extinguishing systems, however EPA finds that the guidance
is not sufficiently explicit on the allowable concentrations
of the different agents. While paragraph 1910.162(b)(3) stipulates
that ``[t]he employer shall assure that employees are not exposed
to toxic levels of gaseous agent or its decomposition products,''
it does not define what a `toxic level' is. In examining paragraph
1910.162 (b)(6)(i) through (b)(6)(iii), EPA concludes that it
is OSHA's intent to limit exposure to gaseous agents based upon
cardiotoxicity levels. EPA's conclusion was confirmed in
discussions
with OSHA. EPA therefore concludes that it is appropriate under
the SNAP program to stipulate what the cardiotoxic levels for
each agent are, and, until OSHA incorporates clarifying language,
to impose use conditions that apply OSHA standard 1910.162 in
its entirety to these agents.
References in 1910.162 to a Halon 1301 concentration of
7% imply a cardiotoxic NOAEL, and references to a Halon 1301
concentration of 10% imply a cardiotoxic LOAEL. In this regulation,
EPA is clarifying the intent of 1910.162(b)(3) to allow the
use of the substitute gaseous agents only according to paragraph
(b)(6)(i) through (b)(6)(iii), using the cardiotoxic NOAEL and
LOAEL of each agent as the concentration referenced in each
subparagraph. Thus, until OSHA establishes applicable work-place
requirements, the use conditions in this final rule on halocarbon
substitutes, using the OSHA regulation as a standard, will be
as follows:
Where egress from an area cannot be accomplished within
one minute, the employer shall not use this agent in concentrations
exceeding its NOAEL.
Where egress takes longer than 30 seconds but less than
one minute, the employer shall not use the agent in a concentration
greater than its LOAEL.
Agent concentrations greater than the LOAEL are only permitted
in areas not normally occupied by employees provided that any
employee in the area can escape within 30 seconds. The employer
shall assure that no unprotected employees enter the area during
agent discharge.
These conditions will no longer apply once OSHA establishes
applicable workplace requirements.
EPA will adopt the commenters' suggestion that the use
conditions
be stated once in the beginning of each section and will not
repeat them for each agent.
d. Narrowed use restrictions. Many commenters requested that
EPA remove the narrowed use restrictions placed upon HFC-23,
C4F10, and C6F14. These commenters argue that narrowed use
restrictions
are unnecessary, because the fire protection community (including
entities such as NFPA, UL, FMRC and others) has successfully
regulated fire protection historically and remains better able
to determine which agents should be selected based on design
and use criteria, including environmental and toxicological
acceptability, efficacy, cost, engineering practice and specific
risk.
It is not the intent of EPA to interfere with the ability
of the fire protection community to use its expertise in selecting
agents and designing appropriate and cost-effective systems
based upon technical criteria. EPA congratulates the industry
on its excellent record of self-regulation, and seeks to work
cooperatively with the regulated community in our efforts to
address the phaseout of halon. However, use of fire protection
agents is, in fact, already regulated under federal law, i.e.
OSHA, to ensure their safe use.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is mandated to evaluate substitutes
to reduce ``overall risk to human health and the environment''
and to publish lists of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes
``for specific uses.'' EPA interprets section 612 as giving
the Agency authority to limit use where there are concerns due
to health or environmental factors. Because a primary goal of
the SNAP program as a whole is to speed the market's transition
away from ozone-depleting substances, conditional acceptances
were accorded to many substitutes which might be unacceptable
in the absence of any use conditions. EPA believes that, through
the setting of narrowed use restrictions in the limited cases
where they are warranted, it has actually expanded the list
of available options for fire protection experts to choose from.
Many commenters stated that the narrowed use restrictions
as written in the NPRM by EPA are vague and confusing, and overly
complex, leading to uncertainty. Commenters asked that EPA clarify
such vague terms as ``high value,'' ``public safety,'' ``national
security,'' ``life support,'' and ``critical.'' They state that
ambiguity will cause many users to be reluctant to use the new
substitute agents. Concern was expressed that the fire protection
community will have to spend an inordinate amount of time
interpreting
and deciphering whether a particular system meets EPA's
requirements.
Some commenters advised that, if EPA retains narrowed use
restrictions,
these restrictions should be better defined through work with
the fire protection industry. One commenter suggested that a
more easily enforced method would be to allow use only in
applications
where toxicity of other substitutes would not be acceptable.
Furthermore, some commenters noted that EPA's publicly expressed
concern about the environmental acceptability, particularly
the global warming impacts, of certain agents has already slowed
interest in the development of systems. They state that as a
result, there is continued dependence on halon for certain critical
applications where no other alternative agent is suitable, such
as in explosion inerting applications.
EPA agrees with the commenters that narrowed use restrictions
must not contribute to uncertainty and a consequent reluctance
to move away from ozone-depleting fire fighting agents. To address
this concern, EPA has worked with agent manufacturers, system
designers, and members of the regulated community to better
clarify the intent and the wording of narrowed use restrictions.
In this final rule, EPA is amending the means of controlling
unwanted emissions of long-lived agents. In the NPRM, EPA attempted
to narrow the scope of uses for the PFCs (C4F10 and C6F14) and
for HFC-23 by listing the use categories that were acceptable.
Because the regulated community found this listing ambiguous,
and because EPA could not list all possible uses that would
require this agent, EPA explored the technical criteria that
would define where this agent was best applied, as one commenter
suggested. This approach was appealing, but, again, tended to
place the task of system design upon the Agency. Therefore,
for the PFCs, the Agency has decided to adopt an approach that
places the burden of proof upon the end-user for determining
that no other alternative was technically feasible for that
application.
Users shall self-certify the need to use restricted agents.
Before users adopt C4F10 or C6F14, both restricted agents, they
must make reasonable efforts to ascertain that ``other substitutes
or alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance
or safety requirements.'' Users are expected to evaluate the
technical feasibility of other substitutes or alternatives to
determine their adequacy to control the particular fire or
explosion
risk. An example of where no other alternative is available
due to the physical or chemical properties of the agent would
be where, due to the environmental characteristics of the end-
use, other agents would fail to vaporize or would not achieve
the dispersion required for effective fire protection. Similarly,
use of PFCs due to toxicological concerns would be appropriate
where use of other alternative agents would violate the workplace
safety use conditions set forth in this final rule. For example,
use of a certain agent for explosion suppression in an occupied
area might require high concentrations of an agent that exceed
its LOAEL, or, in cases where egress is precluded such as in
military vehicles during wartime, the required concentration
of the alternatives might exceed their NOAEL. EPA intends that
PFCs be used only as the agent of last resort.
To assist users in their evaluation, EPA has prepared a list
of vendors manufacturing halon substitutes and alternatives.
Although users are not required to report the results of their
investigation to EPA, companies must retain these results in
company files for future reference.
Several commenters requested that narrowed use restrictions
on HFC-23 be lifted because its cardiotoxicity profile is favorable
compared to its design or inerting concentration and in some
cases it may be the only acceptable alternative. As mentioned
above, one commenter suggested that it would be more appropriate
to qualify acceptability of a particular agent with respect
to its technical applicability in defined situations. For example,
this commenter identified several areas where HFC-23 is
particularly
applicable: (a) Where temperatures are likely to go below 0 degrees
(b) where pre-inerting is required for occupied areas, and (c)
where occupied areas can suffer considerable variation in fire
volume.
Most HFC-23 is a by-product of the manufacture of HCFC-22.
While HCFC-22 is scheduled for a production phaseout under the
Clean Air Act by the year 2020, HCFC-22 is also used as a feedstock
for the manufacture of other products, such as Teflon. Thus,
it can be expected that HFC-23 will likely be inadvertently
produced in the future. As discussed above, Action 40 of the
CCAP instructs EPA to limit emissions of greenhouse gases under
the SNAP program. However, because this agent is typically a
byproduct of HCFC-22 production, it is EPA's position that capture
of HFC-23 and use as a fire suppression agent may delay the
effects of this agent in the atmosphere while serving a valuable
purpose. Thus, EPA is lifting the narrowed use restrictions
imposed in the NPRM, and in this FRM EPA is finding acceptable
the use of this agent wherever deemed applicable given technical
or market considerations. However, to control unnecessary emissions
of this agent, EPA recommends that users limit testing only
to that which is essential to meet safety or performance
requirements;
recover HFC-23 from the fire protection system in conjunction
with testing or servicing; and recycle or destroy agent that
is recovered from a system. EPA is encouraging development of
product stewardship programs by the manufacturer and by Original
Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) marketing systems containing
this agent.
e. Halon categories and subdivisions. Many commenters requested
that EPA remove the subdivisions within the use categories.
In other words, agents should be classified as either ``total
flooding'' or ``streaming'' with no further distinction as to
their use. This structure, states one commenter, is consistent
with the separation addressed by UNEP and NFPA. They state that
the proposed subdivisions over-complicate the rule.
For example, in total flood applications, some commenters
suggest simply referring to an agent's NOAEL which, along with
OSHA regulations and NFPA standards, will determine its suitability
for a given application. Thus, there would be no need to
distinguish
between normally occupied and normally unoccupied spaces.
EPA is adopting the recommendation of the commenters. Two
end-use categories are used in this final rule: Streaming Agents
and Total Flooding Agents. Explosion inertion is included in
the Total Flooding Agent category.
4. Listing Decisions
In order to evaluate the acceptability of proposed halon
substitutes, the Agency divided the fire protection sector into
two end-uses: (1) Streaming Agents, and (2) Total Flooding Agents.
The `Total Flooding' category includes all total flooding
applications,
including normally occupied, normally unoccupied, and explosion
inertion and suppression applications.
For some substitutes, data required by the Agency to complete
a risk assessment is not yet available or has not been submitted
to the Agency as requested. As a result, not all candidate
substitutes
have been fully evaluated by the Agency. Those substitutes which
the Agency is currently reviewing, but for which a final
determination
cannot yet be made, are listed as pending review in the table
in Appendix B. The evaluation of these pending submissions will
continue, and the results of these continuing evaluations will
be published in the Federal Register as part of EPA's quarterly
updates to the SNAP lists.
The listing decisions are compiled by type. Thus, for each
end-use, an agent may be listed in one or more type of decision,
including `acceptable,' `acceptable subject to use conditions,'
`acceptable subject to narrowed use limits,' `unacceptable,'
or `pending completion of review.'
The table in appendix B summarizes EPA's decisions by each
type of decision for each end-use.
EPA's finding of acceptability of a halon substitute should
be viewed only as a listing based on the criteria briefly set
out in this Preamble as governing the SNAP program and described
in detail in the background document entitled ``Characterization
of Risk From the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting
Substances: Fire Extinguishing and Explosion Protection (Halon
Substitutes)''. EPA's finding of acceptability should not be
considered an endorsement of the substitute for the suppression
or prevention of any given fire or explosion scenario, for which
the user is referred to a fire protection specialist.
a. Acceptable. (1) Streaming agents. (a) HCFC-123. HCFC-123
is acceptable as a Halon 1211 substitute. Because of its relatively
low weight equivalency, HCFC-123 could replace Halon 1211 at
ratio of 1.8 by weight. However, testing has indicated that
application of this agent may require special handling or nozzles
to successfully extinguish a fire. Its extinguishment concentration
based on cup burner tests is 6.3 percent.
With an ODP of 0.02, HCFC-123 has the lowest ODP of all the
HCFCs proposed as halon substitutes, and its 100-year GWP of
90 is lower than that of other proposed HCFC substitutes. In
addition, it has a short atmospheric lifetime of 2 years. Since
HCFC-123 has a cardiotoxic level (LOAEL) of 2.0 percent in the
dog, with no effect (NOAEL) apparent at 1.0 percent, potential
users have expressed concern about using HCFC-123 or blends
containing HCFC-123 as the primary constituent. However, actual
exposures were assessed using personal monitoring devices, and
the Agency concludes that likely exposure levels from its use
as a streaming agent do not exceed safe levels when used with
good ventilation. Similar exposure concerns exist with the use
of carbon dioxide or Halon 1211 streaming agents. All must be
used only in areas with adequate ventilation. The manufacturer
of portable extinguishers using these agents should include
cautionary language on the label indicating the need for
ventilation.
The manufacturer has raised its allowable exposure limit
(AEL) for HCFC-123 to 30 parts per million (ppm). The AEL is
set at a level believed to protect workers who are regularly
exposed from adverse chronic effects. As a practical matter,
exposures should not exceed this limit for any working day;
this practice is consistent with OSHA's enforcement of its own
PELs. If it is likely that exposures may exceed 30 ppm as an
8-hour time-weighted average (TWA), proper protective gear should
be worn. For the purposes of determining the proper respiratory
protection, the user should consult the manufacturer of the
product for their specific recommendations for respirator use
of the particular end use.
As discussed in the section on HCFCs generally, this agent
is subject to regulations under section 610(d) of the CAA. EPA
intends to publish a proposed rulemaking that will ban the use
of this agent in residential applications.
(b) (HCFC blend) B. (HCFC blend) B is acceptable as a Halon
1211 substitute. This blend consists largely of HCFC-123,
therefore,
as with HCFC-123, it has been shown in tests to have a weight
equivalency ratio to Halon 1211 of 1.8. While HCFC-123 has a
cardiotoxic level of 2.0 percent in the dog, with no effect
apparent at 1.0 percent, actual exposures from use of this blend
as a streaming agent were assessed using personal monitoring
devices. The Agency concludes that likely exposure levels do
not exceed safe levels.
The manufacturer of HCFC-123 has raised its allowable exposure
limit (AEL) to 30 parts per million (ppm). The AEL is set at
a level believed to protect workers who are exposed on a regular
basis from chronic adverse effects. As a practical matter,
exposures
should not exceed this limit for any working day; this practice
is consistent with OSHA's enforcement of its own PELs.
If it is likely that exposures may exceed 30 ppm as an 8-
hour time-weighted average (TWA), proper protective gear should
be worn. To determine proper respiratory protection, the user
should consult the manufacturer of the product for any specific
recommendations governing respirator use in the particular end-
use.
HCFC-123, which is the major component of this blend has
an ODP of 0.02, which is the lowest ODP of all the HCFCs proposed
as halon substitutes, and its 100-year GWP of 90 is lower than
that of other proposed HCFC substitutes. Although this agent
contains a very small percentage of PFC, which has a long
atmospheric
lifetime and which could potentially contribute to global climate
change, EPA believes that the quantities of PFC likely to be
emitted are small, and that availability of this blend is an
important aid in the transition away from ozone-depleting
substances.
As with any chemical replacement to halon, EPA recommends that
unnecessary emissions be controlled by minimizing training and
by the use of recycling during maintenance.
As discussed in the section on HCFCs generally, this agent
is regulated under section 610(d). Consistent with the intent
of section 610(d), EPA intends to publish a proposed rulemaking
that will ban the use of this agent in residential applications.
(c) (Surfactant blend) A. (Surfactant blend) A is acceptable
as a Halon 1211 substitute. This product is a mixture of organic
surfactants and water. In use, this concentrated mixture is
diluted to strengths of 1-10 percent with available water. The
surfactants appear to enhance the heat absorbing capacity of
the water.
(Surfactant Blend) A acts on oil, gasoline, and petroleum
based liquid fires (Class B fires) by encapsulating the fuel,
thus removing the fuel source from the fire. This encapsulating
feature prevents flame propagation and reduces the possibility
of reignition.
This blend was designed for use on Class B oil and gasoline
fires, but can be used on all Class A and Class B fires, as
well as Class D fires. The agent has passed Underwriters'
Laboratories
(UL) certification for Class A, B, and D fires, and UL testing
for Class C fires is underway.
This extinguishant is a blend of complex alcohols, lipids,
and proteins, which are diluted in large volumes of water to
the final commercial preparation. Each of the substances is
biodegradable and in its shipping state the product has been
assigned a hazardous materials identification system (HMIS)
rating of 0-0-0 for health hazard, reactivity, and flammability,
respectively. The HMIS rating was developed by the National
Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA) to indicate the hazard
potential of chemical substances, with zero representing the
lowest hazard potential.
Initial data provided by the manufacturer indicate some ocular
irritation in rabbits, and thus EPA is recommending that the
manufacturer label the product with a caution about possible
eye irritation.
(d) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is acceptable as a Halon
1211 substitute. Carbon dioxide can be used as a direct substitute
for Halon 1211 in specified applications. Carbon dioxide systems
are not rated for Class A fires and so must be used in conjunction
with another type of extinguisher to ensure that all possible
fires can be extinguished. In addition, discharge of carbon
dioxide into confined spaces may result in CO2 concentrations
above the Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) level.
Areas into which carbon dioxide is discharged should be immediately
evacuated and ventilated. Carbon dioxide extinguishers should
be used only in accordance with manufacturer's guidelines and
applicable NFPA standards.
(e) Dry chemical. Dry chemical extinguishers are acceptable
as Halon 1211 substitutes. Dry chemical extinguishers can be
used as a substitute for Halon 1211 in most residential
applications.
While dry chemical extinguishers can be used on Class A, B,
or C fires depending upon the type of powder used, they do not
always penetrate well around obstacles, they do not inhibit
re-ignition of fires, they do not cool surfaces, they can cause
secondary damage, and discharge in confined spaces can result
in temporary loss of visibility. Dry chemical extinguishers
should be used only in accordance with manufacturer's guidelines
and with relevant NFPA standards.
(f) Water. Water is acceptable as a Halon 1211 substitute.
Users should be aware, however, that water extinguishers cannot
act as a substitute for Halon 1211 in all applications. Water
is primarily a Class A fire extinguishant. It can be used on
de-energized Class C fires, but should not be used with Class
B fires. Water may damage objects onto which it is discharged.
Water extinguishers should be used only in accordance with
manufacturer's
guidelines and with applicable NFPA standards.
(g) Foam. Foam is acceptable as a Halon 1211 substitute.
Foam extinguishers cannot be used as a substitute for halon
in all applications. Portable foam extinguishers are intended
primarily for use on flammable liquid fires and are somewhat
effective on Class A fires. Foam can also cause secondary damage
on objects onto which it is discharged. Foam extinguishers should
be used in accordance with manufacturer's guidelines and with
NFPA standards.
(2) Total flooding agents. (a) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide
is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute. Exposure to carbon
dioxide poses an imminent threat to life. However, because it
displaces oxygen, it is an effective fire protection agent.
As a result, both OSHA and the NFPA address CO2 systems for
occupied areas. OSHA 1910.162(b)5 requires a pre-discharge alarm
for systems with a design concentration of 4 percent or greater.
NFPA has written a standard (NFPA 12) that explicitly controls
how such CO2 systems may be safely used in occupied areas. To
protect life, the standard requires a system design such that
no personnel may be present upon system discharge. The EPA
recognizes
both the OSHA regulation and the NFPA standard as industry practice
and therefore defer to them in this rule. CO2 systems require
a storage volume of three times that of Halon 1301.
In the review of proposed substitutes, the Agency looks at
a variety of health and environmental factors, including whether
the agent contributes to global climate change. While carbon
dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it is also a byproduct of many
industrial processes and is recaptured and reformulated as a
fire fighting agent and thus does not require new production.
Therefore, the Agency has determined that its contribution to
overall greenhouse gas emissions is low.
(b) Water. Water sprinkler systems are acceptable as a Halon
1301 substitute. Such systems are in widespread use and are
governed by NFPA technical standards. EPA encourages adoption
of water systems wherever feasible. Care should be taken when
using water on Class C electrical fires, and it may not be suitable
in instances in which secondary damage is considered unacceptable.
(c) (Inert Gas Blend) B is acceptable for use in unoccupied
areas. The decision for use of this agent in occupied areas
is pending until the agency completes its review of low oxygen
atmospheres, and will be included in a future rulemaking. Use
conditions to limit the risk of inadvertent exposure to personnel
in normally unoccupied areas may be included in future rulemakings.
(d) (Powdered Aerosol) A is acceptable for use in unoccupied
areas. The decision for use of this agent in occupied areas
is pending until the agency completes its review of the potential
health effects of this agent. In addition, use conditions to
limit the risk of inadvertent exposure to personnel in normally
unoccupied areas may be included in future rulemakings.
(e) (Powdered Aerosol) B is acceptable for use in unoccupied
areas. This SNAP submission included many different formulations.
While the formulations pose little risk in a normally unoccupied
area, the decision for use of the various formulations in occupied
areas is pending further review of their potential health effects.
In addition, use conditions to limit the risk of inadvertent
exposure to personnel in normally unoccupied areas may be included
in future rulemakings.
b. Acceptable subject to use conditions. (1) Total flooding
agents. In analyzing the acceptability of substitutes for total
flooding applications in occupied spaces, the Agency considered
cardiotoxicity one of the primary decision variables. Current
OSHA limitations on use of Halon 1301 in total flooding
applications
assure that these uses do not pose a cardiotoxic risk to personnel
at the design concentration.
OSHA promulgated a safety and health standard (29 CFR 1910
subpart L) governing fire protection systems used at all workplaces
which is designed to limit employee exposures to toxic levels
of gaseous agents used in fixed total flood systems. OSHA section
1910.162 governs the use of all gaseous agents in fixed
extinguishing
systems, however the guidance is not explicit on the allowable
concentrations of the different agents. While paragraph
1910.162(b)3
stipulates that ``[t]he employer shall assure that employees
are not exposed to toxic levels of gaseous agent or its
decomposition
products,'' it does not define what a ``toxic level'' is. In
examining paragraph 1910.162(b)(6)(i) through (b)(6)(iii), EPA
concludes that it is OSHA's intent to limit exposure to gaseous
agents based upon cardiotoxicity levels. EPA's conclusion was
confirmed in discussions with OSHA. EPA's assessment is that
the use of NOAEL/LOAEL values based on exposure scenarios is
the proper method to ensure safe use of gaseous agents, and
agrees with OSHA's approach. It is therefore EPA's intention
to stipulate the cardiotoxic levels for each agent and, until
OSHA incorporates clarifying language for the new agents, to
impose use conditions that apply 1910.162 in its entirety to
these agents.
References in 1910.162 to a Halon 1301 concentration of
7 percent imply a cardiotoxic NOAEL, and references to a Halon
1301 concentration of 10 percent imply a cardiotoxic LOAEL.
In this regulation, EPA is clarifying the intent of 1910.162(b)(3)
to allow the use of the substitute gaseous agents only according
to paragraph (b)(6)(i) through (b)(6)(iii), using the cardiotoxic
NOAEL and LOAEL of each agent as the concentration referenced
in each subparagraph.
In addition, existing OSHA standard 1910.160 applies certain
general controls to the use of fixed extinguishing systems in
occupied workplaces, whether gaseous, dry chemical, water
sprinklers,
etc., and EPA has not reproduced those. These include, for example,
the requirements for discharge and pre-discharge alarms, and
availability of Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for
emergency entry into an area where agent has been discharged.{2}
³ {2} 29 CFR 459, 1910.160, paragraph (b) includes
³general provisions to ensure the safety of all fixed
³extinguishing systems. Paragraph (c) stipulates
requirements
³for systems with ``potential health and safety hazards
³to employees'' such as might be posed by gaseous
agents.
In many occupied areas, total flooding halons can be replaced
by improved detection equipment and manually operated extinguishing
systems. Improved detection systems, if they detect fires in
their early stages, can alert occupants to the existence of
a fire so they may respond appropriately without discharge of
the total flood system. In those cases in which a total flooding
system is deemed necessary, improved detection systems can also
reduce false alarms that result in the unnecessary discharge
of total flooding systems.
In unoccupied areas, human exposure to potentially toxic
substitutes or decomposition products are of less concern. The
key criterion in the SNAP decision process therefore becomes
environmental considerations. At the same time, the Agency must
ensure that personnel are not exposed to toxic concentrations
of fire protection agents or their decomposition products when
the substances are vented or leak out from the extinguishment
area. Precautions must also be taken to prevent exposures to
personnel entering a normally unoccupied area after a discharge.
In addition, if there is a possibility that someone must enter
a room while an agent is likely to exceed the NOAEL level, SCBA
must be worn.
Design concentrations for explosion inertion must be higher
than for fire suppression. In addition, design concentrations
vary depending on the combustible material being considered.
Thus, the system designer must be careful to ensure that system
design precludes unacceptable cardiotoxic or oxygen depletion
levels.
Explosion inertion agents are currently regulated by OSHA
through the general duty clause {3}, but use conditions are
not explicitly stated as they are for fire suppression systems.
However, since design concentrations for systems protecting
against explosion of various gases or flammable liquids may
expose personnel to cardiotoxic levels of inertion agents, it
is industry practice to adopt standards provided under OSHA
1910.162. EPA is not intending to impose new regulations in
this area, but defers to current OSHA practice in this regard,
with the stipulation that the NOAEL and LOAEL values identified
in this Final Rulemaking are the reference values for exposure
limits.
³ {3} Public Law 91-596, (29 U.S.C. 654), section 3,
³is known as the ``general duty clause:''
³ (1) shall furnish to each of is employees employment
³and a place of employment which are free from
recognized
³hazards that are causing or are likely to cause, death
³or serious physical harm to his employees;
³ (2) shall comply with occupational safety and health
³standards promulgated under this Act.
Until OSHA establishes applicable workplace requirements,
total flooding agents are acceptable by the Agency for use in
occupied areas only under the following conditions:
1. Where egress from an area cannot be accomplished within
one minute, the employer shall not use the agent in concentrations
exceeding its NOAEL.
2. Where egress takes greater than 30 seconds but less than
one minute, the employer shall not use the agent in a concentration
greater than its LOAEL.
3. Agent concentrations greater than the LOAEL are only
permitted
in areas not normally occupied by employees provided that any
employee in the area can escape within 30 seconds. The employer
shall assure that no unprotected employees enter the area during
agent discharge. These conditions will no longer apply once
OSHA establishes applicable workplace requirements.
(a) HBFC-22B1. HBFC-22B1 is acceptable as a Halon 1301
substitute.
This agent is subject to the use conditions delineated in the
discussion of total flooding agents in this section. HBFC-22B1
can replace Halon 1301 at a ratio of 1.4 by weight and 1.3 by
storage volume, making it technically suitable for use in existing
total flood systems. Its required extinguishing concentration,
based on the cup burner test in heptane, is estimated at 4.4
percent, and its design concentration is 5.3 percent. Its explosion
inertion concentration is 8.0 percent. The LOAEL for cardiotoxicity
is 1 percent while its NOAEL is 0.3 percent. Its atmospheric
lifetime is 7 to 15 years, but its GWP is uncalculated. This
compound is unlikely to be feasible as a total flooding agent
in occupied areas because its design concentration exceeds its
cardiotoxic effect level.
While HBFC-22B1 has an ODP of 0.74 and will be phased out
on January 1, 1996, the Agency believes that the substance can
serve a useful role in helping users transition away from Halon
1301, which has a much higher ODP, estimated at 10.
This agent was submitted to the Agency as a Premanufacture
Notice (PMN) and is presently subject to requirements contained
in a Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) section 5(e) Consent
Order and associated Significant New Use Rule (40 CFR 721.1296).
(b) HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute.
This agent is subject to the use conditions delineated in the
discussion of total flooding agents in this section. HCFC-22
has an extinguishment concentration, as determined by cup burner
in heptane, of 11.6 percent and a design concentration of 13.9
percent, the highest of the candidate HCFCs. Its estimated
explosion
inertion concentration is 18.8 percent. Its weight and volume
equivalence are 2.4 percent and 3.0 percent, respectively. The
cardiotoxic NOAEL is 2.5 percent and its LOAEL is 5.0 percent.
This compound is unlikely to be feasible as a pure agent in
occupied areas because its design concentration exceeds its
cardiotoxic effect level.
The ODP for HCFC-22 is 0.05, the 100 year-GWP is 1600, and
the atmospheric lifetime is 16 years. Its ODP and GWP are both
higher than those for other candidate HCFCs. This agent is schedule
for production phaseout under the CAA for new equipment in the
year 2010 and for existing equipment in the year 2020 (58 FR
65018).
(c) HCFC-124. HCFC-124 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute.
This agent is subject to the use conditions delineated in the
discussion of total flooding agents in this section. HCFC-124
has relatively low ODP of .022, and, compared to other candidate
1301 substitutes for which GWP has been estimated, has a relatively
low 100-year GWP value of 440 with an atmospheric lifetime of
7 years. Animal testing indicates that the substance may be
lethal to rats at a level greater than 23 percent over a four
hour period. The substance has a cardiotoxic LOAEL of 2.5 percent
and a NOAEL apparent at 1.0 percent. Its weight and volume
equivalence
is 2.6 and 2.9 respectively. The extinguishing concentration
based on cup burner tests in heptane of HCFC-124 is 7.0 percent
and its design concentration is 8.4 percent, while its explosion
inertion concentration is 12.0 percent. This compound is unlikely
to be feasible as a total flooding agent in normally occupied
areas because its design concentration exceeds its cardiotoxic
level.
(d) (HCFC BLEND) A. (HCFC BLEND) A is acceptable as a Halon
1301 substitute. This agent is subject to the use conditions
delineated in the discussion of total flooding agents in this
section. Based on full-scale testing, the extinguishing
concentration
of this blend has been determined to be approximately 7.2 percent
and therefore the design concentration is approximately 8.6
percent. The cardiotoxic NOAEL of this blend is 10.0 percent,
and the LOAEL is at least 10.0 percent. Until further data is
supplied, the Agency considers its LOAEL to be 10 percent. The
major component of this blend has an ODP of 0.05, higher than
other proposed HCFC substitutes, but the blend appears somewhat
more effective from a weight and storage volume equivalency
basis, which is 1.6 and 2.3 respectively. This compound is a
feasible candidate for use in a normally occupied area.
This agent is a blend of different HCFCs. The predominant
component of this blend is HCFC-22, which has an ODP of 0.05,
an atmospheric lifetime of 16 years, and a GWP of 1600. HCFC-
22 is scheduled for production phaseout under the CAA by the
year 2020 and all other HCFCs by the year 2030 (58 FR 65018).
(e) HFC-23. HFC-23 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute.
This agent is subject to the use conditions delineated in the
discussion of total flooding agents in this section.
HFC-23 is attractive for use as a total flooding agent in
occupied areas because the cardiotoxic NOAEL is at least 30
percent without added oxygen and over 50 percent with added
oxygen, compared to a design concentration of 14.4 percent,
based on cup burner tests in heptane. EPA recognizes that no
cardiotoxic effect was measured in the tests of HFC-23, and
acknowledges that tests were terminated when oxygen levels
decreased
to a point posing risk of asphyxiation. However, EPA must examine
this agent in the light of potential cardiotoxicity because
this is a halocarbon which does possess cardiotoxic
characteristics.
It is an artifact of the test protocol that determines that
the NOAEL and LOAEL must be interpreted from the data, and not
interpolated. To observe a cardiotoxic effect would require
quantities in such high concentration as to pose a risk of
asphyxiation
before risk of cardiotoxicity. Because testing was stopped at
30 percent without added oxygen and 50 per cent with added oxygen,
EPA must use these values as the maximum allowable concentrations.
In the NPRM, EPA did not refer to a specific LOAEL for this
agent. However, the standard OSHA-derived language was included
for all agents. In this rulemaking, EPA is using the values
of 30 percent for the NOAEL and 50% for the LOAEL.
Compared to an inerting concentration in methane of 20.5
percent and an inerting design concentration of 22.6 percent
in methane, this agent is an excellent candidate for use in
explosion inertion.
As mentioned earlier, the risk of using agents in high
concentrations
poses a risk of asphyxiation by displacing oxygen. With an ambient
oxygen level of 21 percent, a design concentration of 22.6 percent
will reduce oxygen levels to approximately 16 percent, the minimum
oxygen level considered to be required to prevent impaired
judgement
or other physiological effects. The weight equivalent of HFC-
23 is 1.6 while its storage volume equivalent is 2.6. This agent
requires a high pressure system for proper discharge and
dispersion.
Because this agent has an atmospheric lifetime of about 280
years and a 100-year GWP of 9,000, it is considered a potent
greenhouse gas and should be handled accordingly. Since HFC-
23 is typically a by-product of manufacturing and is not expressly
produced for use as a fire fighting agent, EPA is allowing the
use of this agent wherever applicable given technical or market
considerations. However, in order to minimize unnecessary emissions
of greenhouse gases, EPA recommends that users limit testing
only to that which is essential to meet safety or performance
requirements; recover HFC 23 from the fire protection system
in conjunction with testing or servicing; and destroy or recycle
HFC-23 for later use. In addition, EPA encourages manufacturers
to develop aggressive product stewardship programs to help users
avoid such unnecessary emissions.
(f) HFC-125. HFC-125 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute.
This agent is subject to the use conditions delineated in the
discussion of total flooding agents in this section. The
cardiotoxic
NOAEL for HFC-125 is 7.5 percent, and its LOAEL is 10.0 percent
compared to a cup burner extinguishment concentration in heptane
of 9.4 percent. While this agent would not be appropriate for
use in normally occupied areas, it is not expected that human
health would be threatened by use of HFC-125 in normally unoccupied
areas. This agent has a weight and volume equivalence of 2.6
and 3.2, respectively.
HFC-125 does not deplete stratospheric ozone. Despite its
zero ODP, HFC-125 has an atmospheric lifetime of 41 years, and
the highest calculated GWP (100-year GWP of 3,400) than any
other HFC (except HFC-23) or HCFC currently planned for production
as a halon or CFC substitute.
(g) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute.
This agent is subject to the use conditions delineated in the
discussion of total flooding agents in this section. HFC-134a
has a cardiotoxic NOAEL of 4.0 percent, a LOAEL of 8 percent,
and a design concentration of 12.6 percent. This compound is
unlikely to be feasible as a total flooding agent in occupied
areas because its design concentration exceeds its cardiotoxic
level. Like the other HFCs, HFC-134a has an ODP of zero. It
also has among the lowest GWP of the candidate 1301 replacements
for which GWP has been estimated, with a 100-year GWP of 1,200
and an atmospheric lifetime of 16.
Cup burner tests in heptane indicate that this substance
is less effective than 1301. Systems that use HFC-134a will
require approximately 2.5 times more extinguishant by weight
and 3.1 times more storage volume than 1301 systems.
(h) HFC-227ea. HFC-227ea is acceptable as a Halon 1301
substitute.
This agent is subject to the use conditions delineated in the
discussion of total flooding agents in this section. The final
report on cardiotoxicity of HFC-227ea indicates that its NOAEL
is 9.0 percent and that its LOAEL is at least 10.5 percent.
EPA is accepting 10.5 percent as its LOAEL. Cup burner tests
with heptane indicate that the extinguishment concentration
for this agent is 5.8 percent, thus making its calculated design
concentration 7.0 percent. These concentrations provide a
sufficient
margin of safety for use in a normally occupied area. HFC-227ea
does not deplete stratospheric ozone. In addition, HFC-227ea
is the most effective of the proposed HFC substitutes for Halon
1301. HFC-227ea can replace Halon 1301 at a ratio of 1.7 by
weight and 1.4 by volume.
HFC-227ea has a 100-year GWP of about 2,050, with an atmospheric
lifetime of 31 years.
(i) C4F10. C4F10 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute
where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to
performance or safety requirements: (a) due to their physical
or chemical properties or (b) where human exposure to the agents
may approach cardiosensitization levels or result in other
unacceptable
health effects under normal operating conditions. This agent
is subject to the use conditions delineated in the preceding
discussion. In addition, because this agent can be used in high
concentrations due to its cardiotoxicity profile, the design
concentration must result in oxygen levels of at least 16%.
Cup burner tests in heptane indicate that C4F10 can extinguish
fires in a total flood application at concentrations of 5.5
percent and therefore has a design concentration of 6.6 percent.
The cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 40 percent for this agent is well
above its extinguishment concentration and therefore is safe
for use in occupied areas. This agent has a weight and volume
equivalence of approximately 3.1 and 3.0 respectively.
Using agents in high concentrations poses a risk of asphyxiation
by displacing oxygen. With an ambient oxygen level of 21 percent,
a design concentration of 22.6 percent may reduce oxygen levels
to approximately 16 percent, the minimum level considered to
be required to prevent impaired judgment or other physiological
effects. Thus, the oxygen level resulting from discharge of
this agent must be at least 16 percent.
This agent has an atmospheric lifetime of 2,600 years and
a 100-year GWP of 5,500. Due to the long atmospheric lifetime
of C4F10, the Agency is finding this chemical acceptable only
in those limited instances where no other alternative is
technically
feasible due to performance or safety requirements. In most
total flooding applications, the Agency believes that alternatives
to C4F10 exist. EPA intends that users select C4F10 out of need
and that this agent be used as the agent of last resort. Thus,
a user must determine that the requirements of the specific
end use preclude use of other available alternatives.
Users must observe the limitations on C4F10 acceptability
by undertaking the following measures: (i) Conduct an evaluation
of foreseeable conditions of end use; (ii) determine that human
exposure to the other alternative extinguishing agents may approach
or result in cardiosensitization or other unacceptable toxicity
effects under normal operating conditions; and (iii) determine
that the physical or chemical properties or other technical
constraints of the other available agents preclude their use.
Some examples of potential end-uses where toxicity may possibly
be of concern are: i. Applications involving confined spaces
where egress is difficult, such as in civilian and military
transportation applications including aircraft engines, armored
vehicles (engine and crew compartments), and ship engines; ii.
Applications where public safety or national security necessity
may preclude personnel from evacuating, in event of emergency,
such as nuclear power plants or guard/security facilities; iii.
Explosion and fire protection applications where high suppression
or inerting concentrations are required such as processing and
pump stations, flammable liquid processing areas, and flammable
metal processing areas; iv. Health care facility applications
involving impaired populations, such as hospitals and nursing
homes where there may be a preference for use of this agent
due to the unique concerns within the facility; v. Military
mission critical applications which are vital to national security;
vi. Other applications where, due to physical or chemical
properties,
there are no other technically feasible alternatives.
EPA recommends that users minimize unnecessary emissions
of this agent by limiting testing of C4F10 to that which is
essential to meet safety or performance requirements; recovering
C4F10 from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing
or servicing; and destroying or recycling C4F10 for later use.
EPA encourages manufacturers to develop aggressive product
stewardship
programs to help users avoid such unnecessary emissions.
(j) IG-541. IG-541 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute.
This agent is subject to the use conditions delineated in the
discussion of total flooding agents in this section. In the
NPRM, this agent was referred to as (Inert Gas Blend) but is
now referred to as IG-541, consistent with NFPA 2001. This agent
is a non-reactive, non-halocarbon substance, and thus not
carcinogenic,
mutagenic, or teratogenic; the toxicity and cardiotoxicity tests
normally applied to halon substitutes do not apply here. Rather,
this agent is a potential asphyxiant, since it is designed to
decrease the oxygen to a level at which combustion cannot be
supported. This blend is designed to increase breathing rates,
thus making the oxygen deficient atmosphere breathable for short
periods of time. Data submitted by the manufacturer was peer-
reviewed by pulmonary, cardiac, and stroke specialists. All
have agreed that the blend does not pose significant risk to
the working population and may even pose less risk than does
exposure to halocarbon agents. However, to ensure safety, this
blend is acceptable under the conditions that the design
concentration
results in at least 10 percent oxygen and 5 percent carbon dioxide.
In addition, if the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere falls
below 10 percent, personnel must be evacuated and egress must
occur within 30 seconds. Since a fire can be expected to consume
oxygen and form decomposition products, personnel should treat
any fire situation as an emergency and promptly exit the space.
A fire suppression design concentration of 52 percent and
43 percent would result in oxygen levels of 10 percent and 12
percent, respectively. The inerting concentration for this blend
is 44 percent for methane/air mixtures and 50 percent for
propane/air
mixtures. A 50 percent concentration would result in an atmosphere
of only 10.5 percent oxygen content, which is at the lower limit
of acceptability of this agent.
Concerns have been raised about the decibel level of this
system upon discharge. The manufacturer has submitted a report
indicating the decibel level to be 117 decibels for 3 seconds
followed by a decay in noise level over 5 minutes, compared
to 130 decibels for a typical halon system. The Time Weighted
Average (TWA) of this system is 57 decibels. These levels are
in compliance with the OSHA workplace maximum allowed peak of
140 decibels and a maximum Time Weighted Average (TWA) of 90
decibels. This acceptability listing for use of IG-541 does
not apply to any other inert gas system. A manufacturer with
a different formulation must prepare a separate SNAP submission
to EPA.
c. Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits. (1) Streaming
agents. (a) HBFC-22B1. HBFC-22B1 is acceptable as a Halon 1211
substitute in non- residential applications. HBFC-22B1 is
unacceptable
for use in residential applications.
Extinguishment testing indicates that HBFC-22B1 can replace
Halon 1211 at a ratio of 1.1 by weight, making it a viable
substitute
for use in hand-held extinguishers. Despite its high ODP of
0.74, this chemical can facilitate the shift away from Halon
1211, which has an even higher ODP of 3.0. However, given the
potential market penetration and the high ODP of HBFC-22B1,
widespread use of HBFC-22B1 in consumer applications was estimated
to cause unacceptable damage to the ozone layer and an excessively
high number of skin cancer cases and deaths. The total estimated
skin cancer cases and fatalities from the use of HBFC-22B1 as
a Halon 1211 replacement in all uses including consumer uses
is approximately 30,000 and 600, respectively.
In addition to concern about its ODP, use of HBFC-22B1 in
residential applications may present risks of cardiosensitization.
To assess this risk, the Agency modeled the peak concentration
of HBFC-22B1 that would be expected if such an extinguishant
were used to suppress a kitchen fire and estimated the decline
from the peak. Such analysis indicated that peak concentrations
of HBFC-22B1 would exceed 3300 ppm. This is in excess of NFPA
ceilings for exposure. In light of the availability of other
fire protection agents with lower associated risks, the Agency
determined that the risks posed by HBFC-22B1 were too large
to justify widespread use in the consumer sector. Thus, EPA
finds HBFC-22B1 unacceptable for use in residential applications
since other viable alternatives exist.
Worker exposure may be a concern in small enclosed areas,
but in larger areas and outdoors, modeling efforts indicate
that HBFC-22B1 can be used safely. In most realistic fire
scenarios,
proper procedures should be in place regarding the operation
of the extinguisher and workers will be properly trained in
fire fighting procedures and ventilation of extinguishment areas
can be expected after dispensing the extinguishant.
Because it represents one of the few available substitutes
in specific end-uses, EPA is finding use of HBFC-22B1 acceptable
as a streaming agent except for residential uses. However, it
can only be considered a transitional agent, because it will
be phased out as a class I substance beginning January 1, 1996,
in accordance with the Clean Air Act and with the requirements
of the Montreal Protocol.
This agent was submitted to the Agency in a Premanufacture
Notice (PMN) and is presently subject to requirements contained
in a Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) section 5(e) Consent
Order and associated Significant New Use Rule (40 CFR 721.1296).
Under the terms of the Consent Order, it may be used only for
outdoor automotive and marine applications. In addition, to
ensure safe use, the sale of this product is restricted to a
size discouraging residential use, with a minimum UL rating
of 5BC. The unit must be properly labeled. The label must ban
residential use, indicate space volume restrictions that would
limit exposure to 1 percent, and describe proper evacuation
and reentry requirements. In addition, the agent may only be
sold in rechargeable units to encourage reuse and recycling
and to minimize the potential for the agent to escape to the
atmosphere through improper disposal.
(b) (CFC Blend). (CFC Blend) is acceptable as a Halon 1211
substitute in non-residential applications. While this agent
was listed in the SNAP NPRM as proposed acceptable, the sale
and distribution of CFCs in pressurized dispensers (in this
sector, portable fire extinguishers) are controlled under section
610 of the CAA. The section 610 final rulemaking (58 FR 4768,
January 15, 1993) bans the use of CFCs in portable fire
extinguishers.
Therefore, in the upcoming proposed SNAP rulemaking, EPA will
list this agent as proposed unacceptable due to section 610
prohibitions.
This agent is unacceptable for use in residential applications
since other viable alternatives exist. (CFC-Blend) contains
CFCs with ODPs of 1.0. The predominant constituent has a 100-
year GWP of 3400, with an atmospheric lifetime of 55 years.
The CFC constituent in this blend will be phased out of production
on December 31, 1995.
This agent is the most effective of all other halon substitutes
except for HBFC-22B1 and HCFC-123, and does not pose the exposure
risk of HBFC-22B1 in certain scenarios. (CFC Blend) is generally
considered non-toxic and could serve as a transitional substitute
in many streaming applications. However, in light of its high
ODP relative to other substitute agents and the large potential
market for consumer/residential extinguishers, alternative agents
such as water and dry chemical are considered sufficient for
residential uses.
(c) C6F14. C6F14 is acceptable as a streaming agent in non-
residential applications: Where other alternatives are not
technically
feasible due to performance or safety requirements: (a) Due
to the physical or chemical properties of the agent, or (b)
where human exposure to the extinguishing agent may approach
cardiosensitization levels or result in other unacceptable health
effects under normal operating conditions. This agent is
unacceptable
for use in residential applications and for uses beyond the
limits and conditions stipulated in this action.
The extinguishment concentration of C6F14 is 4.4 percent,
and a cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 40 percent. Its weight equivalence
is 2.8 and its storage volume equivalence is 3.1. While C6F14
has no ODP, its atmospheric lifetime is 3,000 years, and may
potentially contribute to global climate change.
EPA intends that users select C6F14 out of need and that
this agent be used as the agent of last resort. Thus, a user
must determine that the characteristics of the end-use preclude
use of other available alternatives. In most streaming
applications,
the Agency believes that alternatives to C6F14 exist. These
include the halocarbon replacements identified above as well
as alternative agents such as water, CO2, foam, and dry chemicals.
Users should attempt to use these other agents before deciding
on an C6F14 system. At the time of publication of this rulemaking,
EPA is unaware of any data which necessitates the use of any
PFC as a streaming agent based on toxicological concerns.
Users must observe the limitations on C6F14 acceptability
by undertaking the following measures: (i) Conduct an evaluation
of foreseeable conditions of end use; (ii) determine that human
exposure to the other alternative extinguishing agents may pose
a risk of cardiosensitization or other unacceptable toxicity
effects under normal operating conditions; and (iii) determine
that the physical or chemical properties or technical constraints
of the other available agents preclude their use. Users must
maintain documentation on measures taken to justify use of this
agent.
Some examples of potential end-uses where toxicity or physical
characteristics may possibly be of concern are: i. Confined
spaces which are difficult to egress, such as civilian and military
transportation applications, including armored vehicles, marine
engines, power boats, aircraft cabins, and race cars; ii.
Applications
where public safety or national security necessity may preclude
personnel from evacuating, in event of emergency, such as nuclear
power plants or guard/security facilities; iii. Emergency response
applications such as crash rescue vehicles and aircraft
flightlines;
iv. Military applications involving mission critical applications
which are vital to national security; v. Other applications
where, due to physical or chemical properties, there are no
technically feasible alternatives.
EPA recommends that users minimize unnecessary emissions
by limiting testing only to that which is essential to meet
safety or performance requirements; recovering C6F14 from the
fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing;
and destroying C6F14 or recycling it for later use. EPA encourages
manufacturers to develop aggressive product stewardship programs
to help users avoid such unnecessary emissions.
(2) Total Flooding Agents. (a) C4F10. C4F10 is acceptable
as a Halon 1301 substitute (i) where other alternatives are
not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements:
(a) Due to their physical or chemical properties or (b) where
human exposure to the agents may approach cardiosensitization
levels or result in other unacceptable health effects under
normal operating conditions. This agent is subject to the use
conditions delineated in the preceding discussion concerning
use to total flooding agents in the workplace. In addition,
because this agent can be used in high concentrations due to
its cardiotoxicity profile, the design concentration must result
in oxygen levels of at least 16%.
Cup burner tests in heptane indicate that C4F10 can extinguish
fires in a total flood application at concentrations of 5.5
percent with a design concentration of 6.6 percent. The
cardiotoxicity
NOAEL of 40 percent for this agent is well above its extinguishment
concentration and therefore is safe for use in occupied areas.
Using agents in high concentrations poses a risk of asphyxiation
by displacing oxygen. With an ambient oxygen level of 21 percent,
a design concentration of 22.6 percent may reduce oxygen levels
to approximately 16 percent, the minimum level considered to
be required to prevent impaired judgement or other physiological
effects. Thus, the oxygen level resulting from discharge of
this agent must be at least 16 percent.
While C4F10 has a no ODP, it has an atmospheric lifetime
of 2,600 years. Due to its long atmospheric lifetime, the Agency
is finding this chemical acceptable only in those limited instances
where no other alternative is technically feasible due to
performance
or safety requirements. In most total flooding applications,
the Agency believes that alternatives to C4F10 exist. It is
EPA's intention that users not select C4F10 out of simple
preference,
but out of need and that this agent be used as the agent of
last resort. Thus, a user must determine that the requirements
of the specific end-use preclude utilization of other available
alternatives.
Users must observe the limitations on PFC use by undertaking
the following measures: (i) Conduct an evaluation of foreseeable
conditions of end use; (ii) determine that human exposure to
the other alternative extinguishing agents may approach or result
in cardiosensitization or other unacceptable toxicity effects
under normal operating conditions; and (iii) determine that
the physical or chemical properties or other technical constraints
of the other available agents preclude their use.
Some examples of potential end-uses where toxicity may possibly
be of concern are: i. Applications involving confined spaces
where egress is difficult, such as in civilian and military
transportation applications including aircraft engines, armored
vehicles (engine and crew compartments), and ship engines; ii.
Applications where public safety or national security necessity
may preclude personnel from evacuating, in event of emergency,
such as nuclear power plants or guard/security facilities; iii.
Explosion and fire protection applications where high suppression
or inerting concentrations are required such as processing and
pump stations, flammable liquid processing areas, and flammable
metal processing areas; iv. Health care facility applications
involving impaired populations, such as hospitals and nursing
homes where there may be a preference for use of this agent
due to the unique concerns within the facility; v. Military
mission critical applications which are vital to national security;
vi. Other applications where, due to physical or chemical
properties,
there are no other technically feasible alternatives.
EPA recommends that users minimize unnecessary emissions
by limiting testing of C4F10 to that which is essential to meet
safety or performance requirements; recovering C4F10 from the
fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing;
and destroying or recycling C4F10 for later use. In addition,
EPA encourages manufacturers to develop aggressive product
stewardship
programs to help users avoid such unnecessary emissions.
b. Unacceptable substitutes. (1) Streaming agents. (a) (CFC-
11). CFC-11 is unacceptable in its proposed application as a
Halon 2402 substitute or for use in controlling large outdoor
fires. This agent has been proposed as a substitute for Halon
2402, as well as for use in controlling large outdoor fires,
as when dropped from helicopters. Halon 2402 is not used in
the U.S. and thus does not require a substitute agent. Other
nonozone-depleting methods are already in use in fighting these
large outdoor fires and, thus, EPA does not believe that
introduction
of this substitute is warranted.
(2) Total flooding agents. There are no total flooding agents
listed as unacceptable.
H. Sterilants
1. Overview
CFC-12 is widely used in combination with ethylene oxide
(EtO) to sterilize medical equipment and devices. The most
prevalent
combination consists of 12 percent EtO mixed with 88 percent
CFC-12; the mixture is therefore referred to as ``12/88''. EtO
serves as the actual sterilant in this mixture and can be used
alone as a sterilant, but by itself, EtO is highly flammable.
CFC-12 acts as a diluent to form a non-flammable blend.
Sterilants, including 12/88, are used in a variety of
applications.
These include hospital sterilization, medical equipment
sterilization,
pharmaceutical production, spice fumigation, commercial research
and development, and contract sterilization. Hospitals are by
far the most numerous users of sterilants. Within hospitals,
12/88 is the most popular sterilant. Estimates indicate that
in 1989, EtO/CFC-12 was used for over 95 percent of all
sterilization
in hospitals. Other individual users of sterilant such as contract
sterilizers and pharmaceutical producers, while less numerous
than hospitals, typically consume more sterilant than the average
hospital but are more likely to use other alternatives such
as pure EtO sterilization.
Despite the varied end uses of sterilants, the Agency did
not divide its analysis and regulation of the sterilants sector
into distinct end uses. This is because alternatives to 12/88
are consistent across end uses, and the sterilant sector as
a whole represents one of the smallest use sectors for Class
I substances being considered in the SNAP program. On an ODP-
weighted basis, US consumption of CFC-12 for sterilization
represented
less than 4 percent of the total US consumption of ozone depleting
substances in 1990.
Several alternatives to 12/88 are currently in widespread
use, but each is limited in applicability by material properties
of the devices to be sterilized. These currently available
alternatives
are unlikely to serve as widespread substitutes for 12/88. Steam
sterilizers, for example, are used in many applications and
are less expensive to purchase and operate than 12/88 systems.
However, steam can only be used to sterilize equipment that
can resist high temperatures and high humidity. Pharmaceutical
manufacturers already use steam to the maximum extent possible,
but hospitals may be able to shift some of their current 12/88
use to steam by separating heat and moisture-resistant devices
from sensitive ones. Other alternatives such as radiation,
peracetic
acid, and glutaraldehyde are also in use, but, like steam, are
incompatible with many of the materials now sterilized with
12/88. For example, 30 to 50 percent of new products are initially
sterilized with gamma radiation, but it is not possible to re-
sterilize hospital surgical equipment with gamma radiation.
Rather, 12/88 must be used.
Several other alternatives, such as chlorine dioxide, gaseous
ozone, vapor phase hydrogen peroxide, and ionized gas plasma,
are currently under development. Many of these alternatives
are also incompatible with materials currently sterilized with
12/88. Those that may be applicable as partial substitutes for
12/88, such as hydrogen peroxide, are not expected to be
commercially
available in the near term.
Alternatives such as radiation and other currently available
technologies should be used wherever applicable, but are not
specifically addressed in this rule due to their limited potential
to be widespread substitutes for 12/88. Additional information
on such alternatives and on specific uses of 12/88 can be found
in the supporting documentation retained in the public docket.
The determinations in this section are based on the risk screen
described in the background document titled ``Risk Screen on
the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances:
Sterilization.'' Responses to comments received on the sterilants
sector can be found in the ``Response to Comment'' document,
also found in the public docket.
2. Substitutes for Sterilization
a. Halocarbons. A number of halocarbon substitutes have been
suggested as alternatives to CFC-12 in EtO blends for
sterilization.
These include HCFC-123, HCFC-124, HFC-125, HCFC-141b, and HFC-
134a and HFC-227ea. At present, however, only HCFC-124, a blend
of HCFCs, and HFC-227ea have been proposed as near-term candidates.
While HCFC-124 has been fully evaluated by the Agency in this
rule, final determinations on the HCFC Blend and HFC-227ea will
be made as soon as complete data is available and the products
are approved under FIFRA. Additional research will be required
to determine the suitability of the other agents in EtO blends.
Many of the proposed halocarbons offer good potential as
EtO diluents. They demonstrate good flame retardation, low ODPs,
low GWPs, low toxicity, materials compatibility, acceptable
vapor pressures, and good blending properties. Mixtures of
halocarbons
with EtO would most likely be at ratios similar to 12/88, or
with a slightly lower EtO content. HCFC-124 has been tested
with 8.6 percent EtO, for example. Such properties would make
halocarbon blends virtual drop-in replacements for 12/88 in
existing systems. The blends would also be far less damaging
to stratospheric ozone than is 12/88.
b. Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is already in widespread
use as a sterilant in blends with EtO. Previously, the most
common blend contained 10 percent EtO and 90 percent CO2 and
was referred to as ``10/90''. However, on October 1, 1993 the
Department of Transportation (DOT) issued regulations on the
transport of hazardous materials which listed EtO/CO2 mixtures
as flammable if they contain more than 9 percent EtO. To avoid
changing safety and handling procedures, manufacturers of this
blend are changing the formulation of the EtO/CO2 blend to
8.5/91.5.
While the 8.5/91.5 blend is compatible with most of the
materials
now sterilized with 12/88, it must be used at higher operating
pressures than 12/88 systems and hence is not a direct drop-
in replacement for 12/88. Use of CO2 blends requires that the
sterilizing unit be retrofitted to handle higher operating
pressures
in order to prevent excessive leakages of EtO from the system.
CO2 and EtO tend to separate while stored in pressurized
containers. Thus, initial discharges from the canisters during
use may contain excessively high amounts of flammable EtO; final
discharges from nearly empty canisters may contain pure CO2
and may not effectively sterilize equipment. To overcome this
problem, single ``unit dose'' canisters have been developed
for use in conjunction with CO2 sterilizers. For safe operation,
these canisters must be connected and disconnected from the
sterilizing unit before and after every use, thereby increasing
the risk of accidental exposure. Improved training procedures
will be required with such systems.
c. Pure EtO. Pure EtO systems can also be used in place of
current 12/88 sterilizers. By itself, EtO is toxic, carcinogenic,
and flammable. It is also explosive at concentrations above
3 percent in air. Thus, additional precautions must be taken
to limit occupational exposures and conflagration. Present OSHA
standards and proper engineering controls have demonstrated
their ability to provide for safe operation of such systems.
Pure EtO systems are currently used by many contract sterilizers,
large hospitals, and other large users.
3. Listing Decisions
a. Acceptable substitutes. (1) HCFC-124. HCFC-124 is acceptable
as a substitute for CFC-12 in EtO blends. Initial testing in
hospital, industrial, and laboratory settings indicates that
an EtO/HCFC-124 blend can serve as a virtual drop-in replacement
for 12/88, enabling users to transition away from CFC-12 while
still using their existing equipment.
Use of HCFC-124 in sterilizers will allow significant reductions
in skin cancer cases and deaths resulting from ozone depletion.
HCFC-124 has an ODP of only 0.02. Modeling results indicate
that even if HCFC-124 replaces all current use of CFC-12 in
sterilization, resulting skin cancer deaths in the total US
population born before 2030 will total only 600 more than if
a zero ODP substitute were available. In addition, the low GWP
of HCFC-124 ensures that use of the chemical in sterilizers
will have a negligible effect on global warming.
Under Title III of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,
the Agency is required to regulate any of the 189 hazardous
air pollutants (HAPs). Ethylene oxide is a HAP, and the user
is alerted to follow all upcoming regulations concerning the
use of ethylene oxide, whether used alone or in a blend. For
example, it is likely in the future that Title III will require
a system that prevents venting of EtO into the atmosphere,
therefore
users installing new HCFC-124/EtO systems may choose to take
this into consideration.
(2) Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is acceptable as a substitute
for CFC-12 in EtO blends used for sterilization. Carbon dioxide
can effectively reduce the flammability of EtO and does not
deplete stratospheric ozone. Most CO2 currently used in sterilant
mixtures is the recaptured by-product of other chemical processes,
so its manufacture for use in sterilizers should not increase
emissions to the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant
in high concentrations, but engineering controls designed to
limit occupational exposures from the more toxic EtO will also
serve to prevent potentially lethal exposures to CO2.
Blends of CO2 and EtO are commercially available at present,
and proven process cycles already exist. Blends of CO2 and EtO
have been in widespread use for years and dominated the market
before the development of 12/88. Recent regulations issued by
DOT have prompted manufacturers to change the formulation of
the blend to 8.5/91.5 EtO/CO2 due to flammability concerns.
As mentioned above, ethylene oxide is a HAP, and the user is
alerted to follow all upcoming regulations under Title III of
the Clean Air Act Amendments concerning the use of ethylene
oxide, whether used alone or in a blend.
(3) Pure EtO. Pure EtO is acceptable as a substitute for
12/88 in sterilization. By itself, EtO is neither an ozone
depleting
substance nor a contributor to global warming. However, EtO
is toxic, carcinogenic, and flammable. While these factors must
be considered in the decision to approve EtO as a substitute
for 12/88 and must be considered by users selecting appropriate
substitutes for their current use of 12/88, the Agency considers
current applicable standards and operating procedures (such
as OSHA standards for occupational exposure) sufficient to protect
human health and the environment. Thus, pure EtO systems are
acceptable substitutes for 12/88. Users are advised to adhere
to all existing workplace standards and to train workers in
the proper operation of EtO equipment. Historical experience
with pure EtO systems indicates that they can be used safely
when operated in accordance with such guidelines. Because of
the threat posed to the general population by vented EtO, the
Agency also recommends that pure EtO systems be used in conjunction
with emission control technologies such as catalytic converters
or acid water scrubbers to prevent exposures of the general
population to dangerous levels of EtO.
As mentioned above, ethylene oxide is a HAP, and the user
is alerted to the probability of future regulations under Title
III of the Clean Air Act Amendments concerning the use of ethylene
oxide, whether used alone or in a blend.
(4) Steam. Steam sterilization is acceptable as a substitute
for 12/88 in sterilization. As mentioned above, steam sterilization
can be used on devices that can withstand high temperature and
very high humidity. The use of steam sterilization can be increased
by separating heat and moisture sensitive devices from resistant
ones.
b. Unacceptable substitutes. (None).
I. Aerosols
1. Overview
To provide perspective on EPA's decisions in the aerosols
sector, this section presents first an overview of important
related regulations affecting aerosols. Subsequent parts of
the section describe the substitutes in the aerosols sector
and present EPA's decisions on the substitutes. The decisions
are summarized in Appendix B at the end of this notice. The
proposed decisions presented in this section are based on the
risk screen contained in the draft background document entitled
``Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting
Substances: Aerosols.''
Following scientific concerns raised in 1974 regarding possible
ozone depletion from CFCs, EPA and the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) acted on March 17, 1978 (43 FR 11301; 43 FR 11318) to
ban the use of CFCs as aerosol propellants in all but essential
applications. During the mid-1970s, use as aerosol propellants
constituted over 50 percent of total CFC consumption in the
United States. The 1978 ban reduced aerosol use of CFCs in this
country by approximately 95 percent, eliminating nearly half
of the then total U.S. consumption of these chemicals.
Some CFC aerosol products were specifically exempted from
the ban based on a determination of essentiality. (See reference
Essential Use Determinations-Revised, 1978.) The other uses
of CFCs in aerosol and pressurized dispenser products (e.g.,
as an active ingredient, a solvent, or as the sole ingredient)
were excluded from the ban because they did not fit the narrow
definition of ``aerosol propellant.'' Therefore, prior to the
1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, the only aerosol products
that still contained CFCs were products exempted from the 1978
ban on CFC propellants or products excluded from the 1978 ban.
The Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 includes statutory
authorities
relevant to use of ozone depleting chemicals used in aerosol
applications in several sections of Title VI. In addition to
mandating the phaseout of class I and class II substances (sections
604 and 605) and mandating the review of substitutes (section
612), section 610 of title VI prohibits the sale of certain
nonessential products made with class I and class II substances.
Title VI divides controlled ozone-depleting substances into
two distinct classes. Class I is comprised of CFCs, halons,
carbon tetrachloride, MCF, hydrobromofluorocarbons, and methyl
bromide. Class II is comprised solely of HCFCs. The product
bans for class I substances and class II substances are distinct
from one another and are addressed in subsections 610(b) and
610(d), respectively. In section 610(b), Congress directed EPA
to promulgate regulations that prohibit the sale or distribution
of certain ``nonessential'' products that release class I
substances.
Under this subsection, Congress specifies particular products
as nonessential and directs EPA to identify other nonessential
products.
In the final regulations implementing the Class I Nonessential
Products ban (58 FR 4767; January 15, 1993), EPA issued regulations
that implement the requirements of section 610(b) and ban certain
nonessential products that release class I substances. Under
this rule, EPA banned, among other products, flexible and packaging
foam, and aerosols and other pressurized dispensers using CFCs.
The use of methyl chloroform, while a class I substance, is
not restricted under this regulation.
As directed by Congress, EPA researched the purpose or intended
use of products containing class I substances, the technological
availability of substitutes, safety and health considerations,
and other relevant factors including the economic effect of
banning selected products. EPA then banned the use of CFCs as
propellants and solvents in all aerosol products with the following
specific exemptions (58 FR 4767; January 15, 1993):
-Medical devices listed in 21 CFR 2.125(c).
-Lubricants for pharmaceutical and tablet manufacture.
-Gauze bandage adhesives and adhesive removers.
-Topical anesthetic and vapocoolant products.
-Lubricants, coatings, or cleaning fluids for electrical and
electronic equipment that contain CFC-11, CFC-12 or CFC-113
for solvent purposes, but which contain no other CFC.
-Lubricants, coatings, or cleaning fluids for aircraft maintenance
that contain CFC-11 or CFC-113, but which contain no other
CFC.
-Release agents for molds using CFC-11 or CFC-113 in the production
of plastic or elastomeric materials.
-Spinnerette lubricant/cleaning sprays used in the production
of synthetic fibers that contain CFC-114, but contain no other
CFCs.
-Containers of CFCs used as halogen ion sources in plasma etching.
-Document preservation sprays that contain CFC-113, but which
contain no other CFCs.
-Red pepper bear repellant sprays that contain CFC-113, but
which contain no other CFCs.
Exemption from the class I ban does not imply exemption from
the phase-out requirements.
HCFCs also have
current and potential applications as propellants
and as solvents in aerosol products. Until recently, their use
has been limited by the aerosol industry because of their high
cost relative to traditional options such as CFCs and hydrocarbons.
Increased regulation of CFCs, including taxation of these
substances
and an eventual phase-out, has meant that HCFCs are, for an
interim period, economically viable in some applications,
particularly
where concern about flammability limits the use of cheaper
alternatives,
such as hydrocarbons.
However, section
610(d) of the CAA
prohibits as of January
1, 1994, the sale or distribution of aerosol or foam products
that contain or are manufactured with class II substances. All
HCFCs are currently listed as class II substances. EPA believes
that the ban on certain products containing class II substances
is self-executing. Section 610(d)(1) bans the sale of the specified
class II products on its own terms, without any reference to
required regulations. Thus, EPA is not required to determine
which products will be banned.
However, section 610(d)(2) allows EPA to grant exceptions
and exclusions from the ban on aerosol and pressurized dispenser
products containing class II substances. Specifically, EPA is
authorized to grant exceptions from the prohibition where the
use of the aerosol product or pressurized dispenser is determined
by the Administrator to be essential as a result of flammability
or worker safety, and where the only available alternative to
the use of a class II substance is the use of a class I substance
which legally could be substituted for such class II substance
(i.e., use of a class I substance that is still allowed). In
addition to these two criteria for exceptions, aerosol products
may be excluded from the ban as a result of a third consideration
in section 610 (d)(2); namely, that the ban on products containing
class II substances shall not apply to any medical device.
Reflecting
the self-executing nature of the CAA ban, any aerosol product
or pressurized dispenser containing a class II substance is
banned as of January 1, 1994, unless EPA grants an exception.
EPA published a final rule under 610(d)(2) December 30, 1993
(58 FR 69637). The following products were exempted:
Medical devices listed in 21 CFR 2.125(e);
Lubricants, coatings or cleaning fluids for electrical
or electronic equipment, which contain class II substances for
solvent purposes, but which contain no other class II substances;
Lubricants, coatings or cleaning fluids used for aircraft
maintenance, which contain class II substances for solvent purposes
but which contain no other class II substances;
Mold release agents used in the production of plastic and
elastomeric materials, which contain class II substances for
solvent purposes but which contain no other class II substances,
and/or mold release agents that contain HCFC-22 as a propellant
where evidence of good faith efforts to secure alternatives
indicates that, other than a class I substance, there are no
suitable alternatives;
Spinnerette lubricants/cleaning sprays used in the production
of synthetic fibers, which contain class II substances for solvent
purposes and/or contain class II substances for propellant
purposes;
Document preservation sprays which contain HCFC-141b as
a solvent, but which contain no other class II substance; and/or
which contain HCFC-22 as a propellant, but which contain no
other class II substance and which are used solely on thick
books, books with coated, dense or paper and tightly bound
documents;
Portable fire extinguishing equipment sold to commercial
users, owners of marine vessels or boats, and owners of
noncommercial
aircraft that contains a class II substance as a fire extinguishant
where evidence of good faith efforts to secure alternatives
indicate that, other than a class I substance, there are no
suitable alternatives; and
Wasp and hornet sprays for use near high-tension power
lines that contain a class II substance for solvent purposes
only, but which contain no other class II substances.
EPA did not propose any exceptions for propellant uses of
class II substances since sufficient propellant substitutes
are available.
Uses of HCFCs granted an exemption under section 610 based
on the lack of other alternatives will not face further
restrictions
under the SNAP program and authority under section 612, since
the express purpose of the SNAP program is to restrict substitutes
only in cases where other alternatives do exist.
2. Substitutes for Aerosols
The class I substances that are currently being used in aerosol
applications include CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and methyl
chloroform (MCF). Class II substances that are currently being
used are HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and HCFC-141b.
The Agency has elected only to discuss alternatives for CFC-
11, CFC-113, MCF, HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and HCFC-141b. The uses
for CFC-12 and CFC-114 are as propellants in medical applications
and will not be discussed here because the substitutes for these
applications are currently being developed and will have to
undergo FDA review. Possible substitutes in this application
include HFC-134a and HFC-227ea, which both have low toxicity
and zero ozone depletion potential. Regulatory approval for
these compounds, however, is contingent on FDA approval, which
will likely occur over the next several years. EPA's review
of these substitutes will focus exclusively on environmental
effects.
A variety of chemicals are currently being used or are being
considered as substitutes for class I and II controlled substances
used in non-inhalation aerosols and pressurized containers.
The suitability of alternatives depends upon the product in
which they are used. Each of these alternatives has its own
physical and chemical characteristics which make it an optimal
choice for the product in question, in terms of such factors
as solvency properties, propellant characteristics, performance,
cost, and environmental considerations. However, the Agency
believes that the majority of the substitutes considered to
replace the class I and II controlled substances used as
propellants
or solvents in aerosols and pressurized containers as propellants
and solvents are currently available and easily integrated into
existing aerosol production facilities.
The primary substitutes for the propellant uses of CFC-11,
HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are as follows:
Saturated hydrocarbons (C3-C6).
Dimethyl ether.
HFCs.
Compressed gases.
Alternative processes.
HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b could technically be used as substitutes
for CFC-11, but their use is extensively controlled under section
610 of the CAA.
The primary substitutes for the solvent/diluent uses of CFC-
11, CFC-113, MCF, and HCFC-141b are as follows:
Petroleum hydrocarbons (C6-C20).
Oxygenated organic solvents (ketones, esters, ethers, and
alcohols).
HCFC-141b.
Terpenes.
Chlorinated solvents.
Water-based systems.
Other substitutes, including
monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides,
hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons, are also being
investigated.
This list of substitutes was compiled with the help of companies
that submitted information on substitutes to the Agency in response
to the January 16, 1992, Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-Making.
Today's decisions on these substitutes are listed in appendix
B. The remainder of this section discusses these substitutes,
the decision on each substitute, and the Agency's reasoning
behind each determination. Vendors or users of substitutes not
included on the table for the SNAP determinations on aerosols
should provide information on the substitutes so that the Agency
can add these substitutes to the lists.
a. Substitutes for propellants. (1) Saturated light hydrocarbons
(C3-C6). Hydrocarbons are promising replacements for nonessential
uses of HCFC-22 as a propellant in aerosols and pressurized
containers. The specific category of hydrocarbons used as
propellants
are saturated light hydrocarbons (C3-C6). Examples of these
small chain compounds include butane, isobutane, and propane.
All have low boiling points, making them excellent propellants.
They are used separately or in mixtures, are inexpensive compared
to HCFC-22 (HCFC-22 is four times more expensive than
hydrocarbons),
and are readily available from most chemical distributors.
The Agency believes that the major area of concern with the
replacement of hydrocarbons for HCFC-22 is the flammability
of hydrocarbons. In applications where a nonflammable propellant
is needed, a hydrocarbon could not be used. For example, the
use of hydrocarbons around electrical equipment could prove
hazardous if sparks from the equipment were to ignite the
hydrocarbon
propellant.
Saturated light hydrocarbons are adequate substitute propellants
where flammability is not a concern. To reduce product
flammability,
hydrocarbons can be used with water-based formulations in products
such as insecticides, where product quality would not be adversely
affected. Manufacturers are also hindered from selling hydrocarbon-
propelled aerosols in certain jurisdictions. In California,
for example, the use of hydrocarbons is restricted because of
their classification as volatile organic compounds which contribute
to low level ozone or smog.
(2) Dimethyl ether. Dimethyl ether (DME) is a medium pressure,
flammable, liquefied propellant. Because of its chemical
properties,
it can be used as a combination propellant/solvent, although
it is typically classified together with other propellants and
is used in combination with other propellants. Practices for
manufacture and use of aerosol products formulated with DME
parallel practices employed with hydrocarbons.
(3) Hydrofluorocarbons. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) such as
HFC-134a, HFC-125 and HFC-152a are partially fluorinated
hydrocarbons
and have been developed relatively recently. These compounds
are less dense than HCFC-22, but with minor reformulation
adjustments
could function equally well as propellants except in products
such as noise horns, which require a more dense gas. Because
HFCs have only recently been developed, they are only now becoming
readily available and are expected to be priced significantly
higher than HCFC-22, at least in the near term.
Preliminary studies show that HFC-134a and HFC-125 are
nonflammable
and have very low toxicity, which would make them good replacements
for HCFC-22 as propellants in products where nonflammability
is a requirement. Although HFC-152a is slightly flammable, it
can be formulated with other materials-such as HFC-125-to control
its flammability. HFCs also may be used in conjunction with
other flammable chemicals to reduce the flammability of such
mixtures. For example, HFCs are being tested for use with dimethyl
ether (DME) in safety sprays and animal repellents. Although
DME is flammable, the overall product formulation is not. HFC-
134a and HFC-125 are also being tested as replacements for CFCs
still used in medical applications because of their nonflammable,
nontoxic properties.
(4) Compressed gases. Compressed gases such as carbon dioxide,
nitrogen, air, and nitrous oxide are common, low molecular weight
gases used as propellants in aerosol products but not as drop-
in replacements. First, alternative dispensing mechanisms and
stronger containers are needed because these gases are under
significantly greater pressure. Containers holding compressed
gases are, therefore, larger and bulkier. Second, because these
chemicals have low molecular weights, they are inadequate as
replacements for HCFC-22 in products requiring a dense gas
propellant,
such as noise horns, or in products requiring fine dispersion
of the product, such as surface lubricants and weld inspection
developers. Third, compressed gases dispel material faster because
they are under higher pressure, which contributes to wasted
product.
Compressed gases are readily available from most chemical
distributors and are relatively inexpensive. Compressed gases
cool upon expansion. Compressed gases are also nonflammable
and can serve as propellants in applications where a nonflammable
propellant is necessary, but not in applications where a fine
even dispersion is required.
(5) HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b. Limited use of these chemicals
as substitutes is anticipated since section 610 imposes significant
restrictions as of January 1, 1994, on their use as aerosol
propellants.
(6) Alternative processes. Alternative processes, such as
manually operated pumps and sprays, provide an alternative delivery
mechanism in place of the aerosol dispenser. Development of
alternative process replacements depends on technological
feasibility.
Some products, such as aerosol foams, cannot now be easily formed
with alternative processes, making the replacement of the
propellant
difficult. In other products, the alternative process may not
provide proper dispersion or accurate application of the product,
limiting its use. Persons using manual pumps or sprays (in
applications
where alternative processes function adequately as replacements)
on a continuous basis may become fatigued with the constant
pumping motion, thus producing poor product performance.
Nonetheless,
these substitutes can serve as viable alternatives in certain
applications.
b. Substitutes for solvent/diluents. (1) Petroleum hydrocarbons
(C6-C20). Petroleum hydrocarbons are generally defined as C6-
C20 hydrocarbons fractionated from the distillation of petroleum.
These compounds are loosely grouped into paraffins (six carbon
chains to ten carbon chains-n-hexane, n-heptane, etc.) and light
aromatics (toluene and xylene) and come in various grades of
purity. Components with up to twenty carbons are now also being
used in an effort to reduce flammability. These compounds have
good solvent properties, are relatively inexpensive (about half
the price of MCF), and are readily available from chemical
distributors.
When a controlled substance is used only as a diluent, such
as in automotive undercoatings, substitution using petroleum
hydrocarbons can be achieved with minor reformulation. Many
of these products containing petroleum hydrocarbons even outperform
their chlorinated counterpart.
Petroleum hydrocarbons are, however, flammable, and thus
cannot be used as replacement solvents in applications where
the solvent must be nonflammable such as electronic cleaning
applications. In addition, pesticide aerosols formulated with
certain petroleum hydrocarbons must adhere to requirements imposed
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA).
(2) Oxygenated organic solvents. Oxygenated organic solvents
are compounds based on hydrocarbons containing appendant oxygen
(alcohols and ketones), integral oxygens (ethers), or both
(esters).
These compounds are relatively inexpensive compared to MCF-about
half the cost-and are readily available from chemical distributors.
These compounds are also flammable, however, and cannot be used
as substitute solvents in applications where the solvent must
be nonflammable.
These compounds are currently being blended with class I
substances to reduce the amount of class I substances used in
a product's formulation. Since the quantity of these compounds
is small, the product still remains nonflammable. Some
manufacturers,
however, are completely reformulating products such as spot
removers with ketones, esters, ethers, or alcohols. To continue
the safe use of these convenient products, consumers may have
to be educated about the product's increased flammability.
(3) Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). HCFC-141b is a potential
substitute to replace CFC-11 and CFC-113 used in solvent/diluent
applications in aerosols and pressurized dispensers. HCFC-141b's
ODP is similar to that of MCF, making it unlikely that aerosol
manufacturers would reformulate their products away from MCF
towards HCFC-141b.
HCFC-141b has a number of characteristics that make it a
suitable alternative solvent, namely: It is nonconductive,
nonflammable
according to U.S. Department of Transportation specifications,
and evaporates quickly. However, HCFC-141b is expensive compared
to the pretax price of CFC-113-almost three times the cost.
Further, HCFC-141b is slightly corrosive to plastic parts, and
could not serve as a drop-in replacement for all the uses of
CFC-11 and CFC-113 as a solvent.
(4) Terpenes. Terpenes are unsaturated hydrocarbons based
on isoprene subunits. They have good solvent properties and
could replace ozone-depleting compounds in some solvent cleaning
applications. They are flammable, which limits their use in
applications that require nonflammable solvents. Some terpenes
have a slight citrus scent while others have stronger, unpleasant
odors, making them difficult to use over an extended period
of time.
(5) Other chlorinated solvents. Other chlorinated solvents
such as perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and methylene
chloride can be used to replace CFC-11, CFC-113, and MCF in
solvent applications in aerosol and pressurized containers.
These chlorinated solvents are extremely effective and can dissolve
compounds which are difficult to dissolve in other solvents,
such as fluorinated polymers used in water and oil repellants.
However, due to toxicity concerns associated with these substances,
their use is likely to be limited, especially in products sold
to the general public or in products used frequently by workers.
In addition, pesticide aerosols formulated with these chlorinated
solvents must adhere to applicable requirements under FIFRA.
Because they are strong solvents and nonflammable, however,
chlorinated solvents are promising substitutes in cleaning
applications
for electronic equipment or electric motors where safeguards
could protect workers from the potentially toxic fumes. These
compounds are readily available from chemical distributors at
prices comparable to those for MCF.
(6) Water-based formulations. Water-based formulations provide
a replacement for the use of CFC-11, CFC-113, and MCF as solvents
in aerosols and pressurized dispensers. These reformulated products
usually contain new components/active ingredients that are water
soluble. The overall function of the reformulated product remains
the same, but the product's substituents are changed.
Most formulations are nonflammable, yet may be difficult
to use around sources of electricity because they may short
out electrical equipment. Such products may also have short
shelf-lives because the active ingredient may decompose in an
aqueous environment. Also, these products when sprayed do not
evaporate quickly, resulting in product accumulation. This may
create problems in certain applications, such as where the
accumulation
of a water-based product contributes to rust or corrosion. The
possibility of reformulating products is product-specific,
depending
on the feasibility of finding active ingredients that are water
soluble.
(7) Monochlorotoluene/benzotrifluorides. Monochlorotoluenes
and benzotrifluorides are of commercial interest as solvent
substitutes for aerosols. These compounds can be used either
in isolation or in various mixtures, depending on desired chemical
properties. The Agency has not yet completed its review of these
formulations, which will be included in the next SNAP update.
(8) HFC-4310. HFC-4310mee will soon be commercially available
as a solvent cleaning agent and may be useful in aerosol products.
The Agency has not completed review of preliminary data on this
chemical. This chemical will be undergoing review under the
Premanufacture Notice program of the Toxic substances Control
Act.
Other HFCs are also currently in development for solvent
usage, although their composition is still proprietary.
(9) Perfluorocarbons (C6F14). The Agency recently received
a request to evaluate the perfluorocarbon C6F14 as a substitute
solvent in aerosols. While this agent has been reviewed as a
substitute for use in solvent cleaning, the Agency has not
completed
review in this sector.
3. Comment Response
Public comments on the aerosols decisions focused principally
on technical issues, such as the flammability of various
propellants
or the length of hydrocarbons used as propellants. Several
commenters
noted that chlorinated solvents may be appropriate for use in
consumer products where a nonflammable aerosol is necessary,
such as for brake cleaners. The Agency recognizes this as a
valid concern and has amended the comment made in the Notice
of Proposed Rule-Making that stated that chlorinated solvents
are not suitable for consumer applications. However, EPA still
encourages manufacturers to formulate products with solvents
of lower toxicity, where possible.
A number of commenters requested clarification of the
relationship
between the section 612 SNAP program and the section 610
nonessential
use ban. The Agency has added clarification to the relevant
discussion of listing decisions.
4. Listing Decisions
a. Acceptable Substitutes. (1) Propellants. (a) Saturated
light hydrocarbons (C3-C6). Saturated light hydrocarbons (C3-
C6) are acceptable substitutes for CFC-11, HCFC-22 and HCFC-
142b as propellants in the aerosols sector. These hydrocarbons
have several environmental advantages over other substitutes.
For example, they have zero ozone depletion potential, and because
of their extremely short atmospheric residence times they are
estimated to contribute little to global warming. Yet their
reactivity contributes to formation of tropospheric ozone. However,
use of VOCs is already subject to stringent regulatory controls
at the federal, state, and local level, and the Agency's risk
screen suggests that these controls preclude the need for
additional
regulation of aerosols formulated with VOCs.
Saturated light hydrocarbons have a long history of use,
and the increase in use due to replacement of CFCs as aerosol
propellants represents a fraction of current consumption.
Hydrocarbon
propellants acquired industrial importance in the U.S. in the
early 1950s. By 1978, when the ban on CFC propellants in the
U.S. was promulgated, nearly half of all aerosol units being
produced in the U.S were already using hydrocarbon propellants.
This percentage grew to nearly 90 percent in 1979 as a result
of the CFC ban.
Most of the hydrocarbon propellants are essentially non-toxic.
Very high concentrations of hydrocarbons are necessary to alter
normal body functions. No temporary or permanent physiological
malfunctions are produced by these chemicals; however, very
high concentrations of hydrocarbons may result in asphyxiation
because of lack of oxygen. '
Hydrocarbon propellants are flammable. Precautions should
be taken in receiving, unloading, transferring, storing, and
filling hydrocarbon aerosol products. The listing of these
compounds
as acceptable substitutes does not exempt producers or users
from other applicable regulatory or industrial standards such
as those promulgated by OSHA. However, because of the widespread
use of these materials, industry is already familiar with the
safety precautions necessary in switching from a CFC filling
operation to one using hydrocarbons.
(b) HFC-134a, HFC-125 and HFC-152a. HFC-134a, HFC-125 and
HFC-134a are acceptable substitutes for CFC-11, HCFC-22, and
HCFC-142b as propellants in the aerosols sector. HFC-152a has
both zero ozone depletion potential and a comparatively low
global warming potential. However, HFC-152a by itself is flammable,
and necessary precautions should be taken when using this chemical.
HFC-134a and HFC-125 also have no ozone depletion potential,
yet these compounds do have atmospheric lifetimes and could
contribute to global warming. Despite these concerns, the Agency
has listed these substitutes as acceptable in today's rule-making
since they meet the needs of specialized applications where
other substitutes do not provide acceptable performance. The
use of these HFCs by themselves is acceptable, as are blends
of these chemicals with other acceptable substitutes.
(c) Dimethyl ether. Dimethyl ether is an acceptable substitute
propellant for CFC-11, HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in the aerosols
sector. The principal environmental concern for the use of DME
is its ability to contribute to ground-level ozone formation.
However, the Agency's screen of effects from increased use of
VOCs in aerosol products suggests that increases in groundlevel
ozone formation from use of DME can be controlled through existing
VOC regulations.
(d) Compressed gases. Compressed gases are acceptable
substitutes
for CFC-11, HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as propellants in the aerosols
sector. The Agency believes that although compressed gases such
as air, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen are presently only used
in about 7-9 percent of the aerosol products, their use will
grow in the future. These gases have low toxicity and industrial
practices for using these substitutes are well established.
Since these gases are under significantly greater pressure than
CFCs and HCFCs, containers holding these gases must be larger
and bulkier, and safety precautions should be undertaken during
filling operations. Carbon dioxide and nitrogen are non-flammable
and do not require the use of explosion proof gassing equipment.
Nitrous oxide, while non-flammable, can create a moderate explosion
risk under certain temperature and pressure conditions.
(e) Alternative processes. Alternative processes are acceptable
substitutes for CFC-11, HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as propellants
in the aerosols sector. Alternative processes such as finger
and trigger pumps, two-compartment aerosol products, mechanical
pressure dispenser systems, and nonspray dispensers (e.g., solid
stick dispensers) have found increasing use as replacement for
conventional aerosol products. The Agency believes that these
products do not pose any significant risks, since they rely
on mechanical force to replace the propellant.
(f) HCFC-22, HCFC-142b. HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are acceptable
substitutes for CFC-11 as aerosol propellants. Users should
note, however, that under section 610 of the Clean Air Act,
extensive restrictions already govern the use of HCFCs as aerosol
propellants as of January 1, 1994. Only one exemption for HCFCs
used as aerosol propellants was granted under section 610 (58
FR 69637). Today's listing allows the use HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b
in the exempted application, but general use restrictions
established
under section 610 must still be followed. Decisions taken under
section 610 are described earlier in this chapter, as are the
exemptions under section 610.
The principal problem with HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b is that
they have significant ODPs and are therefore classified as class
II substances. Yet in limited where flammability is a technical
impediment to use of other alternatives, HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b
may be the only alternatives to replace other ozone-depleting
propellants. The exemption for HCFC-141b use as an aerosol solvent
under section 610 reflects these user needs.
(2) Solvents. (a) Petroleum hydrocarbons. C6-C20 petroleum
hydrocarbons are acceptable substitutes for CFC-11, CFC-113,
methyl chloroform (MCF) and HCFC-141b as solvents in the aerosol
sector. Petroleum hydrocarbons, both naturally and synthetically
derived, have a long history of safe use, and any risks due
to increased tropospheric ozone formation or worker exposure
can be controlled by existing regulations. Concerns for risks
from these compounds in possible uses as pesticide aerosol solvents
have already been addressed under FIFRA authorities.
(b) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b, either by itself or blended with
other compounds, is an acceptable substitute for CFC-11, CFC-
113 and MCF as an aerosol solvent. Under section 610 of the
Clean Air Act, extensive restrictions already govern the use
of HCFC-141b as an aerosol solvent as of January 1, 1994. Limited
exemptions for HCFC-141b use as an aerosol solvent were granted
under section 610 (58 FR 69637). Today's listing allows the
use HCFC-141b in the exempted applications, but general use
restrictions established under section 610 must still be followed.
Decisions taken under section 610 are described earlier in this
chapter, as are the exemptions under section 610.
The principal problem with HCFC-141b is that it has a
comparatively
high ODP-0.11. This is the highest ODP of all HCFCs; in fact,
the ODP of HCFC-141b is about twice as high as HCFC-22. Yet
in certain cases, such as where flammability is a technical
impediment to use of other alternatives, HCFC-141b may be the
only alternative to replace other ozone-depleting solvents.
Several companies contacted the Agency under both section 610
and 612 indicating that they have tested alternatives, and that
in some cases only HCFC141b meets performance or safety criteria.
The exemptions for HCFC-141b use as an aerosol solvent under
section 610 reflect these user needs.
(c) Other chlorinated solvents. Trichloroethylene,
perchloroethylene,
and methylene chloride are acceptable substitutes for CFC-11,
CFC-113, MCF and HCFC-141b as solvents in the aerosols sector.
These substitutes have the technical capability to meet a large
portion of the needs of the aerosols industry. However, the
Agency anticipates that, due to toxicity concerns associated
with the use of these alternatives, the market share for these
other chlorinated solvents will not increase substantially.
The toxicity of these three solvents has been the subject
of extensive analysis. Without regulation, their use has the
potential to pose high risks to workers as well as to residents
in nearby communities or consumers using household products
containing such chemicals. However, while the Agency generally
discourages the use of these chemicals in aerosol applications,
they may be necessary in products where nonflammability is a
critical characteristic. The Agency encourages formulators of
aerosols to restrict their use of chlorinated solvents to products
that must be nonflammable.
Given that the use of chlorinated solvents may be necessary
to offset risks of flammability, the Agency has determined
chlorinated
solvents to be acceptable substitutes since risks to workers
can be reduced by adhering to OSHA standards. Residual risks
to residents in nearby communities may remain. The Agency is
aware of these potential risks and has the authority to address
them under section 112 of the CAA. This section of the CAA lists
three of these solvents as Hazardous Air Pollutants, and authorizes
the Agency to establish controls for their use. EPA will pursue
any appropriate regulations under this authority. Any risks
arising from use of these compounds as pesticide aerosols in
reformulated products can be addressed using FIFRA authorities.
These solvents are occasionally found in consumer products.
Consumer risks were not analyzed under the SNAP risk screens
since these risks are controlled under authorities implemented
by the Consumer Safety Product Commission, which has already
established labeling requirements for use of these solvents.
(d) Oxygenated organic solvents. Oxygenated organic solvents
(ketones, esters, ethers, and alcohols) are acceptable substitutes
for CFC-11, CFC-113, MCF and HCFC-141b as solvents in the aerosols
sector. Most of these compounds have a long history of safe
use, and regulations to control any risks due to tropospheric
ozone formation or worker exposure are already in place under
other relevant authorities.
(e) Terpenes. Terpenes are acceptable substitutes for CFC-
11, CFC-113, MCF and HCFC-141b as solvents in the aerosols sector.
Terpene-based formulations have a long history of safe use as
industrial solvents, and any increased risks due to increased
tropospheric ozone formation can be controlled through existing
regulations. Additionally, many of these chemicals are naturally
occurring organic hydrocarbons and exhibit significant
biodegradability.
The use history of these chemicals does not negate the toxicity
of these compounds to aquatic life. However, the Agency does
not believe that in this case significant adverse effects are
to be expected, since in aerosol applications the terpenes
volatilize
during use and would consequently not be discharged to surface
or ground water where aquatic species are to be found.
(f) Water-based formulations. Water-based formulations are
acceptable substitutes for CFC-11, CFC-113, MCF and HCFC-141b
as solvents in the aerosols sector. The Agency did not identify
any significant environmental concerns associated with use of
these products. They can contain small amounts of VOCs, but
these amounts are minor in comparison to products formulated
solely with organic solvents.
b. Substitutes acceptable subject to use conditions. (None).
c. Substitutes acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.
(None).
d. Unacceptable substitutes. (None).
J. Tobacco Expansion
1. Overview
Tobacco expansion is the process of puffing leaves of tobacco
to decrease the volume of tobacco used in cigarette production.
Currently, one of the primary technologies used to expand tobacco
in the U.S. relies on CFC-11. One and one half million pounds
of CFC-11 are used annually in the U.S. in this sector.
In the CFC-11 process, tobacco is saturated with CFC-11 in
a stainless steel vessel maintained at 120 degrees Fahrenheit
and pressurized to 20 psi. The tobacco is then permeated with
hot air (330 F) which expands the tobacco. The CFC-11 is vaporized
and recovered by cooling and compressing, and is continually
recovered and recycled.
The Agency received notification on two potential substitutes:
(1) Carbon dioxide technology, an alternative process substitute,
and (2) HFC-227ea. In this final rule, the Agency is listing
carbon dioxide as an acceptable substitute for CFC-11 in tobacco
expansion. Similarly, HFC-227ea is (currently under review and
will be listed in the FRM pending completion of review of the
data).
2. Comment Response
The NPRM listed HCFC-123 as pending review for use as a
substitute
for tobacco expansion. One commenter proposed that HCFC-123
should not be listed as an acceptable substitute in the final
rule because the sole U.S. manufacturer will not sell it for
use in the tobacco expansion process. The sole U.S. manufacturer
of HCFC-123 confirmed via public comment that HCFC-123 will
not be sold to the tobacco industry for use in the tobacco
expansion
process. The manufacturer requested EPA to withdraw this compound
from consideration as an alternative for this end-use.
Subsequently,
EPA terminated the review for HCFC-123 in tobacco expansion,
and will not include HCFC-123 in the listing decisions for this
sector.
3. Listing Decisions
a. Carbon dioxide. The Agency has determined that the use
of carbon dioxide as a substitute for CFC-11 in tobacco expansion
is acceptable. Carbon dioxide has been successfully used in
the tobacco industry for approximately twenty years. It is non-
toxic, non-flammable, and it has zero ODP. A permissible exposure
level (PEL) has been set at 5,000 ppm, a level that can easily
be met during the well contained tobacco expansion process.
The carbon dioxide process is similar to the process using CFC-
11, though pressure and temperature parameters are different.
For this reason carbon dioxide cannot be used as a retrofit
for CFC-11 equipment; new equipment must be purchased in order
to use carbon dioxide for tobacco expansion.
Although carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, increased use
of carbon dioxide for tobacco expansion will not increase global
warming because the carbon dioxide used in tobacco expansion
is a by-product of the production of other gases. The carbon
dioxide is captured from a stream of gas that otherwise would
be emitted to the ambient air. Additionally, carbon dioxide
recycling equipment is available, which will also help limit
emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
b. Propane. The Agency has determined that the use of propane
as a substitute for CFC-11 in tobacco expansion is acceptable.
Plant modifications may be necessary to control the flammability
of this substitute to ensure worker safety. Propane is a VOC
and must be controlled as such under Title I of the CAA.
K. Adhesives, Coatings, and Inks
1. Overview
Methyl chloroform (MCF) is used as a solvent in the adhesives,
coatings, and inks sector because of its unique and favorable
properties: High solvency, non flammability, low toxicity, relative
high stability, and low boiling point. For this section, coatings
are defined to be durable and decorative coatings such as paints.
Unlike a number of other solvents that are classified as volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), MCF does not photochemically degrade
in the lower atmosphere to lead to ground-level ozone formation.
This key property caused many manufacturers to switch from
formulations
containing VOC solvents to MCF in the mid 1980s because regulatory
pressure increased to reduce VOC emissions in nonattainment
areas. Companies achieved compliance by altering their VOC solvent-
borne formulations to MCF, thereby avoiding costly capital
investment
in new equipment, changes in operating procedures, and employee
retraining. This trend has now been reversed as companies have
begun to respond to the phase-out of MCF under the stratospheric
ozone protection provisions of the Clean Air Act.
This section examines substitutes that can be used in place
of MCF in this sector, and presents the Agency's proposed decisions
and supporting analysis on acceptability of these substitutes.
These determinations are summarized in appendix B at the end
of the sector discussions.
Of the three uses for MCF in this sector, use of MCF is largest
in the adhesives subsector. In 1989, manufacturers of adhesives
consumed about 28,000 metric tons (MT) of MCF in their
formulations,
roughly nine percent of the total MCF produced in the U.S. (HSIA,
1991). Solvent-based adhesive formulations constitute 15 percent
of all adhesive types. MCF is desirable as a solvent for adhesives
because it evaporates rapidly, is nonflammable, exhibits a
relatively
high PEL, performs comparably to VOC-formulated products, and
does not photochemically degrade in the lower atmosphere. The
1991 consumption of methyl chloroform as a solvent in the adhesives
sector was estimated to be 32,000 MT. EPA believes that this
consumption has declined since 1991 due to increased excise
taxes, the CFC labeling requirement of the CAA and the increasing
awareness of the pending 1996 phaseout.
MCF is used in five adhesive types:
Laminate adhesives;
Flexible foam adhesives;
Hardwood floor adhesives;
Metal to rubber adhesives; and
Tire patch adhesives.
MCF is no longer commonly used in the following adhesive
applications where its use was once widespread:
Pressure sensitive adhesives (tapes, labels, etc.);
Flexible packaging adhesives;
Aerosol-propelled adhesives; and
Shoe repair glues and other consumer adhesives.
In manufacture of coatings and inks, MCF usage rose steadily
throughout the 1980s principally because of the VOC problems
with other solvents. It began declining in the early 1990s because
of the ozone depletion issue. In 1989, the consumption of MCF
used in coatings and inks was 18,480 MT, six percent of the
total 310,000 MT of MCF consumed in the U.S. The 1991 consumption
in the coatings and inks sector was estimated to be 23,000 MT.
This consumption figure has likely declined even more for the
same reasons as cited in the adhesives section. MCF is the only
ozone-depleting substance currently used in coatings and inks
formulations. As with uses in adhesives, MCF has replaced some
of the applications in coatings and inks which previously used
VOC solvents and now the trend is reversing.
The current use of MCF in coatings and inks applications
occurs in four use areas:
Flexographic and rotogravure printing inks;
Wood stains;
Metal coatings; and
Aerospace coatings.
2. Substitutes in the Adhesives, Coatings, and Inks Sector
Methyl chloroform-based adhesives, coatings, and inks can
be replaced by either substitute solvents or alternative
application
technologies. In most instances, the alternatives are expected
to perform as well as products containing MCF. Factors that
determine which particular alternative is best in a given situation
include physical and chemical properties, replacement chemical
costs, capital investment costs, and product performance.
The primary substitutes to replace methyl chloroform in
adhesives,
coatings, and inks include:
Petroleum hydrocarbons;
Oxygenated organic solvents (ketones, esters, ethers,
alcohols);
Chlorinated solvents;
Terpenes;
Water-based formulations;
High-solids formulation; and
Alternative process alternatives;
-Powder formulations;
-Hot melts;
-Thermoplastic plasma spray coatings;
-Radiation cured;
-Moisture cured;
-Chemical cured;
-Reactive liquids.
These substitutes can be grouped into four basic categories:
Solvent substitutes, water-based formulations, high-solids
formulations,
and alternative processes.
a. Solvent substitutes. Petroleum hydrocarbons are hydrocarbons
fractionated from the distillation of petroleum. These compounds
are loosely grouped into paraffins (six carbon chains to ten
carbon chains-hexane, heptane, etc.) and light aromatics (toluene
and xylene), and come in various levels of purity. These compounds
have good solvent properties, cost about half as much as MCF,
and are readily available from chemical distributors.
Oxygenated organic solvents such as alcohols, ketones, ethers,
and esters dissolve a wide range of polar and semi-polar
substances.
These compounds are relatively inexpensive compared to MCF (about
half the cost) and are readily available. They function well
as solvents and dissolve most resins and binders used in adhesives,
coatings, and inks.
Chlorinated solvents such as perchloroethylene and methylene
chloride are chlorinated hydrocarbons. These chemicals can be
used to replace MCF used in adhesives, coatings and inks. These
solvents are commercially available from chemical distributors
at prices comparable to those for methyl chloroform.
Chlorinated solvent compounds are chemically similar to MCF
and thus are able to substitute directly for MCF with minor
changes in the formulation of the product; product quality is
expected to remain unchanged. Manufacturers can use chlorinated
solvents in existing equipment with minor changes, resulting
in low capital costs.
Terpenes are unsaturated hydrocarbons based on isoprene
subunits.
They have good solvent properties and could replace MCF in some
coating and ink products. Terpenes, such as d-limonene, cost
about seven times more than MCF, and are commercially available
from chemical distributors. Manufacturers can use terpenes in
existing equipment with minor changes.
Monochlorotoluene and chlorobenzotrifluorides are also of
commercial interest as solvent substitutes for adhesives, coatings,
and inks. These compounds can be used either in isolation or
in various mixtures, depending on desired chemical properties.
The Agency recently received information on these formulations,
and will issue a SNAP determination for these substitutes in
the next set of listing decisions.
b. Water-based formulations. Water-based coatings contain
water rather than conventional solvents. Primary uses of these
coatings include coating of furniture, aluminum siding, hardboard,
metal containers, appliances, structural steel, and heavy
equipment.
Water-based coatings are priced roughly 20 to 30 percent more
than methyl chloroform-based coatings.
Water-based inks use water and other co-solvents such as
alcohols and alkyl acetates to dissolve resins, binders, and
pigments instead of conventional solvents. Water-based inks
accounted for 55 percent of the flexographic inks and 15 percent
of the gravure inks used in the U.S. in 1987. Water-based inks
are priced roughly 10 percent less than methyl chloroform-based
inks.
Water-based adhesives currently account for about 45 percent
of the world adhesive market. Water-based adhesives will likely
dominate the market to replace MCF in general consumer uses
and in areas where a rigid bond is not needed. Water-based
adhesives-
especially water-based latexes, which are stable dispersions
of solid polymeric material in an essentially aqueous medium-
can effectively replace MCF use in the flexible foams sector
because of the flexibility of the bond they provide. Water-based
latex adhesives have the potential to penetrate 85-90 percent
of the MCF-based adhesive market in flexible foams applications.
They still pose some problems, however, including:
Long set and dry times; newer developments seem to be solving
this problem;
Deterioration during storage especially if frozen; and
The production of bacteria-contaminated waste water.
Water-based replacements have not proven effective in binding
high density laminates or hardwood flooring principally because
moisture enhances the chances of warping. In cases where MCF
is used for door assemblies or sealants, water-based urethane
adhesives containing polyisocyanates can be used.
c. High-solid formulations. High-solids coatings resemble
conventional coatings in appearance and use, except high-solids
coatings contain less solvent and a greater percentage of resin.
High-solids coatings are currently used on appliances, metal
furniture, and farm and road construction equipment. High-solids
coatings are priced 20 to 30 percent higher than methyl chloroform-
based coatings, yet the buyer receives more usable paint because
the coatings contain less solvent, thus reducing the volume
of coatings required.
High-solids adhesives can reduce the amount of solvent used
in adhesives by increasing the percentage of solids in the
formulation.
Adhesives formerly containing 30-50 percent solids contain about
80 percent solids after reformulation. High-solids adhesives
have good performance characteristics, including initial bond
strength, and can be applied using existing equipment at normal
line speeds with minimal modification. For bonding rubber
assemblies,
high solid adhesive films are often too thick, resulting in
limited versatility and generally poor performance. High-solids
formulations, however, are already used widely in the flexible
foams, hardwood flooring, and high-pressure laminates industries.
The solvent of choice in these industries remains MCF, but with
a decreased portion of solvent in the formulations, so that
less solvent is consumed overall. High-solids formulations are
only a transitional replacement until adequate substitutes are
found that do not contain MCF.
d. Alternative process substitutes. Powder adhesives, the
first category of alternative process substitutes, are composed
of one-part epoxies, urethanes, and natural resins. These adhesives
are often supplied as powders that require heat to cure. They
are generally applied in one of three ways: (1) By sifting the
powder onto preheated substrates, (2) by dipping a preheated
substrate into the powder, and (3) by melting the powder into
a paste or liquid and applying it by conventional means. Since
high temperatures are required to activate and thermoset powder
adhesives, their ability to replace MCF-based formulations will
depend on the characteristics of the substrates being bonded:
If the materials being bonded are heat sensitive, heat-activated
powder adhesives cannot be used.
Powder coatings have no solvent, containing only resins and
pigments in powder form. Typically, the powder is electrostatically
applied and the coated object is heated above the powder's melting
point, so that the resin fuses into a continuous film. Powder
coating is a mature technology and is used on various types
of metal products such as appliances, concrete reinforced bars,
automobiles, steel shelving, lawn and farm equipment, and some
furniture. The elevated temperatures necessary to melt the
coatings,
however, restrict the use of powder coatings on plastic and
wood products. Powder coatings are priced comparably to methyl
chloroform-based coatings.
Hot melt adhesives are 100 percent solid thermoplastic binders
that can be used to replace MCF formulations in applications
that require a rigid bond. Hot melts currently account for about
20 percent of the adhesives market, and they, along with water-
based adhesives, will likely benefit most from the move away
from MCF-based adhesive formulations. Hot melts are now used
instead of MCF formulations in laminating applications, especially
those involving the lamination of flexible foam products. They
can also replace MCF-based adhesive formulations in the original
equipment manufacturer's (OEM) production of high-pressure
laminates
and possibly in the installation of hardwood flooring. The
potential
ability of hot melt adhesives to replace MCF-based formulations
in the flexible foams sector is limited to 10-15 percent
penetration
because of the need for flexible bonds in most furniture and
bedding applications.
Thermoplastic plasma spray coatings are powder coatings that
melt in transit towards the object to be coated propelled by
a pressurized inert gas, such as Argon. An electric arc strips
electrons from the plastic particles fusing them together as
they move through the applicator gun. Thermoplastic plasma spray
coatings can be used to coat large and small objects of metal,
wood, plastic, or fiberglass.
Radiation curing is a production technique for drying and
curing adhesives with radiant energy in the form of ultraviolet
(UV) or infrared (IR) light, electron beams (EB), and gamma
or x-rays. The binding agents that can be cured with radiant
energy are acrylics, epoxies, urethanes, anaerobic adhesives,
and polyester resins. In many cases, if the materials are either
heat sensitive or opaque, radiation curing cannot be employed.
Radiation-dried coatings are applied as either a powder or
as a high-solids form and dried using the same radiant energy
forms as used in radiation-cured adhesives. The binder systems
that can be dried with radiant energy are also similar. In cases
where the radiant energy is harmful to a component, such as
sensitive electronic equipment, radiant-dried coating cannot
be employed.
Moisture-cured, chemical-cured, and reactive liquid adhesives
are still not widely used because they are still being developed
or because performance or application problems still have to
be addressed. They will not be widely commercially available
for several years.
3. Comment Response
a. Acceptable substitutes. It was suggested that the acceptable
substitutes cited for MCF could also be extended to other ozone-
depleting solvents, such as CFC-113. Depending on the specific
application, EPA believes that it is probable that the same
substitutes would apply and has addressed such substitutes as
appropriate.
Another commenter noted that some terminology was inconsistent
and should be clarified. The use of the collective term ``organic
solvent'' when describing alcohols, ketones and esters was cited.
EPA agrees and believes that ``Oxygenated organic solvent''
is more specific. This phrase was substituted in the final rule.
b. Unacceptable substitutes-no comments received. c. Pending
substitutes. One commenter suggested that other chlorinated
solvents, glycol ethers, glycol ether acetates and N-methyl
pyrollidone be forbidden as substitutes. EPA believes that when
used as directed and within the specified controls, these
substances
are safe alternative processes.
d. Other related issues-One commenter stated that ``coatings''
needs to be clarified to mean paint type coatings and not other
coatings such as lubricants and mold releases. The phrase coatings
is defined in the overview section to mean durable and decorative
coatings such as paint to clarify this application.
4. Preliminary Listing Decisions
a. Acceptable substitutes. (1) Solvent substitutes. (a)
Petroleum
distillates. Petroleum hydrocarbons are acceptable substitutes
for MCF in adhesives, coatings, and inks. The principal concern
with these substitutes is over risk to workers during manufacture
and use of the alternative solvent. However, the Agency's analysis
of these alternatives indicated that risks from use of petroleum
hydrocarbons are well understood and already subject to necessary
controls. For instance, although these solvents are flammable,
industry has a good record of safe use of these substitutes.
Additionally, certain of the petroleum hydrocarbons, for example
n-hexane, have low Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs), but the
Agency's survey of exposures in the workplace found that these
levels can successfully be attained if adequate ventilation
and appropriate work practices are implemented.
The Agency's analysis of the potential for risks to residents
in nearby communities did indicate the potential for adverse
effects near a site with industrial use of petroleum hydrocarbons
if a relatively toxic petroleum hydrocarbon is used. However,
the Agency does not believe that the risk screen describes the
true risk presented by these chemicals. First, the agency has
determined that petroleum hydrocarbons used in this sector are
rarely as toxic as n-hexane. Second, the screen used as past
MCF emissions as a proxy for emissions of n-hexane. This approach
does not account for other regulatory controls, such as VOC
controls, that limit emissions of hydrocarbons from industrial
sites, and would consequently also serve to lower any other
health risks to the general population from these chemicals.
For this reason, the Agency believes that petroleum hydrocarbons
merit use as substitutes, although it encourages manufacturers
to formulate products where possible with compounds with lowest
inherent toxicity.
(b) Alcohols, ketones, ethers and esters. Alcohols, ketones,
ethers and esters are acceptable substitutes for MCF in adhesives,
coatings, and inks. The concerns for use of these solvents parallel
the concerns associated with petroleum hydrocarbons. In this
case, two of the typical oxygenated hydrocarbons examined in
the Agency's risk screen, methyl ethyl ketone and methyl isobutyl
ketone, also have comparatively low toxicity. For the same reasons
described in the section on petroleum distillates, the Agency
is approving these compounds as substitutes for MCF. This approval
also includes the same guidance to manufacturers-to select
chemicals
for product formulations with lowest inherent toxicity.
(c) Chlorinated solvents. Perchloroethylene, methylene chloride
and trichloroethylene are acceptable substitutes for adhesives,
coatings, and inks. Use of these solvents merit special caution,
since they are suspected human carcinogens. However, as with
other solvents, the Agency's risk screen indicates that proper
workplace practices significantly reduce risks in occupational
settings. The Agency's examination of risks to the general
population
determined the highest potential for adverse effects to be
associated
with use of trichloroethylene, since it has the greatest cancer
potency. Clearly there is a need for further assessment of the
hazards from use of this chemical, and the Agency notes that
authorities exist to address any risks determined from such
analyses under Title III of the Clean Air Act. Title III lists
all three of the chlorinated solvents as Hazardous Air Pollutants,
and mandates development of Maximum Achievable Control Technology
standards to control emissions of these chemicals in various
industrial settings.
(d) Terpenes. Terpenes are acceptable substitutes for MCF
in adhesives, coatings, and inks. The principal environmental
concern with terpenes is their toxicity to aquatic life. In
applications for terpenes in adhesives, coatings, and inks,
however, the terpenes are both used and bound in the product
formulation, meaning that there are no discharges of wastewater
effluent that could present a risk. Other potential environmental
hazards associated with these compounds arise from their
flammability
and unpleasant odors, but these can be controlled by good workplace
practices.
(2) Water-based formulations/high-solid. Formulations. Water-
based formulations and high-solid formulations are acceptable
substitutes for MCF in adhesives, coatings, and inks. The Agency
did not identify any environmental or health concerns associated
with use of these products. These formulations do contain small
amounts of VOCs, but the increase in VOC loadings from these
products is expected to be extremely small in comparison to
VOC contributions from other sources.
(3) Alternative processes. Alternative processes, including
powder formulations, hot melt, thermoplastic plasma spray,
radiation-
based formulations, and moisture-cured, chemical-cured, and
reactive liquid alternatives, are all acceptable substitutes
for MCF in adhesives, coatings, and inks. The Agency did not
identify any health or environmental concerns associated with
use of these substitutes. Since this grouping includes such
a wide variety of products for which it is difficult to complete
an in-depth risk screen, the Agency solicits additional detail
on any potential environmental or health effects that merit
further investigation.
X. Additional Information
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993))
The Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is
``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of
the Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory
action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments
or communitites;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations
of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set
forth in the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this is not a ``significant
regulatory
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore
not subject to OMB review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-602, requires
that federal agencies examine the effects of their regulations
on small entities. Under 5 U.S.C. 604(a), whenever an agency
is required to publish a final rule-making, it must prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA). Such an analysis is
not required if the head of the Agency certifies that a rule
will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial
number of small entities, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
The Agency believes that this final rule will not have a
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities
and has therefore concluded that a formal RFA is unnecessary.
Because costs of the SNAP requirements as a whole are expected
to be minor, the rule is unlikely to adversely affect small
businesses, particularly as the rule exempts small sectors and
end-uses from reporting requirements and formal Agency review.
In fact, to the extent that information gathering is more expensive
and time-consuming for small companies, this rule may well provide
benefits for small businesses anxious to examine potential
substitutes
to any ozone-depleting class I and II substances they may be
using, by requiring manufacturers to make information on such
substitutes available.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule have
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and have
been assigned control number 2060-0226.
This collection of information has an estimated reporting
burden averaging 166 hours per response and an estimated annual
recordkeeping burden averaging 25 hours per recordkeeper. These
estimates include time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed,
and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions
for reducing this burden to Chief, Information Policy Branch;
EPA; 401 M Street, SW., (Mail Code 2136); Washington, DC 20460;
and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA.''
XI. References
1. United Nations Environment Programme, World Meteorological
Organization, et al. Scientific Assessment of Stratospheric
Ozone: 1991 (17 December 1991).
2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, World
Meteorological
Organization, United Nations Environment Programme. Climate
Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment (1990).
3. Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA),
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform) White Paper (May 1991).
Appendix A to the Preamble
Class I and Class II Ozone-Depleting Substances
Class I and Class II Ozone-Depleting Substances
Class I
Group I
Chlorofluorocarbon-11
CFC-11 (CFCl3); Trichlorofluoromethane
Chlorofluorocarbon-12
CFC-12 (CF2Cl2); Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chlorofluorocarbon-113
CFC-113 (C2F3Cl3); Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Chlorofluorocarbon-114
CFC-114 (C2F4Cl2); Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Chlorofluorocarbon-115
CFC-115 (C2F5Cl); Monochloropentafluoroethane
Group II
Halon-1211
(CF2ClBr); Bromochlorodifluoromethane
Halon-1301
(CF3Br); Bromotrifluoromethane
Halon-2402
(C2F4Br2); Dibromotetrafluoroethane Group III
Chlorofluorocarbon-13
CFC-13 (CF3Cl); Chlorotrifluoromethane
Chlorofluorocarbon-111
CFC-111 (C2FCl5); Pentachlorofluoroethane
Chlorofluorocarbon-112
CFC-112 (C2F2Cl4); Tetrachlorodifluoroethane
Chlorofluorocarbon-211
CFC-211 (C3FCl7); Heptachlorofluoropropane
Chlorofluorocarbon-212
CFC-212 (C3F2Cl6); Hexachlorodifluoropropane
Chlorofluorocarbon-213
CFC-213 (C3F3Cl5); Pentachlorotrifluoropropane
Chlorofluorocarbon-214
CFC-214 (C3F4Cl4); Tetrachlorotetrafluoropropane
Chlorofluorocarbon-215
CFC-215 (C3F5Cl3); Trichloropentafluoropropane
Chlorofluorocarbon-216
CFC-216 (C3F6Cl2); Dichlorohexafluoropropane
Chlorofluorocarbon-217
CFC-217 (C3F7Cl); Monochloroheptafluoropropane
Group IV
Carbon Tetrachloride
(CCl4)
Group V
Methyl Chloroform
(C2H3Cl3); 1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Group VI
Methyl Bromide
(CH3Br)
Group VII
Hydrobromofluorocarbons
(HBFCs)
Class II
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-21
HCFC-21 (CHFCl2); Dichlorofluoromethane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-22
HCFC-22 (CHF2Cl); Monochlorodifluoromethane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-31
HCFC-31 (CH2FCl); Monochlorofluoromethane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-121
HCFC-121 (C2HFCl4); Tetrachlorofluoroethane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-122
HCFC-122 (C2HF2Cl3); Trichlorodifluoroethane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-123
HCFC-123 (C2HF3Cl2); Dichlorotrifluoroethane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-124
HCFC-124 (C2HF4Cl); Monochlorotetrafluoroethane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-131
HCFC-131 (C2H2FCl3); Trichlorofluoroethane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-132B
HCFC-132B (C2H2F2Cl2); Dichlorodifluoroethane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-133A
HCFC-133A (C2H2F3Cl); Monochlorotrifluoroethane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-141B
HCFC-141B (C2H3FCl2); Dichlorofluoroethane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-142B
HCFC-142B (C2H3F2Cl); Monochlorodifluoroethane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-221
HCFC-221 (C3HFCl6); Hexachlorofluoropropane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-222
HCFC-222 (C3HF2Cl5); Pentachlorodifluoropropane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-223
HCFC-223 (C3HF3Cl4); Tetrachlorotrifluoropropane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-224
HCFC-224 (C3HF4Cl3); Trichlorotetrafluoropropane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-225CA
HCFC-225CA (C3HF5Cl2); Dichloropentafluoropropane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-225CB
HCFC-225CB (C3HF5Cl2); Dichloropentafluoropropane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-226
HCFC-226 (C3HF6Cl); Monochlorohexafluoropropane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-231
HCFC-231 (C3H2FCl5); Pentachlorofluoropropane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-232
HCFC-232 (C3H2F2Cl4) Tetrachlorodifluoropropane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-233
HCFC-233 (C3H2F3Cl3); Trichlorotrifluoropropane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-234
HCFC-234 (C3H2F4Cl2); Dichlorotetrafluoropropane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-235
HCFC-235 (C3H2F5Cl); Monochloropentafluoropropane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-241
HCFC-241 (C3H3FCl4); Tetrachlorofluoropropane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-242
HCFC-242 (C3H3F2Cl3); Trichlorodifluoropropane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-243
HCFC-243 (C3H3F3Cl2) Dichlorotrifluoropropane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-244
HCFC-244 (C3H3F4Cl); Monochlorotetrafluoropropane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-251
HCFC-251 (C3H4FCl3); Trichlorofluoropropane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-252
HCFC-252 (C3H4F2Cl2) Dichlorodifluoropropane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-253
HCFC-253 (C3H4F3Cl); Monochlorotrifluoropentane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-261
HCFC-261 (C3H5FCl2); Dichlorofluoropropane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-262
HCFC-262 (C3H5F2Cl); Monochlorodifluoropropane
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-271
HCFC-271 (C3H6FCl); Monochlorofluoropropane
Appendix B to the Preamble
Summary of Listing Decisions
Refrigerants
Acceptable Substitutes
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³ Decision
³ Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³
CF-11 centrifugal ³ HCFC-123 ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA worker-monitoring studies of
chillers ³ ³
³ 123 show that 8-hour TWA can be
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ kept within 1 ppm (well under the
³ ³
³ AEL of 30 ppm) when recycling and
³ ³
³ ASHRAE standards are followed.
³ ³
³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations concerning HCFCs.
CFC-12 centrifugal ³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
chillers ³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ this substitute.
CFC-113 ³ None ............. ³ Acceptable
......... ³ ..................................
centrifugal ³ ³
³
chillers ³ ³
³
(retrofit). ³ ³
³
CFC-114 ³ HCFC-124 ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
centrifugal ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
chillers. ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
(retrofit). ³ ³
³
R-500 centrifugal ³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
chillers ³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ this substitute.
CFC-11, CFC-12, ³ HCFC-123 ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA worker-monitoring studies of
CFC-113, CFC-114, ³ ³
³ 123 show that 8-hour TWA can be
R-500 centrifugal ³ ³
³ kept within 1 ppm (well under the
chillers (new ³ ³
³ AEL of 30 ppm) when recycling and
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³ ASHRAE standards are followed.
³ ³
³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations concerning HCFCs.
³ HCFC-124 ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ HCFC-22 .......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ HFC-227ea ........ ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ Ammonia vapor ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Users should check local building
³ compression ³
³ codes related to the use of
³ ³
³ ammonia.
³ Evaporative ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Alternative technology that is
³ cooling ³
³ currently commercially available;
³ ³
³ new developments have greatly
³ ³
³ expanded applicability.
³ Desiccant cooling ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Alternative technology that is
³ ³
³ currently commercially available;
³ ³
³ new developments have greatly
³ ³
³ expanded applicability.
³ Ammonia/water ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Alternative technology that is
³ absorption ³
³ currently commercially available;
³ ³
³ new developments have greatly
³ ³
³ expanded applicability.
³ Water/lithium ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Alternative technology that is
³ bromide ³
³ currently commercially available;
³ absorption ³
³ new developments have greatly
³ ³
³ expanded applicability.
³ Stirling cycle ... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Alternative technology.
CFC-12 ³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
reciprocating ³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
chillers. ³ ³
³ this substitute.
(retrofit). ³ ³
³
CFC-12 ³ HCFC-22 .......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
reciprocating ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
chillers (new. ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³
³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ HFC-227ea ........ ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ Evaporative ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Alternative technology that is
³ cooling ³
³ currently commercially available;
³ ³
³ new developments have greatly
³ ³
³ expanded applicability.
³ Desiccant cooling ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Alternative technology that is
³ ³
³ currently commercially available;
³ ³
³ new developments have greatly
³ ³
³ expanded applicability.
³ Stirling cycle ... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Alternative technology.
CFC-11, CFC-12, R- ³ HCFC-22 .......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
502 industrial ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
process. ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
refrigeration ³ ³
³
(retrofit). ³ ³
³
³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-401A ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-401B ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-402A ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-402B ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-404A ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-507 ............ ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ Ammonia vapor ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Users should check local building
³ compression ³
³ codes related to the use of
³ ³
³ ammonia.
³ Propane .......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA recommends that this
³ ³
³ substitute be used only at
³ ³
³ industrial facilities that
³ ³
³ manufacture or use hydrocarbons
³ ³
³ in the process stream.
³ Propylene ........ ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA recommends that this
³ ³
³ substitute be used only at
³ ³
³ industrial facilities that
³ ³
³ manufacture or use hydrocarbons
³ ³
³ in the process stream.
³ Butane ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA recommends that this
³ ³
³ substitute be used only at
³ ³
³ industrial facilities that
³ ³
³ manufacture or use hydrocarbons
³ ³
³ in the process stream.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA recommends that this
³ A ³
³ substitute be used only at
³ ³
³ industrial facilities that
³ ³
³ manufacture or use hydrocarbons
³ ³
³ in the process stream.
³ Chlorine ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA recommends that this
³ ³
³ substitute be used only at
³ ³
³ industrial facilities that
³ ³
³ manufacture or use chlorine in
³ ³
³ the process stream.
CFC-11, CFC-12, R- ³ HCFC-22 .......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
502 industrial ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
process. ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
refrigeration ³ ³
³
(new equipment/ ³ ³
³
NIKs). ³ ³
³
³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ HFC-227ea......... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-402A............ ³
Acceptable.......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-402B............ ³
Acceptable.......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-404A............ ³
Acceptable.......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-507............. ³
Acceptable.......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ Ammonia vapor ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Users should check local building
³ compression ³
³ codes related to the use of
³ ³
³ ammonia.
³ Propane........... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ EPA recommends that this
³ ³
³ substitute be used only at
³ ³
³ industrial facilities that
³ ³
³ manufacture or use hydrocarbons
³ ³
³ in the process stream.
³ Propylene......... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ EPA recommends that this
³ ³
³ substitute be used only at
³ ³
³ industrial facilities that
³ ³
³ manufacture or use hydrocarbons
³ ³
³ in the process stream.
³ Butane............ ³
Acceptable.......... ³ EPA recommends that this
³ ³
³ substitute be used only at
³ ³
³ industrial facilities that
³ ³
³ manufacture or use hydrocarbons
³ ³
³ in the process stream.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³
Acceptable.......... ³ EPA recommends that this
³ A ³
³ substitute be used only at
³ ³
³ industrial facilities that
³ ³
³ manufacture or use hydrocarbons
³ ³
³ in the process stream.
³ Chlorine.......... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ EPA recommends that this
³ ³
³ substitute be used only at
³ ³
³ industrial facilities that
³ ³
³ manufacture or use chlorine in
³ ³
³ the process stream.
³ Evaporative ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Alternative technology that is
³ cooling ³
³ currently commercially available;
³ ³
³ new developments have greatly
³ ³
³ expanded applicability.
³ Desiccant cooling. ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Alternative technology that is
³ ³
³ currently commercially available;
³ ³
³ new developments have greatly
³ ³
³ expanded applicability.
³ Stirling cycle.... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Alternative technology.
CFC-114 industrial ³ HCFC-124.......... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ This substitute is subject to
process air ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
conditioning. ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
(retrofit). ³ ³
³
CFC-114 industrial ³ HCFC-124.......... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ This substitute is subject to
process air ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
conditioning (new)³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
CFC-12, R-502 ice ³ HCFC-22........... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ This substitute is subject to
skating rinks ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ HFC-134a.......... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-401A............ ³
Acceptable.......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-401B............ ³
Acceptable.......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ Ammonia vapor ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Users should check local building
³ compression ³
³ codes related to the use of
³ ³
³ ammonia.
CFC-12, R-502 ice ³ HCFC-22........... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ This substitute is subject to
skating rinks ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
(new equipment/. ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
NIKs). ³ ³
³
³ HFC-134a.......... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ Ammonia vapor ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Users should check local building
³ compression ³
³ codes related to the use of
³ ³
³ ammonia.
CFC-114 uranium ³ C4F8.............. ³
Acceptable.......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
isotope ³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
separation. ³ ³
³ this substitute.
processing ³ ³
³
(retrofit). ³ ³
³
³ C4F10............. ³
Acceptable.......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ C5F12............. ³
Acceptable.......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ C6F14............. ³
Acceptable.......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ C5F11NO........... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
CFC-12, R-502 cold ³ HCFC-22........... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ This substitute is subject to
storage ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
warehouses. ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
(retrofit). ³ ³
³
³ HFC-134a.......... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-401A............ ³
Acceptable.......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-401B............ ³
Acceptable.......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-402A............ ³
Acceptable.......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-402B............ ³
Acceptable.......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-404A............ ³
Acceptable.......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-507............. ³
Acceptable.......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
CFC-12, R-502 cold ³ HCFC-22........... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ This substitute is subject to
storage ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
warehouses (new. ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³
³ HFC-134a.......... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ HFC-227ea......... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-402A............ ³
Acceptable.......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-402B............ ³
Acceptable.......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-404A............ ³
Acceptable.......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-507............. ³
Acceptable.......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ Ammonia vapor ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Users should check local building
³ compression ³
³ codes related to the use of
³ ³
³ ammonia.
³ Evaporative ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Alternative technology that is
³ cooling ³
³ currently commercially available;
³ ³
³ new developments have greatly
³ ³
³ expanded applicability.
³ Desiccant cooling ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Alternative technology that is
³ ³
³ currently commercially available;
³ ³
³ new developments have greatly
³ ³
³ expanded applicability.
³ High to low ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Alternative technology.
³ pressure stepdown ³
³
³ Stirling cycle ... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Alternative technology.
CFC-12, R-500, R- ³ HCFC-22 .......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
502 refrigerated ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
transport. ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
(retrofit). ³ ³
³
³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-401A ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-401B ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-402A ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-402B ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-404A ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-507 ............ ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
CFC-12, R-500, R- ³ HCFC-22 .......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
502 refrigerated ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
transport (new. ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³
³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-402A ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-402B ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-404A ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-507 ............ ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ Stirling cycle ... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Alternative technology that is
³ ³
³ currently commercially available.
³ Nitrogen direct ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Alternative technology.
³ gas expansion ³
³
CFC-12, R-502 ³ HCFC-22 .......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
retail food ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
refrigeration. ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
(retrofit). ³ ³
³
³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-401A ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-401B ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-402A ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-402B ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-404A ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-507 ............ ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
CFC-12, R-502, ³ HCFC-22 .......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
retail food ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
refrigeration. ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
(new equipment/ ³ ³
³
NIKs). ³ ³
³
³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ HFC-227ea ........ ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-402A ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-402B ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-404A ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-507 ............ ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ Ammonia vapor ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Users should check local building
³ compression ³
³ codes related to the use of
³ ³
³ ammonia.
³ Stirling cycle ... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Alternative technology.
CFC-12, R-502 ³ R-401A ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
commercial ice ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
machines. ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
(retrofit). ³ ³
³
³ R-401B ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-402A ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-402B ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-404A ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-507 ............ ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
CFC-12, R-502 ³ HCFC-22 .......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
commercial ice ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
machines (new. ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³
³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-402A ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-402B ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-404A ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-507 ............ ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ Ammonia vapor ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Users should check local building
³ compression ³
³ codes related to the use of
³ ³
³ ammonia.
³ Stirling cycle ... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Alternative technology.
CFC-12 vending ³ HCFC-22 .......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
machines ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-401A ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-401B ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
CFC-12 vending ³ HCFC-22 .......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
machines (new ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ Stirling cycle ... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Alternative technology.
CFC-12 water ³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
coolers (retrofit)³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-401A ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-401B ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
CFC-12 water ³ HCFC-22 .......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
coolers (new ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ Stirling cycle ... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Alternative technology.
CFC-12 household ³ HCFC-22 .......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
refrigerators ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-401A ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-401B ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ HCFC blend alpha . ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
CFC-12 household ³ HCFC-22 .......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
refrigerators ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
(new equipment/. ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
NIKs). ³ ³
³
³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ HFC-152a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ HCFC blend alpha . ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R200b ............ ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute's composition is
³ ³
³ confidential. Its use may be
³ ³
³ governed by regulations
³ ³
³ concerning the use of ozone-
³ ³
³ depleting substances.
³ Stirling cycle ... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Alternative technology currently
³ ³
³ under development for this end-
³ ³
³ use.
CFC-12, R-502 ³ HCFC-22 .......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
household ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
freezers. ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
(retrofit). ³ ³
³
³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-401A ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-401B ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
CFC-12, R-502 ³ HCFC-22 .......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
household ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
freezers (new. ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³
³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ HFC-152a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ Stirling cycle ... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Alternative technology.
CFC-12, R-500 ³ HCFC-22 .......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
residential ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
dehumidifiers. ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
(retrofit). ³ ³
³
³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
³ R-401A ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ R-401B ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
CFC-12, R-500 ³ HCFC-22 .......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
residential ³ ³
³ containment and recovery
dehumidifiers. ³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
(new equipment/ ³ ³
³
NIKs). ³ ³
³
³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
³ ³
³ this substitute.
CFC-12 motor ³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
vehicle air ³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
conditioners. ³ ³
³ this substitute.
(retrofit). ³ ³
³
³ R-401C ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
CFC-12 motor ³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ EPA strongly recommends the
vehicle air ³ ³
³ containment and reclamation of
conditioners (new ³ ³
³ this substitute.
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³
³ R-401C ........... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ This substitute is subject to
³ ³
³ containment and recovery
³ ³
³ regulations covering HCFCs.
³ Evaporative ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Alternative technology that is
³ cooling ³
³ currently commercially available;
³ ³
³ new developments have greatly
³ ³
³ expanded applicability.
³ CO2 .............. ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Alternative technology.
³ Stirling cycle ... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Alternative technology currently
³ ³
³ under development for this end-
³ ³
³ use.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Refrigerants
Unacceptable Substitutes
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³ Decision
³ Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³
CFC-11 centrifugal ³ HCFC-141b ........ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Has a high ODP relative to other
chillers. ³ ³
³ alternatives.
(retrofit). ³ ³
³
CFC-12 centrifugal ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
chillers. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-11, CFC-12, ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
CFC-113, CFC-114, ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
R-500 centrifugal ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
chillers (new. ³ ³
³ substances.
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
³ HCFC-141b ........ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Has a high ODP relative to other
³ ³
³ alternatives.
CFC-12 ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
reciprocating. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
chillers ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12 ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
reciprocating. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
chillers (new ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-11, CFC-12, R- ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
502 industrial. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
process ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
refrigeration. ³ ³
³ substances.
(retrofit). ³ ³
³
CFC-11, CFC-12, R- ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
502 industrial. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
process ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
refrigeration. ³ ³
³ substances.
(new equipment/ ³ ³
³
NIKs). ³ ³
³
CFC-12, R-502 ice ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
skating rinks. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 ice ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
skating rinks. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
(new equipment/ ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
NIKs). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 cold ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
storage. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
warehouses ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 cold ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
storage. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
warehouses (new ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-500, R- ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
502 refrigerated. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
transport ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-500, R- ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
502 refrigerated. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
transport (new ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
retail food. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
refrigeration ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
retail food. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
refrigeration ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
(new equipment/. ³ ³
³ substances.
NIKs). ³ ³
³
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
commercial ice. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
machines ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
commercial ice. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
machines (new ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12 vending ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
machines. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12 vending ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
machines (new. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12 Water ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
coolers (retrofit)³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12 water ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
coolers (new. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12 household ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
refrigerators. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12 household ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
refrigerators. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
(new equipment/ ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
NIKs). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
household. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
freezers ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
household. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
freezers (new ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-500 ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
residential. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
dehumidifiers ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-500 ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
residential. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
dehumidifiers ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
(new equipment/. ³ ³
³ substances.
NIKs). ³ ³
³
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12 motor ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
vehicle air. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
conditioners ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12 motor ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
vehicle air. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
conditioners (new ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon Blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Refrigerants
Pending Decisions
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Application ³ Substitute ³
Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
CFC-11, CFC-113, ³ Perfluoropropane ......... ³ EPA
requests additional data on the use. of
CFC-114. ³ ³ all
substitutes for this end-use.
recirculating ³ ³
coolers. ³ ³
³ Perfluorobutane .......... ³ EPA
requests additional data on the use. of
³ ³ all
substitutes for this end-use.
³ Perfluoropentane ......... ³ EPA
requests additional data on the use. of
³ ³ all
substitutes for this end-use.
³ Perfluorohexane .......... ³ EPA
requests additional data on the use. of
³ ³ all
substitutes for this end-use.
³ Perfluoroheptane ......... ³ EPA
requests additional data on the use. of
³ ³ all
substitutes for this end-use.
³ Perfluorooctane .......... ³ EPA
requests additional data on the use. of
³ ³ all
substitutes for this end-use.
³ Perfluoro-N-methyl ³ EPA
requests additional data on the use. of
³ morphine ³ all
substitutes for this end-use.
³ Perfluoro-N-ethyl morphine ³ EPA
requests additional data on the use. of
³ ³ all
substitutes for this end-use.
³ Perfluoro-N-isopropyl ³ EPA
requests additional data on the use. of
³ morphine ³ all
substitutes for this end-use.
CFC-11, CFC-113, ³ Perfluoropropane ......... ³ EPA
requests additional data on the use. of
CFC-114. ³ ³ all
substitutes for this end-use.
thermosyphons. ³ ³
³ Perfluorobutane .......... ³ EPA
requests additional data on the use. of
³ ³ all
substitutes for this end-use.
³ Perfluoropentane ......... ³ EPA
requests additional data on the use. of
³ ³ all
substitutes for this end-use.
³ Perfluorohexane .......... ³ EPA
requests additional data on the use. of
³ ³ all
substitutes for this end-use.
³ Perfluoroheptane ......... ³ EPA
requests additional data on the use. of
³ ³ all
substitutes for this end-use.
³ Perfluorooctane .......... ³ EPA
requests additional data on the use. of
³ ³ all
substitutes for this end-use.
³ Perfluoro-N-methyl ³ EPA
requests additional data on the use. of
³ morphine ³ all
substitutes for this end-use.
³ Perfluoro-N-ethyl morphine ³ EPA
requests additional data on the use. of
³ ³ all
substitutes for this end-use.
³ Perfluoro-N-isopropyl ³ EPA
requests additional data on the use. of
³ morphine ³ all
substitutes for this end-use.
CFC-12 Motor ³ HCFC Blend Beta .......... ³ EPA has
requested additional data.
vehicle air ³ ³
conditioning. ³ ³
CFC-12 Cold ³ R200a .................... ³ EPA has
requested additional data.
storage. ³ ³
CFC-12 Chillers, ³ HFC-227ea ................ ³ EPA has
not yet concluded review of the
heat pumps and. ³ ³ data.
commercial ³ ³
refrigeration ³ ³
systems. ³ ³
CFC-13, R-503 very ³ HFC-23 ................... ³ EPA
requests additional data on the use. of
low temperature. ³ ³ all
substitutes for this end-use.
refrigeration. ³ ³
³ PFC Blend Alpha .......... ³ EPA has
not yet concluded review of the
³ ³ data.
³ PFC Blend Beta ........... ³ EPA has
not yet concluded review of the
³ ³ data.
CFC-114 ³ R200b .................... ³ EPA has
not yet concluded review of the
Centrifugal. ³ ³ data.
chillers (new ³ ³
equipment/ ³ ³
alternative ³ ³
substances). ³ ³
³ R200c .................... ³ EPA has
not yet concluded review of the
³ ³ data.
³ R200g .................... ³ EPA has
not yet concluded review of the
³ ³ data.
³ R200i .................... ³ EPA has
not yet concluded review of the
³ ³ data.
³ R200j .................... ³ EPA has
not yet concluded review of the
³ ³ data.
CFC-114 chillers, ³ HFC-227ea ................ ³ EPA has
not yet concluded review of the
heat pumps and. ³ ³ data.
commercial ³ ³
refrigeration ³ ³
systems. ³ ³
R-502 Cold storage ³ R200a .................... ³ EPA has
not yet concluded review of the
³ ³ data.
HCFC-22 Heat pumps ³ HFC-134a ................. ³ EPA has
not yet evaluated Class II
³ ³
substitutes.
³ HFC-152a ................. ³ EPA has
not yet evaluated Class II
³ ³
substitutes.
³ HFC-32 ................... ³ EPA has
not yet evaluated Class II
³ ³
substitutes.
³ HFC-125/HFC-134a/HFC-32 .. ³ EPA has
not yet evaluated Class II
³ ³
substitutes.
³ R200a .................... ³ EPA has
not yet evaluated Class II
³ ³
substitutes.
HCFC-22 ³ HFC-125/HFC-134a/HFC-32 .. ³ EPA has
not yet evaluated Class II
Conventional. ³ ³
substitutes.
(house.hold) air ³ ³
conditioning. ³ ³
³ R200a .................... ³ EPA has
not yet evaluated Class II
³ ³
substitutes.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Foam Sector
Acceptable Substitutes
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³ Decision
³ Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³
CFC-11 Rigid ³ HCFC-123 ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Worker monitoring studies indicate
polyurethane and ³ ³
³ AEL for 123 (30 ppm) can be
polyisocyanurate ³ ³
³ achieved with increased
laminated ³ ³
³ ventilation, where needed.
boardstock. ³ ³
³ Availability is limited.
³ HCFC-141b ........ ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Has highest ODP of HCFCs.
³ HCFC-142b ........ ³ Acceptable
......... ³
³ HCFC-22 .......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³
³ HCFC-22/HCFC-141b ³ Acceptable
......... ³ HCFC-141b.
³ blends ³
³
³ HCFC-141b/HCFC-123 ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Recent worker monitoring studies
³ blends ³
³ indicate OEL for 123 (10 ppm) can
³ ³
³ be achieved with increased
³ ³
³ ventilation, where needed. Fairly
³ ³
³ good energy efficiency properties.
³ HCFC-22/HCFC-142b ³ Acceptable
......... ³
³ blends ³
³
³ HFC-134a ........ ³ Acceptable
......... ³
³ HCFC-152a ........ ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Flammability may be an issue for
³ ³
³ workers and consumers.
³ Saturated light ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Flammability may be an issue for
³ hydrocarbons C3- ³
³ workers and consumers. Major
³ C6 ³
³ sources of VOC emissions are
³ ³
³ subject to the New Source Review
³ ³
³ (NSR) program.
³ 2-Chloropropane .. ³ Acceptable
......... ³
³ Carbon dioxide ... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Has highest thermal conductivity
³ ³
³ relative to other acceptable
³ ³
³ substitutes in this end use.
CFC-11 ³ HCFC-22 (for ³ Acceptable
......... ³
Polyurethane, ³ blends thereof) ³
³
rigid appliance. ³ ³
³
³ HCFC-123 (or ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Recent worker monitoring studies
³ blends thereof) ³
³ indicate OEL for 123 (30 ppm) can
³ ³
³ be achieved with increased
³ ³
³ ventilation, where needed. Easy
³ ³
³ to use as a retrofit; energy
³ ³
³ efficiency close to CFC-11.
³ ³
³ Current availability is limited.
³ HCFC-141b (or ³ Acceptable
......... ³ HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11,
³ blends thereof) ³
³ almost equivalent to that of
³ ³
³ methyl chloroform, a Class I
³ ³
³ substance. Fairly good energy
³ ³
³ efficiency properties.
³ HCFC-142b (or ³ Acceptable
......... ³
³ blends thereof) ³
³
³ HFC-134a (or ³ Acceptable
......... ³
³ blends thereof) ³
³
³ HCFC-152a (or ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Flammability may be an issue for
³ blends thereof) ³
³ workers and consumers.
³ Saturated light ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Flammability may be an issue for
³ hydrocarbons C3- ³
³ workers and consumers. Major
³ C6 (or blends ³
³ sources of VOC emissions are
³ thereof) ³
³ subject to the New Source Review
³ ³
³ (NSR) program.
³ Carbon dioxide (or ³ Acceptable
......... ³
³ blends thereof) ³
³
CFC-11 ³ HCFC-22 (or blends ³ Acceptable
³ ..................................
Polyurethane, ³ thereof) ³
³
rigid commercial. ³ ³
³
Refrigeration ³ HCFC-123 (or ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Recent worker monitoring studies
foams, spray. ³ blends thereof) ³
³ indicate AEL for 123 (30 ppm) can
foams and ³ ³
³ be achieved with use of increased
sandwich panel ³ ³
³ ventilation, where needed. Easy
foams. ³ ³
³ to use as a retrofit; energy
³ ³
³ efficiency close to CFC-11.
³ ³
³ Availability is limited.
³ HCFC-141b (or ³ Acceptable
......... ³ HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11,
³ blends thereof) ³
³ almost equivalent to that of
³ ³
³ methyl chloroform, a Class I
³ ³
³ substance. Fairly good energy
³ ³
³ efficiency properties.
³ HCFC-142b (or ³ Acceptable
³ ..................................
³ blends thereof) ³
³
³ HFC-134a (or ³ Acceptable
³ ..................................
³ blends thereof) ³
³
³ HFC-152a (or ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Flammability may be an issue for
³ blends thereof) ³
³ workers and consumers.
³ Saturated light ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Flammability may be an issue for
³ hydrocarbons C3- ³
³ workers and consumers. Major
³ C6 (or blends ³
³ sources of VOC emissions are
³ thereof) ³
³ subject to the New Source Review
³ ³
³ (NSR) program.
³ Carbon dioxide (or ³ Acceptable
³ ..................................
³ blends thereof) ³
³
CFC-11 ³ HCFC-22 (or blends ³ Acceptable
³ ..................................
Polyurethane, ³ thereof) ³
³
rigid slabstock ³ ³
³
and other. ³ ³
³
³ HCFC-141b (or ³ Acceptable
......... ³ HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11,
³ blends thereof) ³
³ almost equivalent to that of
³ ³
³ methyl chloroform, a Class I
³ ³
³ substance.
³ HCFC-123 (or ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Recent worker monitoring studies
³ blends thereof) ³
³ indicate AEL for 123 (30 ppm) can
³ ³
³ be achieved by increased
³ ³
³ ventilation, where needed.
³ ³
³ Availability is limited.
³ HFC-134a (or ³ Acceptable
³ ..................................
³ blends thereof) ³
³
³ HFC-152a (or ³ Acceptable
³ ..................................
³ blends thereof) ³
³
³ Saturated light ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Flammability may be an issue for
³ Hydrocarbons C3- ³
³ workers and consumers. Major
³ C6 (or blends ³
³ sources of VOC emissions are
³ thereof) ³
³ subject to the New Source Review
³ ³
³ (NSR) program.
³ Carbon dioxide (or ³ Acceptable
³ ..................................
³ blends thereof) ³
³
CFC-12 Polystyrene,³ HCFC-22........... ³ Acceptable
³ ..................................
extruded ³ ³
³
boardstock and ³ ³
³
billet. ³ ³
³
³ HCFC-142b......... ³ Acceptable
³ ..................................
³ HCFC-22/142b ³ Acceptable
³ ..................................
³ blends ³
³
³ HFC-22/142b blends ³ Acceptable
³ ..................................
³ ³
³
³ HFC-134a.......... ³ Acceptable
³ ..................................
³ HFC-152a.......... ³ Acceptable
³ Flammability may be an issue for
³ ³
³ workers and consumers.
³ Saturated light ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Flammability may be an issue for
³ hydrocarbons C3- ³
³ workers and consumers. Major
³ C6 ³
³ sources of VOC emissions are
³ ³
³ subject to the New Source Review
³ ³
³ (NSR) program.
³ HCFC-22/Saturated ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Flammability may be an issue for
³ light ³
³ workers and consumers. Major
³ hydrocarbons ³
³ sources of VOC emissions are
³ ³
³ subject to the New Source Review
³ ³
³ (NSR) program.
³ Carbon dioxide.... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ High thermal conductivity compared
³ ³
³ to other acceptable substitutes
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-11, CFC-113 ³ HCFC-141b......... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11,
Phenolic, ³ ³
³ almost equivalent to that of
insulation board. ³ ³
³ methyl chloroform, a Class I
³ ³
³ substance. Fairly good energy
³ ³
³ efficiency properties.
³ HCFC-142b......... ³
Acceptable.......... ³
³ HCFC-22........... ³
Acceptable.......... ³
³ HCFC-22/142b ..... ³
Acceptable.......... ³
³ HCFC-22/Saturated ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Flammability may be an issue for
³ light ³
³ workers and consumers.
³ hydrocarbons C3- ³
³
³ C6 ³
³
³ Saturated light ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Major sources of VOC emissions are
³ hydrocarbons C3- ³
³ subject to the New Source Review
³ C6 ³
³ (NSR) program. Flammability may
³ ³
³ be an issue for workers and
³ ³
³ consumers.
³ HFC-143a.......... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Has relatively high global warming
³ ³
³ potential compared to other
³ ³
³ acceptable substitutes in this
³ ³
³ end-use.
³ 2-Chloropropane... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Proprietary technology.
³ ³
³ Flammability may be an issue for
³ ³
³ workers and consumers.
³ Carbon dioxide.... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ High thermal conductivity relative
³ ³
³ to other acceptable substitutes
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-11 ³ HFC-134a (or ³ Acceptable
³
Polyurethane, ³ blends thereof) ³
³
flexible. ³ ³
³
³ HFC-152a (or ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Flammability may be an issue for
³ blends thereof) ³
³ workers and consumers.
³ Methylene chloride ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Revised OSHA PELs have been
³ (or blends ³
³ proposed at 25 ppm (TWA) for
³ thereof) ³
³ methylene chloride (Nov. 7, 1991)
³ ³
³ . Subject to meeting all future
³ ³
³ ambient air controls for
³ ³
³ hazardous air pollutants under
³ ³
³ Title III section 112 of the 1990
³ ³
³ CAAA. RCRA standards must be met.
³ Acetone (or blends ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Regulated as a VOC under Title I
³ thereof) ³
³ of the Clean Air Act. Major
³ ³
³ sources of VOC emissions are
³ ³
³ subject to the New Source Review
³ ³
³ (NSR) program. Flammability may
³ ³
³ be an issue for workers and
³ ³
³ consumers.
³ AB technology..... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ AB generates more carbon monoxide
³ ³
³ (CO) than other blowing agents.
³ ³
³ OSHA has set a PEL for CO at 35
³ ³
³ ppm TWA with a ceiling of 200 ppm.
³ Carbon dioxide (or ³ Acceptable
³
³ blends thereof) ³
³
CFC-11 ³ HCFC-22 (or blends ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Use restricted by section 610 Non-
Polyurethane, ³ thereof) ³
³ Essential Use Ban to motor
integral skin. ³ ³
³ vehicle safety foams. See HCFC
³ ³
³ discussion in Preamble for detail.
³ HCFC-123 (or ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Use restricted by section 610 Non-
³ blends thereof) ³
³ Essential Use Ban to motor
³ ³
³ vehicle safety foams. See HCFC
³ ³
³ discussion in Preamble for detail.
³ ³
³ Worker monitoring studies
³ ³
³ indicate AEL for HCFC-123 (30 ppm)
³ ³
³ can be achieved with increased
³ ³
³ ventilation, where needed. Very
³ ³
³ easy to use a retrofit; energy
³ ³
³ efficiency close to CFC-11.
³ ³
³ Supply is currently limited.
³ HCFC-141b (or ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Use restricted by section 610 Non-
³ blends thereof) ³
³ Essential Use Ban to motor
³ ³
³ vehicle safety foams. See HCFC
³ ³
³ discussion in Preamble for detail.
³ ³
³ HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11,
³ ³
³ almost equivalent to that of
³ ³
³ methyl chloroform, a class I
³ ³
³ substance.
³ HFC-134a (or ³ Acceptable
³
³ blends thereof) ³
³
³ HFC-152a (or ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Flammability may be an issue for
³ blends thereof) ³
³ workers and consumers.
³ Saturated light ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Major sources of VOC emissions are
³ hydrocarbons C3- ³
³ subject to the New Source Review
³ C6 (or blends ³
³ (NSR) program. Flammability may
³ thereof) ³
³ be an issue for workers and
³ ³
³ consumers.
³ Methylene chloride ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Revised OSHA PELs have been
³ (or blends ³
³ proposed at 25 ppm (TWA) for
³ thereof) ³
³ methylene chloride (Nov. 7, 1991)
³ ³
³ . Subject to meeting all future
³ ³
³ ambient air controls for
³ ³
³ hazardous air pollutant under
³ ³
³ Title III section 112 of the 1990
³ ³
³ CAA Amendments. RCRA standards
³ ³
³ must be met.
³ Carbon dioxide (or ³ Acceptable
³
³ blends thereof) ³
³
CFC-12 Polystyrene,³ HFC-134a (or ³ Acceptable
³
extruded sheet. ³ blends thereof) ³
³
³ HFC-152a (or ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Flammability may be an issue for
³ blends thereof) ³
³ workers and consumers.
³ Saturated light ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Major sources of VOC emissions are
³ hydrocarbons C3- ³
³ subject to the New Source Review
³ C6 (or blends ³
³ (NSR) program. Flammability may
³ thereof) ³
³ be an issue for workers and
³ ³
³ consumers.
³ Carbon dioxide (or ³ Acceptable
³
³ blends thereof) ³
³
CFC-12, CFC-114, ³ HCFC-22 .......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Use restricted under section 610
CFC-11 Polyolefin ³ ³
³ Non-Essential Use Ban to
³ ³
³ polyethylene thermal insulating
³ ³
³ applications. See HCFC discussion
³ ³
³ in Preamble for detail.
³ HCFC-142b ........ ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Use restricted under section 610
³ ³
³ Non-Essential Use Ban to
³ ³
³ polyethylene thermal insulating
³ ³
³ applications. See HCFC discussion
³ ³
³ in Preamble for detail.
³ HCFC-22/HCFC-142b ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Use restricted under section 610
³ ³
³ Non-Essential Use Ban to
³ ³
³ polyethylene thermal insulating
³ ³
³ applications. See HCFC discussion
³ ³
³ in Preamble for detail.
³ HCFC-22/Saturated ³ Acceptable
......... ³ HCFC use restricted to thermal
³ light ³
³ insulating applications under
³ hydrocarbons C3- ³
³ section 610 Non-Essential Use Ban.
³ C6 ³
³ Major sources of VOC emissions
³ ³
³ are subject to the New Source
³ ³
³ Review (NSR) program.
³ ³
³ Flammability may be an issue for
³ ³
³ workers and consumers.
³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable
³
³ HFC-143a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Has relatively high global warming
³ ³
³ potential compared to other
³ ³
³ acceptable substitutes in this
³ ³
³ end-use.
³ HFC-152a ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Flammability may be an issue for
³ ³
³ workers and consumers.
³ Saturated light ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Major sources of VOC emissions are
³ hydrocarbons C3- ³
³ subject to the New Source Review
³ C6 ³
³ (NSR) program. Flammability may
³ ³
³ be an issue for workers and
³ ³
³ consumers.
³ Carbon dioxide ... ³ Acceptable
³
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Foams
Unacceptable Substitutes
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³ Decision
³ Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³
CFC-11 Polyolefin ³ HCFC-141b (or ³ Unacceptable
........ ³ HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11,
³ blends thereof) ³
³ almost equivalent to that of
³ ³
³ methyl chloroform, a Class I
³ ³
³ substance. The Agency believes
³ ³
³ that non-ODP alternatives are
³ ³
³ sufficiently available to render
³ ³
³ the use of HCFC-141b unnecessary
³ ³
³ in polyolefin foams.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Foams
Pending Substitutes
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³
Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
CFC-11, CFC-113 ³ Alternative products: ³ Agency
has not completed review of data.
Polyurethane and ³ expanded polystyrene, ³
polyisocyanurate, ³ fiberboard, fiberglass ³
rigid laminated ³ ³
boardstock. ³ ³
CFC-11, CFC-113 ³ Alternative products: ³ Agency
has not completed review of data.
Rigid. ³ fiberglass, vacuum panels ³
polyurethane, ³ ³
appliance foams. ³ ³
CFC-11 ³ Alternative products: ³ Agency
has not completed review of data.
Polyurethane, ³ fiberglass, expanded ³
rigid slabstock. ³ polystyrene ³
and other. ³ ³
CFC-11 ³ Alternative products: ³ Agency
has not completed review of data.
Polyurethane, ³ fiberglass, expanded ³
rigid spray and. ³ polystyrene ³
commercial ³ ³
refrigeration ³ ³
foams, and ³ ³
sandwich panels. ³ ³
CFC-11, CFC-113 ³ Alternative products: ³ Agency
has not completed review of data.
Phenolic. ³ fiberglass, expanded ³
³ polystyrene ³
CFC-11 ³ Alternative processes: ³ Agency
has not completed review of data.
Polyurethane, ³ Enviro-Cure process ³
flexible. ³ ³
³ Alternative products: ³ Agency
has not completed review of data.
³ fiberfill, natural latex ³
³ foams, polyester batting ³
³ 2-Chloropropane .......... ³
...........................................
Foams, alternative ³ Electroset process........ ³
Insufficient data. Also need information on
process. ³ ³
proposed end-use.
CFC-12, CFC-114 ³ Alternative products: ³ Agency
has not completed review of data.
Polystyrene, ³ expanded polystyrene, ³
extruded. ³ fiberboard ³
boardstock and ³ ³
billet. ³ ³
³ HCFC-124.................. ³ Agency
has not completed review of data.
³ HCFC-125.................. ³ Agency
has not completed review of data.
³ HFC-143a.................. ³ Agency
has not completed review of data.
CFC-11, ³ 2-Chloropropane........... ³ Agency
has not completed review of data.
Polyurethane ³ ³
integral skin. ³ ³
CFC-12, CFC-114 ³ Alternative products: ³ Agency
has not completed review of data.
Polyolefin. ³ paper, cardboard, ³
³ expanded polystyrene ³
³ HFC-152a/Hydrocarbons..... ³ Agency
has not completed review of data.
³ Methylene chloride........ ³ Agency
has not completed review of data.
Polyurethane, ³ HFC-356................... ³
Insufficient data. Also need information on
rigid. ³ ³
proposed end-use(s).
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Solvent Cleaning
Acceptable Substitutes
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³ Decision
³ Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³
Metals cleaning w/ ³ Aqueous cleaners . ³ Acceptable
.......... ³ EPA expects to issue effluent
CFC-113, MCF. ³ ³
³ guidelines for this industry
³ ³
³ under the Clean Water Act by as
³ ³
³ early as 1994.
³ Semi-aqueous ³
Acceptable........... ³ EPA expects to issue effluent
³ cleaners ³
³ guidelines for this industry
³ ³
³ under the Clean Water Act by as
³ ³
³ early as 1994.
³ Straight organic ³
Acceptable........... ³ OSHA standards must be met, if
³ solvent cleaning ³
³ applicable.
³ (with terpenes, ³
³
³ C6-C20 petroleum ³
³
³ hydrocarbons, ³
³
³ oxygenated ³
³
³ organic solvents ³
³
³ such as ketones, ³
³
³ esters, ethers, ³
³
³ alcohols, etc.) ³
³
³ Trichloro-ethylene,³
Acceptable........... ³ OSHA and RCRA standards must be
³ perchloro- ³
³ met. EPA expects to issue Maximum
³ ethylene, ³
³ Achievable Control Technology
³ methylene ³
³ requirements under the Clean Air
³ chloride ³
³ Act for this application by 1994.
³ Vanishing oils.... ³
Acceptable........... ³ Depending on geographic region,
³ ³
³ may be subject to VOC controls.
³ Supercritical ³
Acceptable........... ³
³ fluids ³
³
³ Volatile methyl ³
Acceptable........... ³ Other siloxanes are being examined
³ siloxanes ³
³ for possible workplace standards
³ (dodecamethyl ³
³ and will be listed under a
³ cyclohexasiloxane ³
³ separate rulemaking.
³ , hexamethyl ³
³
³ disiloxane, octa ³
³
³ methyltrisiloxane ³
³
³ , decamethyltetra ³
³
³ siloxane) ³
³
Electronics ³ Aqueous cleaners.. ³
Acceptable........... ³ EPA expects to issue effluent
cleaning w/CFC- ³ ³
³ guidelines for this industry
113, MCF. ³ ³
³ under the Clean Water Act by as
³ ³
³ early as 1994.
³ Semi-aqueous ³
Acceptable........... ³ EPA expects to issue effluent
³ cleaners ³
³ guidelines for this industry
³ ³
³ under the Clean Water Act by 1994.
³ Straight organic ³
Acceptable........... ³ OSHA standards must be met, if
³ solvent cleaning ³
³ applicable.
³ (with terpenes, ³
³
³ C6-C20 petroleum ³
³
³ hydrocarbons, ³
³
³ oxygenated ³
³
³ organic solvents ³
³
³ such as ketones, ³
³
³ esters, ethers, ³
³
³ alcohols, etc.) ³
³
³ Trichloro-ethylene,³
Acceptable........... ³ OSHA and RCRA standards must be
³ perchloro- ³
³ met. EPA expects to issue Maximum
³ ethylene, ³
³ Achievable Control Technology
³ methylene ³
³ requirements under the Clean Air
³ chloride ³
³ Act for this application by 1994.
³ No-clean ³
Acceptable........... ³ Substitutes found acceptable
³ alternatives ³
³ include low solids fluxes and
³ ³
³ inert gas soldering.
³ Supercritical ³
Acceptable........... ³ OSHA standards for ozone must be
³ fluids, plasma ³
³ met.
³ cleaning, UV/ ³
³
³ Ozone cleaning ³
³
³ Volatile methyl ³
Acceptable........... ³ Other siloxanes are being examined
³ siloxanes ³
³ for possible workplace standards
³ (dodecamethyl ³
³ and will be listed under a
³ cyclohexasiloxane ³
³ separate rulemaking.
³ , hexamethyl ³
³
³ disiloxane, octa ³
³
³ methyltrisiloxane ³
³
³ , decamethyltetra ³
³
³ siloxane) ³
³
Precision cleaning ³ Aqueous cleaners.. ³
Acceptable........... ³ EPA expects to issue effluent
w/CFC-113, MCF. ³ ³
³ guidelines for this industry
³ ³
³ under the Clean Water Act by as
³ ³
³ early as 1994.
³ Semi-aqueous ³
Acceptable........... ³ EPA expects to issue effluent
³ cleaners ³
³ guidelines for this industry
³ ³
³ under the Clean Water Act by as
³ ³
³ early as 1994.
³ Straight organic ³
Acceptable........... ³ OSHA standards must be met, if
³ solvent cleaning ³
³ applicable.
³ (with terpenes, ³
³
³ C6-C20 petroleum ³
³
³ hydrocarbons, ³
³
³ oxygenated ³
³
³ organic solvents ³
³
³ such as ketones, ³
³
³ esters, ethers, ³
³
³ alcohols, etc.) ³
³
³ Trichloro-ethylene,³
Acceptable........... ³ OSHA and RCRA standards must be
³ perchloro- ³
³ met. EPA expects to issue Maximum
³ ethylene, ³
³ Achievable Control Technology
³ methylene ³
³ requirements for this application
³ chloride ³
³ by 1994.
³ Supercritical ³
Acceptable........... ³ OSHA standards for ozone must be
³ fluids, plasma ³
³ met.
³ cleaning, UV/ ³
³
³ Ozone cleaning ³
³
³ Volatile methyl ³
Acceptable........... ³ Other siloxanes are being examined
³ siloxanes ³
³ for possible workplace standards
³ (dodecamethyl ³
³ and will be listed under a
³ cyclohexasiloxane ³
³ separate rulemaking.
³ , hexamethyl ³
³
³ disiloxane, octa ³
³
³ methyltrisiloxane ³
³
³ , decamethyltetra ³
³
³ siloxane) ³
³
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Narrowed
Use Limits
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³ Decision
³ Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³
Electronics ³ Perfluoro carbons ³ Acceptable for
³ The principal environmental
cleaning w/CFC- ³ (C5F12, C6F12, ³ high
performance, ³ characteristic of concern for
113, MCF. ³ C6F14, C7F16, ³ precision-
³ PFCs is that they have long
³ C8F18, C5F11NO, ³ engineered
³ atmospheric lifetimes and high
³ C6F13NO, C7F15NO, ³ applications
only ³ global warming potentials.
³ and C8F16) ³ where
reasonable ³ Although actual contributions to
³ ³ efforts have
been ³ global warming depend upon the
³ ³ made to
ascertain ³ quantities of PFCs emitted, the
³ ³ that other
³ effects are for practical
³ ³ alternatives
are ³ purposes irreversible.
³ ³ not
technically ³ Users must observe this limitation
³ ³ feasible due
to ³ on PFC acceptability by
³ ³ performance or
³ conducting a reasonable
³ ³ safety
³ evaluation of other substitutes
³ ³ requirements
³ to determine that PFC use is
³ ³
³ necessary to meet performance or
³ ³
³ safety requirements.
³ ³
³ Documentation of this evaluation
³ ³
³ must be kept on file.
³ ³
³ For additional guidance regarding
³ ³
³ applications in which PFCs may be
³ ³
³ appropriate, users should consult
³ ³
³ the Preamble for this rulemaking.
Precision cleaning ³ Perfluorocarbons ³ Acceptable for
³ The principal environmental
w/CFC-113, MCF. ³ (C5F12, C6F12, ³ high
performance, ³ characteristic of concern for
³ C6F14, C7F16, ³ precision-
³ PFCs is that they have long
³ C8F18, C5F11NO, ³ engineered
³ atmospheric lifetimes and high
³ C6F13NO, C7F15NO, ³ applications
only ³ global warming potentials.
³ and C8F16) ³ where
reasonable ³ Although actual contributions to
³ ³ efforts have
been ³ global warming depend upon the
³ ³ made to
ascertain ³ quantities of PFCs emitted, the
³ ³ that other
³ effects are for practical
³ ³ alternatives
are ³ purposes irreversible.
³ ³ not
technically ³ Users must observe this limitation
³ ³ feasible due
to ³ on PFC acceptability by
³ ³ performance or
³ conducting a reasonable
³ ³ safety
³ evaluation of other substitutes
³ ³ requirements
³ to determine that PFC use is
³ ³
³ necessary to meet performance or
³ ³
³ safety requirements.
³ ³
³ Documentation of this evaluation
³ ³
³ must be kept on file.
³ ³
³ For additional guidance regarding
³ ³
³ applications in which PFCs may be
³ ³
³ appropriate, users should consult
³ ³
³ the Preamble for this rulemaking.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Unacceptable Substitutes
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End use ³ Substitute ³ Decision
³ Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³
Metals cleaning w/ ³ HCFC 141b and its ³ Unacceptable
........ ³ High ODP; other alternatives exist.
CFC-113. ³ blends ³
³ Effective date: As of 30 days
³ ³
³ after final rule for uses in new
³ ³
³ equipment (including retrofits
³ ³
³ made after the effective date);
³ ³
³ as of January 1, 1996 for uses in
³ ³
³ existing equipment. EPA will
³ ³
³ grant, if necessary, narrowed use
³ ³
³ acceptability listings for CFC-
³ ³
³ 113 past the effective date of
³ ³
³ the prohibition.
Metals cleaning w/ ³ HCFC 141b and its ³ Unacceptable
........ ³ High ODP; other alternatives exist.
MCF. ³ blends ³
³ Effective date: As of 30 days
³ ³
³ after final rule for uses in new
³ ³
³ equipment (including retrofits
³ ³
³ made after the effective date);
³ ³
³ as of January 1, 1996 for uses in
³ ³
³ existing equipment.
Electronics ³ HCFC 141b and its ³ Unacceptable
........ ³ High ODP; other alternatives exist.
cleaning w/CFC-. ³ blends ³
³ Effective date: As of 30 days
113. ³ ³
³ after final rule for uses in new
³ ³
³ equipment (including retrofits
³ ³
³ made after the effective date);
³ ³
³ as of January 1, 1996 for uses in
³ ³
³ existing equipment. EPA will
³ ³
³ grant, if necessary, narrowed use
³ ³
³ acceptability listings for CFC-
³ ³
³ 113 past the effective date of
³ ³
³ the prohibition.
Electronics ³ HCFC 141b and its ³ Unacceptable
........ ³ High ODP; other alternatives exist.
cleaning w/MCF. ³ blends ³
³ Effective date: As of 30 days
³ ³
³ after final rule for uses in new
³ ³
³ equipment (including retrofits
³ ³
³ made after the effective date);
³ ³
³ as of January 1, 1996 for uses in
³ ³
³ existing equipment.
Precision cleaning ³ HCFC 141b and its ³ Unacceptable
........ ³ High ODP; other alternatives exist.
w/CFC-113. ³ blends ³
³ Effective date: As of 30 days
³ ³
³ after final rule for uses in new
³ ³
³ equipment (including retrofits
³ ³
³ made after the effective date);
³ ³
³ as of January 1, 1996 for uses in
³ ³
³ existing equipment. EPA will
³ ³
³ grant, if necessary, narrowed use
³ ³
³ acceptability listings for CFC-
³ ³
³ 113 past the effective date of
³ ³
³ the prohibition.
Precision cleaning ³ HCFC 141b and its ³ Unacceptable
........ ³ High ODP; other alternatives exist.
w/MCF. ³ blends ³
³ Effective date: As of 30 days
³ ³
³ after final rule for uses in new
³ ³
³ equipment (including retrofits
³ ³
³ made after the effective date);
³ ³
³ as of January 1, 1996 for uses in
³ ³
³ existing equipment.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Pending Substitutes
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End use ³ Substitute ³
Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
Metals cleaning w/ ³ Monochloro-toluene/ ³ Agency
has not completed review of data.
CFC-113, MCF. ³ benzotrifluorides ³
Evaluation of exposure and toxicity data
³ ³ still
ongoing.
³ Dibromomethane ........... ³ Agency
has completed review of data, and
³ ³
intends to propose this chemical as an
³ ³
unacceptable substitute under a separate
³ ³
rule-making.
³ Volatile methyl siloxanes ³ Agency
has completed review of data, and
³ (octamethylcyclotetrasil ³ intends
under separate rule-making to
³ oxane, decamethylcyclope ³ propose
these chemicals as acceptable with
³ ntasiloxane) ³ the use
condition that the company-set
³ ³
exposure limits must be met.
Electronics ³ Monochloro-toluene/ ³ Agency
has not completed review of data.
cleaning w/CFC-. ³ benzotrifluorides ³
Evaluation of exposure and toxicity data
113, MCF. ³ ³ still
ongoing.
³ Dibromomethane ........... ³ Agency
has completed review of data, and
³ ³
intends to propose this chemical as an
³ ³
unacceptable substitute under a separate
³ ³
rule-making.
³ Volatile methyl siloxanes ³ Agency
has completed review of data, and
³ (octamethylcyclotetrasil ³ intends
under separate rule-making to
³ oxane, decamethylcyclope ³ propose
these chemicals as acceptable with
³ ntasiloxane) ³ the use
condition that the company-set
³ ³
exposure limits must be met.
³ HFC-4310mee .............. ³ Agency
has not completed review of data.
³ ³
Premanufacture Notice review under the
³ ³ Toxic
Substances Control Act not yet
³ ³
completed.
Precision cleaning ³ Monochloro-toluene/ ³ Agency
has not completed review of data.
w/CFC-113, MCF. ³ benzotrifluorides ³
Evaluation of exposure and toxicity data
³ ³ still
ongoing.
³ Dibromomethane ........... ³ Agency
has completed review of data, and
³ ³
intends to propose this chemical as an
³ ³
unacceptable substitute under a separate
³ ³
rule-making.
³ Volatile methyl siloxanes ³ Agency
has completed review of data, and
³ (octamethylcyclotetrasil ³ intends
under separate rule-making to
³ oxane, decamethylcyclope ³ propose
these chemicals as acceptable with
³ ntasiloxane) ³ the use
condition that the company-set
³ ³
exposure limits must be met.
³ HCFC-123 ................. ³ New
toxicity data has led to an upward
³ ³
revision of the company-set workplace
³ ³
exposure limit. EPA intends to propose
³ ³ under
separate rule-making this chemical
³ ³ as an
acceptable substitute subject to the
³ ³ new
limit.
³ HCFC-225 ................. ³
Toxicity data only recently completed. HCFC
³ ³ -225ca
isomer has comparatively low
³ ³
company-set exposure limit; EPA intends to
³ ³
propose HCFC-225 as acceptable subject to
³ ³ this
limit under separate rule-making.
³ ³ This
limit should be readily achievable
³ ³ since
HCFC-225 is sold commercially as a
³ ³ blend
of ca- and cb-isomers. In addition,
³ ³
equipment where HCFC-225 is used typically
³ ³ has
very low emissions.
³ HFC-4310mee .............. ³ Agency
has not completed review of data.
³ ³
Premanufacture Notice review under the
³ ³ Toxic
Substances Control Act not yet
³ ³
completed.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Fire Suppression and Explosion
Protection-Streaming Agents
Acceptable Substitutes
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³ Decision
³ Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³
Halon 1211 ....... ³ HCFC-123 ......... ³ Acceptable
..... ³ See additional comments 1, 2.
Streaming agents . ³ .................. ³
................ ³ Use of HCFCs in pressurized
³ ³
³ dispensers are controlled under
³ ³
³ CAA section 610(d). EPA intends
³ ³
³ to publish a proposed rulemaking
³ ³
³ banning the use of this agent in
³ ³
³ residential applications.
³ [HCFC Blend] B ... ³ Acceptable
..... ³ Contains small percentage of PFC
³ ³
³ which has an unusually long
³ ³
³ atmospheric lifetime, and could
³ ³
³ potentially contribute to global
³ ³
³ climate change.
³ ³
³ See additional comments 1, 2.
³ ³
³ Use of HCFCs in pressurized
³ ³
³ dispensers are controlled under
³ ³
³ CAA section 610(d). EPA intends
³ ³
³ to publish a proposed rulemaking
³ ³
³ banning the use of this agent in
³ ³
³ residential applications.
³ [Surfactant Blend] ³ Acceptable
..... ³ This blend is not a clean agent,
³ A ³
³ but can reduce the quantity of
³ ³
³ water required to extinguish a
³ ³
³ fire.
³ ³
³ EPA recommends that the
³ ³
³ manufacturer label the canister
³ ³
³ cautioning the consumer about
³ ³
³ possible eye irritation.
³ Carbon Dioxide ... ³ Acceptable
..... ³
³ Dry Chemical ..... ³ Acceptable
..... ³
³ Water ............ ³ Acceptable
..... ³
³ Foam ............. ³ Acceptable
..... ³
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Additional Comments:
1-Discharge testing and training should be strictly limited only
to that which is essential to
meet safety or performance requirements.
2-The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system
in conjunction with testing or
servicing and recycled for later use or destroyed.
Fire Suppression and
Explosion Protection-Streaming Agents
Substitutes Acceptable
Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³ Decision
³ Conditions ³ Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³ ³
Halon 1211 ....... ³ [CFC Blend] .... ³ Acceptable in
³ ................ ³ Use of CFCs are controlled
under CAA
³ ³ nonresidential
uses only ³ ³ section 610 which bans
use of CFCs in
³ ³
³ ³ pressurized dispensers,
and therefore are
³ ³
³ ³ not permitted for use in
portable fire
³ ³
³ ³ extinguishers. EPA will
list this agent as
³ ³
³ ³ proposed unacceptable in
the next SNAP
³ ³
³ ³ proposed rulemaking.
Streaming agents . ³ ³
³ ³ Because CFCs are a Class I
substance,
³ ³
³ ³ production will be phased
out by January 1,
³ ³
³ ³ 1996.
³ ³
³ ³ See additional comments 1,
2.
³ HBFC-22B1 ...... ³ Acceptable in
³ ................ ³ Proper procedures regarding
the operation
³ ³ nonresidential
uses only ³ ³ of the extinguisher and
ventilation
³ ³
³ ³ following dispensing the
extinguishant is
³ ³
³ ³ recommended. Worker
exposure may be a
³ ³
³ ³ concern in small office
areas.
³ ³
³ ³ HBFC-22B1 is considered an
interim
³ ³
³ ³ substitute for Halon 1211.
Because the
³ ³
³ ³ HBFC-22B1 has an ODP of
.74, production
³ ³
³ ³ will be phased out (except
for essential
³ ³
³ ³ uses) on January 1, 1996.
³ ³
³ ³ This agent was submitted to
the Agency as a
³ ³
³ ³ Premanufacture Notice
(PMN) and is
³ ³
³ ³ presently subject to
requirements
³ ³
³ ³ contained in a Toxic
Substance Control Act
³ ³
³ ³ (TSCA) Consent Order.
³ ³
³ ³ See additional comments 1,
2.
³ C6F14 .......... ³ Acceptable for
³ ................ ³ Users must observe the
limitations on PFC
³ ³ nonresidential
uses where ³ ³ acceptability by making
reasonable effort
³ ³ other
alternatives are ³ ³ to undertake
the following measures:
³ ³ not technically
feasible ³ ³ (i) conduct an evaluation
of foreseeable
³ ³ due to
performance or ³ ³ conditions of
end use;
³ ³ safety
requirements: ³ ³ (ii) determine
that the physical or
³ ³ a. due to the
physical or ³ ³ chemical properties or
other technical
³ ³ chemical
properties of ³ ³ constraints of the
other available agents
³ ³ the agent, or
³ ³ preclude their use; and
³ ³ b. where human
exposure to ³ ³ (iii) determine that
human exposure to the
³ ³ the
extinguishing agent ³ ³ other
alternative extinguishing agents may
³ ³ may approach
³ ³ approach or result in
cardiosensitization
³ ³
cardiosensitization ³ ³ or other
unacceptable toxicity effects
³ ³ levels or result
in other ³ ³ under normal operating
conditions;
³ ³ unacceptable
health ³ ³ Documentation of such
measures must be
³ ³ effects under
normal ³ ³ available for review
upon request.
³ ³ operating
conditions ³ ³ The principal
environmental characteristic
³ ³
³ ³ of concern for PFCs is
that they have high
³ ³
³ ³ GWPs and long atmospheric
lifetimes.
³ ³
³ ³ Actual contributions to
global warming
³ ³
³ ³ depend upon the quantities
of PFCs emitted.
³ ³
³ ³ For additional guidance
regarding
³ ³
³ ³ applications in which PFCs
may be
³ ³
³ ³ appropriate, users should
consult the
³ ³
³ ³ description of potential
uses which is
³ ³
³ ³ included in the preamble
to this
³ ³
³ ³ rulemaking.
³ ³
³ ³ See additional comments 1,
2.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Additional Comments:
{1}-Discharge testing and training should be strictly limited
only to that which is essential to meet safety or performance
requirements.
{2}-The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system
in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later
use or destroyed.
Fire Suppression and Explosion
Protection-Streaming Agents
Unacceptable Substitutes
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³ Decision
³ Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³
Halon 1211 ³ [CFC-11] ......... ³ Unacceptable
........ ³ This agent has been suggested for
Streaming agents ³ ³
³ use on large outdoor fires for
³ ³
³ which non-ozone-depleting
³ ³
³ alternatives are currently used.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Fire Suppression and Explosion
Protection-Streaming Agents
Pending Substitutes
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³
Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
Halon 1211 ³ HBFC-22B1/HFC-227ea Blend ³
Cardiotoxicity, decomposition product, and
Streaming agents. ³ ³
personal monitoring data required.
³ ³ Because
the HBFC-22B1 has an ODP of .74,
³ ³
production will be phased out (except for
³ ³
essential uses) on January 1, 1996.
³ HCFC-124 ................. ³
Personal monitoring data required.
³ HFC-134a ................. ³
Personal monitoring data required.
³ HFC-227ea ................ ³
Personal monitoring data required.
³ [Powdered Aerosol] B ..... ³ EPA has
not completed the review of this
³ ³ agent.
³ Water Mist ............... ³ EPA is
continuing to evaluate this new
³ ³
technology.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection-Total
Flooding Agents
Acceptable Substitutes
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³ Decision
³ Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³
Halon 1301 ....... ³ [Inert Gas Blend] ³ Acceptable in
³ Agency review for occupied areas
³ B ³ unoccupied
areas ³ is incomplete.
Total flooding ³ [Powdered Aerosol] ³ Acceptable in
³ For use in occupied areas,
agents. ³ A ³ unoccupied
areas ³ additional decomposition product
³ ³
³ and health effect data are
³ ³
³ required.
³ [Powdered Aerosol] ³ Acceptable in
³ Agency review for occupied areas
³ B ³ unoccupied
areas ³ is incomplete.
³ Carbon Dioxide ... ³ Acceptable
³ System design must adhere to OSHA
³ ³
³ 1910.162(b)5 and NFPA Standard 12.
³ Water ............ ³ Acceptable
.......... ³
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Fire Suppression and Explosion
Protection-Total Flooding Agents
Substitutes Acceptable
Subject to Use Conditions
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³ Decision
³ Conditions ³
Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³ ³
Halon 1301 ³ HBFC-22B1....... ³
Acceptable........ ³ Until OSHA establishes applicable ³
The comparative design
Total flooding. ³ ³
³ workplace requirements: ³ concentration
based on cup burner
agents ³ ³
³ Where egress from an area cannot ³ values is
approximately 5.3%,
³ ³
³ be accomplished within one minute,³ while its
cardiotoxic LOAEL is 1%
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use this ³ . Thus, it is
unlikely that this
³ ³
³ agent in concentrations exceeding ³ agent will be
used in normally
³ ³
³ its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 0.3%. ³ occupied areas.
³ ³
³ ³ HBFC-22B1 can be
considered only
³ ³
³ ³ an interim
substitute for Halon
³ ³
³ ³ 1301. HBFC-22B1
has an ODP of .74;
³ ³
³ ³ thus, production
will be phased
³ ³
³ ³ out January 1,
1996.
³ ³
³ Where egress takes longer than 30 ³ This agent was
submitted to the
³ ³
³ seconds but less than one minute, ³ Agency as a
Premanufacture Notice
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use the ³ (PMN) and is
presently subject to
³ ³
³ agent in a concentration greater ³ requirements
contained in a Toxic
³ ³
³ than its cardiotoxic LOAEL of 1.0 ³ Substance
Control Act (TSCA)
³ ³
³ % ³ Consent Order.
³ ³
³ ³ See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
³ ³
³ HBFC-22B1 concentrations greater ³
..................................
³ ³
³ than 1.0% are only permitted in ³
³ ³
³ areas not normally occupied by ³
³ ³
³ employees provided that any ³
³ ³
³ employee in the area can escape ³
³ ³
³ within 30 seconds. The employer ³
³ ³
³ shall assure that no unprotected ³
³ ³
³ employees enter the area during ³
³ ³
³ agent discharge ³
³ HCFC-22......... ³
Acceptable........ ³ Until OSHA establishes applicable ³
The comparative design
³ ³
³ workplace requirements: ³ concentration
based on cup burner
³ ³
³ Where egress from an area cannot ³ values is
approximately 13.9%
³ ³
³ be accomplished within one minute,³ while its
cardiotoxic LOAEL is
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use this ³ 5.0%. Thus, it
is unlikely that
³ ³
³ agent in concentrations exceeding ³ this agent will
be used in
³ ³
³ its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 2.5%. ³ normally
occupied areas.
³ ³
³ ³ See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
³ ³
³ Where egress takes longer than 30 ³
..................................
³ ³
³ seconds but less than one minute, ³
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use the ³
³ ³
³ agent in a concentration greater ³
³ ³
³ than its cardiotoxic LOAEL of 5.0 ³
³ ³
³ % ³
³ ³
³ HCFC-22 concentrations greater ³
..................................
³ ³
³ than 5.0% are only permitted in ³
³ ³
³ areas not normally occupied by ³
³ ³
³ employees provided that any ³
³ ³
³ employee in the area can escape ³
³ ³
³ within 30 seconds. The employer ³
³ ³
³ shall assure that no unprotected ³
³ ³
³ employees enter the area during ³
³ ³
³ agent discharge ³
³ HCFC-124........ ³
Acceptable........ ³ Until OSHA establishes applicable ³
The comparative design
³ ³
³ workplace requirements: ³ concentration
based on cup burner
³ ³
³ Where egress from an area cannot ³ values is
approximately 8.4%
³ ³
³ be accomplished within one minute,³ while its
cardiotoxic LOAEL is
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use this ³ 2.5%. Thus, it
is unlikely that
³ ³
³ agent in concentrations exceeding ³ this agent will
be used in
³ ³
³ its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 1.0%. ³ normally
occupied areas.
³ ³
³ ³ See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
³ ³
³ Where egress takes longer than 30 ³
..................................
³ ³
³ seconds but less than one minute, ³
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use the ³
³ ³
³ agent in a concentration greater ³
³ ³
³ than its cardiotoxic LOAEL of 2.5 ³
³ ³
³ % ³
³ ³
³ HCFC-123 concentrations greater ³
..................................
³ ³
³ than 2.5% are only permitted in ³
³ ³
³ areas not normally occupied by ³
³ ³
³ employees provided that any ³
³ ³
³ employee in the area can escape ³
³ ³
³ within 30 seconds. The employer ³
³ ³
³ shall assure that no unprotected ³
³ ³
³ employees enter the area during ³
³ ³
³ agent discharge ³
³ [HCFC Blend] A . ³ Acceptable
....... ³ Until OSHA establishes applicable ³ The
comparative design
³ ³
³ workplace requirements: ³ concentration
based on full scale
³ ³
³ Where egress from an area cannot ³ testing is
approximately 8.6%.
³ ³
³ be accomplished within one minute,³ The agent should
be recovered from
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use [HCFC ³ the fire
protection system in
³ ³
³ Blend] A in concentrations ³ conjunction with
testing or
³ ³
³ exceeding its cardiotoxic NOAEL ³ servicing, and
should be recycled
³ ³
³ of 10.0%. ³ for later use or
destroyed.
³ ³
³ Where egress takes greater than ³ See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
³ ³
³ 30 seconds but less than one ³
³ ³
³ minute, the employer shall not ³
³ ³
³ use [HCFC Blend] A in a ³
³ ³
³ concentration greater than its ³
³ ³
³ cardiotoxic LOAEL of 10.0%. ³
³ ³
³ [HCFC Blend] A concentrations ³
³ ³
³ greater than 10 percent are only ³
³ ³
³ permitted in areas not normally ³
³ ³
³ occupied by employees provided ³
³ ³
³ that any employee in the area can ³
³ ³
³ escape within 30 seconds. The ³
³ ³
³ employer shall assure that no ³
³ ³
³ unprotected employees enter the ³
³ ³
³ area during agent discharge ³
³ HFC-23 ......... ³ Acceptable
....... ³ Until OSHA establishes applicable ³ The
comparative design
³ ³
³ workplace requirements: ³ concentration
based on cup burner
³ ³
³ Where egress from an area cannot ³ values is
approximately 14.4%
³ ³
³ be accomplished within one minute,³ while data
indicates that its
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use HFC-23 ³ cardiotoxicity
NOAEL is 30%
³ ³
³ in concentrations exceeding 30%. ³ without added
oxygen and 50% with
³ ³
³ ³ added oxygen.
Its LOAEL is likely
³ ³
³ ³ to exceed 50%.
³ ³
³ ³ See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
³ ³
³ Where egress takes greater than 30 ³
³ ³
³ seconds but less than one minute, ³
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use HFC-23 ³
³ ³
³ in a concentration greater than ³
³ ³
³ 50.0%. ³
³ ³
³ HFC-23 concentrations greater than ³
³ ³
³ 50 percent are only permitted in ³
³ ³
³ areas not normally occupied by ³
³ ³
³ employees provided that any ³
³ ³
³ employee in the area can escape ³
³ ³
³ within 30 seconds. The employer ³
³ ³
³ shall assure that no unprotected ³
³ ³
³ employees enter the area during ³
³ ³
³ agent discharge. ³
³ ³
³ The design concentration must ³
³ ³
³ result in an oxygen level of at ³
³ ³
³ least 16%. ³
³ HFC-125 ........ ³ Acceptable.
...... ³ Until OSHA establishes applicable ³ The
comparative design
³ ³
³ workplace requirements: ³ concentration
based on cup burner
³ ³
³ Where egress from an area cannot ³ values is
approximately 11.3%
³ ³
³ be accomplished within one minute,³ while its
cardiotoxic LOAEL is
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use this ³ 10.0%. Thus, it
is unlikely that
³ ³
³ agent in concentrations exceeding ³ this agent will
be used in
³ ³
³ its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 7.5%. ³ normally
occupied areas.
³ ³
³ ³ See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
³ ³
³ Where egress takes longer than 30 ³
³ ³
³ seconds but less than one minute, ³
³ ³
³ the emploer shall not use the ³
³ ³
³ agent in a concentration greater ³
³ ³
³ than its cardiotoxic LOAEL of ³
³ ³
³ 10.0% ³
³ ³
³ HFC-125 concentrations greater ³
³ ³
³ than 10.0% are only permitted in ³
³ ³
³ areas not normally occupied by ³
³ ³
³ employees provided that any ³
³ ³
³ employee in the area can escape ³
³ ³
³ within 30 seconds. The employer ³
³ ³
³ shall assure that no unprotected ³
³ ³
³ employees enter the area during ³
³ ³
³ agent discharge ³
³ HFC-134a ....... ³
Acceptable........ ³ Until OSHA establishes applicable ³
The comparative design
³ ³
³ workplace requirements: ³ concentration
based on cup burner
³ ³
³ Where egress from an area cannot ³ values is
approximately 12.6%
³ ³
³ be accomplished within one minute,³ while its
cardiotoxic LOAEL is
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use this ³ 8.0%. Thus, it
is unlikely that
³ ³
³ agent in concentrations exceeding ³ this agent will
be used in
³ ³
³ its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 4.0%. ³ normally
occupied areas.
³ ³
³ ³ See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
³ ³
³ Where egress takes longer than 30 ³
³ ³
³ seconds but less than one minute, ³
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use the ³
³ ³
³ agent in a concentration greater ³
³ ³
³ than its cardiotoxic LOAEL of 8.0 ³
³ ³
³ % ³
³ ³
³ HFC-134a concentrations greater ³
³ ³
³ than 8.0% are only permitted in ³
³ ³
³ areas not normally occupied by ³
³ ³
³ employees provided that any ³
³ ³
³ employee in the area can escape ³
³ ³
³ within 30 seconds. The employer ³
³ ³
³ shall assure that no unprotected ³
³ ³
³ employees enter the area during ³
³ ³
³ agent discharge ³
³ HFC-227ea....... ³
Acceptable........ ³ Until OSHA establishes applicable ³
The comparative design
³ ³
³ workplace requirements: ³ concentration
based on cup burner
³ ³
³ Where egress from an area cannot ³ values is
approximately 7.0%
³ ³
³ be accomplished within one minute,³ while data
indicate that its
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use HFC- ³ cardiotoxicity
LOAEL is probably
³ ³
³ 227ea in concentrations exceeding ³ greater than
10.5%. EPA is
³ ³
³ its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 9.0% ³ accepting 10.5%
as its LOAEL.
³ ³
³ Where egress takes longer than 30 ³ This agent was
submitted to the
³ ³
³ second but less than one minute, ³ Agency as a
Premanufacture Notice
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use the ³ (PMN) agent and
is presently
³ ³
³ agent in a concentration greater ³ subject to
requirements contained
³ ³
³ than its cardiotoxic LOAEL of ³ in a Toxic
Substances Control Act
³ ³
³ 10.5%. ³ (TSCA)
Significant New Use Rule
³ ³
³ ³ (SNUR).
³ ³
³ ³ See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
³ ³
³ HFC-227ea concentrations greater ³
³ ³
³ than 10.5% are only permitted in ³
³ ³
³ areas not normally occupied by ³
³ ³
³ employees provided that any ³
³ ³
³ employee in the area can escape ³
³ ³
³ within 30 seconds. The employer ³
³ ³
³ shall assure that no unprotected ³
³ ³
³ employees enter the area during ³
³ ³
³ agent discharge ³
³ C4F10........... ³ Acceptable
³ Until OSHA establishes applicable ³ The comparative
design
³ ³ where other
³ workplace requirements: ³ concentration
based on cup burner
³ ³ alternatives are
³ For occupied areas from which ³ values is
approximately 6.6%.
³ ³ not technically
³ personnel cannot be evacuated in ³ Users must
observe the limitations
³ ³ feasible due to
³ one minute, use is permitted only ³ on PFC
acceptability by making
³ ³ performance or
³ up to concentrations not ³ reasonable
efforts to undertake
³ ³ safety
³ exceeding the cardiotoxicity ³ the following
measures:
³ ³ requirements:
³ NOAEL of 40% ³ (i) conduct an
evaluation of
³ ³ a. due to their
³ Although no LOAEL has been ³ foreseeable
conditions of end use;
³ ³ physical or
³ established for this product, ³ (ii) determine
that human exposure
³ ³ chemical
³ standard OSHA requirements apply, ³ to the other
alternative
³ ³ properties, or
³ i.e., for occupied areas from ³ extinguishing
agents may approach
³ ³ b. where human
³ which personnel can be evacuated ³ or result in
cardiosensitization
³ ³ exposure to the
³ or egress can occur between 30 ³ or other
unacceptable toxicity
³ ³ extinguishing
³ and 60 seconds, use is permitted ³ effects under
normal operating
³ ³ agents may
³ up to a concentration not ³ conditions; and
³ ³ approach cardios
³ exceeding the LOAEL ³ (iii) determine
that the physical
³ ³ ensitization
³ All personnel must be evacuated ³ or chemical
properties or other
³ ³ levels or result
³ before concentration of C4F10 ³ technical
constraints of the
³ ³ in other
³ exceeds 40% ³ other available
agents preclude
³ ³ unacceptable
³ Design concentration must result ³ their use.
³ ³ health effects
³ in oxygen levels of at least 16%. ³ Documentation of
such measures
³ ³ under normal
³ ³ must be
available for review upon
³ ³ operating
³ ³ request.
³ ³ conditions
³ ³ The principal
environmental
³ ³
³ ³ characteristic
of concern for
³ ³
³ ³ PFCs is that
they have high GWPs
³ ³
³ ³ and long
atmospheric lifetimes.
³ ³
³ ³ Actual
contributions to global
³ ³
³ ³ warming depend
upon the
³ ³
³ ³ quantities of
PFCs emitted.
³ ³
³ ³ For additional
guidance regarding
³ ³
³ ³ applications in
which PFCs may be
³ ³
³ ³ appropriate,
users should consult
³ ³
³ ³ the description
of potential uses
³ ³
³ ³ which is
included in this
³ ³
³ ³ rulemaking.
³ ³
³ ³ See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
³ [IG-541]........ ³
Acceptable........ ³ Until OSHA establishes applicable ³
Studies have shown that healthy,
³ ³
³ workplace requirements: ³ young
individuals can remain in a
³ ³
³ The design concentration must ³ 10% to 12%
oxygen atmosphere for
³ ³
³ result in at least 10% oxygen and ³ 30 to 40 minutes
without
³ ³
³ no more than 5% CO2 ³ impairment.
However, in a fire
³ ³
³ If the oxygen concentration of the ³ emergency, the
oxygen level may
³ ³
³ atmosphere falls below 10%, ³ be reduced below
safe levels, and
³ ³
³ personnel must be evacuated and ³ the combustion
products formed by
³ ³
³ egress must occur within 30 ³ the fire are
likely to cause harm.
³ ³
³ seconds. ³ Thus, the Agency
does not
³ ³
³ ³ contemplate
personnel remaining
³ ³
³ ³ in the space
after system
³ ³
³ ³ discharge during
a fire without
³ ³
³ ³ Self Contained
Breathing
³ ³
³ ³ Apparatus (SCBA)
as required by
³ ³
³ ³ OSHA.
³ ³
³ ³ See additional
comments 1, 2.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Additional Comments
1-Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart L Section 1910.160
of the U.S. Code.
2-Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) must be available
in the event personnel must reenter the area.
3-Discharge testing should be strictly limited only to that which
is essential to meet safety or performance requirements.
4-The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system
in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later
use or destroyed.
Fire
Suppression and Explosion Protection
Total
Flooding Agents
Substitutes
Acceptable Subject To Narrowed Use Limits
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End use ³ Substitute ³
Decision ³ Conditions ³
Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³ ³
Halon 1301 Total ³ C4F10 ............ ³ Acceptable
where other ³ Until OSHA establishes applicable ³
The comparative design
Flooding Agents. ³ ³ alternatives
are not ³ workplace requirements: ³
concentration based on cup burner
³ ³ technically
feasible due ³ For occupied areas from which ³
values is approximately 6.6%.
³ ³ to performance
or safety ³ personnel cannot be evacuated in ³ Users
must observe the limitations
³ ³ requirements:
³ one minute, use is permitted only ³ on PFC
approval by undertaking
³ ³ a. Due to their
physical ³ up to concentrations not ³ the
following measures:
³ ³ or chemical
properties, ³ exceeding the cardiotoxicity ³ (i)
Conduct an evaluation of
³ ³ or
³ NOAEL of 40%. ³
foreseeable conditions of end use;
³ ³ b. Where human
exposure to ³ Although no LOAEL has been ³ (ii)
Determine that human exposure
³ ³ the
extinguishing agents ³ established for this product,
³ to the other alternative
³ ³ may approach
³ standard OSHA requirements apply, ³
extinguishing agents may approach
³ ³
cardiosensitization ³ i.e. for occupied areas from
³ or result in cardiosensitization
³ ³ levels or
result in other ³ which personnel can be evacuated ³
or other unacceptable toxicity
³ ³ unacceptable
health ³ or egress can occur between 30 ³
effects under normal operating
³ ³ effects under
normal ³ and 60 seconds, use is permitted ³
conditions; and
³ ³ operating
conditions. ³ up to a concentration not ³
(iii) Determine that the physical
³ ³
³ exceeding the LOAEL. ³ or
chemical properties or other
³ ³
³ All personnel must be evacuated ³
technical constraints of the
³ ³
³ before concentration of C4F10 ³ other
available agents preclude
³ ³
³ exceeds 40%. ³ their
use;
³ ³
³ Design concentration must result ³
Documentation of such measures
³ ³
³ in oxygen levels of at least 16%. ³ must
be available for review upon
³ ³
³ ³
request.
³ ³
³ ³ The
principal environmental
³ ³
³ ³
characteristic of concern for
³ ³
³ ³ PFCs
is that they have high GWPs
³ ³
³ ³ and
long atmospheric lifetimes.
³ ³
³ ³ Actual
contributions to global
³ ³
³ ³
warming depend upon the
³ ³
³ ³
quantities of PFCs emitted.
³ ³
³ ³ For
additional guidance regarding
³ ³
³ ³
applications in which PFCs may be
³ ³
³ ³
appropriate, users should consult
³ ³
³ ³ the
description of potential uses
³ ³
³ ³ which
is included in the preamble
³ ³
³ ³ to
this rulemaking.
³ ³
³ ³ See
additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Additional Comments
1-Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart L Section 1910.160
of the U.S. Code.
2-Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) must be available
in the event personnel must reenter the area.
3-Discharge testing should be strictly limited only to that which
is essential to meet safety or performance requirements.
4-The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system
in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later
use or
destroyed.
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
Total Flooding Agents
Pending Substitutes
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³
Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
Halon 1301 Total ³ HBFC-22B1/HFC- ³ Cardiotoxicity
and decomposition
Flooding. ³ 227ea Blend ³ product data
required.
³ ³ Because the
HBFC-22B1 has an ODP
³ ³ of .74,
production will be phased
³ ³ out (except
for essential uses)
³ ³ on January 1,
1996.
³ HCFC/HFC Blend.... ³ Pending
submission.
³ [Inert Gas Blend] ³ Pending
development of peer review
³ B ³ on health
effects.
³ [Powdered Aerosol] ³ For use in
occupied areas,
³ A ³ additional
decomposition product
³ ³ and health
effect data is
³ ³ required.
³ [Powdered Aerosol] ³ For use in
occupied areas, EPA
³ B ³ review of
submission incomplete.
³ [Water Mist System ³ EPA is
continuing to evaluate this
³ ] A ³ new
technology.
³ [Water Mist System ³ EPA is
continuing to evaluate this
³ ] B ³ new
technology.
³ SF6............... ³ This agent has
been proposed as an
³ ³ alternative
for discharge testing.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Sterilants
Acceptable
Substitutes
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Application ³ Substitute ³ Decision
³ Conditions ³ Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³ ³
12/88 Blend of EtO ³ CO2/ETO .......... ³ Acceptable
.......... ³ ................ ³ CO2/EtO blends can serve
as drop-
/CFC-12 Sterilant ³ ³
³ ³ in replacements to 12/88 in
some
³ ³
³ ³ but not in all existing
equipment
³ ³
³ ³ because they require a higher
³ ³
³ ³ operating pressure.
³ ³
³ ³ As a HAP, use of EtO must
comply
³ ³
³ ³ with Title III of the CAA.
³ HCFC-124/ETO ..... ³ Acceptable
.......... ³ ................ ³ In a blend with EtO,
HCFC-124 is
³ ³
³ ³ the only available drop-in
³ ³
³ ³ replacement for about half of
the
³ ³
³ ³ equipment now using 12/88.
³ ³
³ ³ However, HCFC-124 is an ozone
³ ³
³ ³ depleting substance; it
should be
³ ³
³ ³ used to sterilize only that
³ ³
³ ³ equipment that cannot be
³ ³
³ ³ sterilized using other
³ ³
³ ³ alternatives such as steam or
CO2
³ ³
³ ³ /EtO blends.
³ ³
³ ³ Because HCFC-124 is a Class II
³ ³
³ ³ substance, its use may be
subject
³ ³
³ ³ to future regulation
promulgated
³ ³
³ ³ under Section 608 of the
Clean
³ ³
³ ³ Air Act Amendments of 1990.
³ ³
³ ³ As a HAP, use of EtO must
comply
³ ³
³ ³ with Title III of the CAA.
12/88 Blend of EtO ³ Pure ETO ......... ³ Acceptable
.......... ³ ................ ³ EtO is a toxic,
carcinogenic
/CFC-12 Sterilant ³ ³
³ ³ substance and is considered a
³ ³
³ ³ hazardous air pollutant.
³ ³
³ ³ Potential exposures of the
³ ³
³ ³ general population to EtO
³ ³
³ ³ releases can be limited
either
³ ³
³ ³ through the use of catalytic
³ ³
³ ³ converters which convert
waste
³ ³
³ ³ EtO into CO2 and water, or
³ ³
³ ³ through the use of acid water
³ ³
³ ³ scrubbers which convert waste
EtO
³ ³
³ ³ into ethylene glycol.
³ ³
³ ³ Must be used in accordance
with
³ ³
³ ³ manufacturer recommendations
to
³ ³
³ ³ address flammability
concerns.
³ ³
³ ³ Must be used in accordance
with
³ ³
³ ³ OSHA standards to limit
³ ³
³ ³ occupational exposures.
³ ³
³ ³ As a HAP, use of EtO must
comply
³ ³
³ ³ with Title III of the CAA.
³ Steam ............ ³ Acceptable
.......... ³ ................ ³ Applicable only to
devices
³ ³
³ ³ resistant to heat and
moisture.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Sterilants
Pending Decisions
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Application ³ Substitute ³
Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
12/88 Blend of EtO ³ [HCFC Blend] A ........... ³
Decision pending completion of FIFRA review.
/CFC-12 Sterilant ³ ³
³ HFC-125/EtO .............. ³ Agency
has not completed review of data.
³ HFC-227ea/EtO ............ ³ Need
exposure data.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Aerosols
Acceptable Substitutes
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³ Decision
³ Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³
CFC-11, HCFC-22, ³ Saturated light ³
Acceptable........ ³ Hydrocarbons are flammable
HCFC-142b as ³ hydrocarbons, C3- ³
³ materials. Use with the necessary
aerosol. ³ C6 (e.g., propane,³
³ precautions.
propellants. ³ isobutane, n- ³
³
³ butane) ³
³
³ Dimethyl ether.... ³
Acceptable........ ³ DME is flammable. Use with the
³ ³
³ necessary precautions. Blends of
³ ³
³ DME with HCFCs are subject to
³ ³
³ section 610 restrictions.
³ HFC-152a, HFC-134a,³
Acceptable........ ³ HFC-134a, HFC-125 and HFC-152a are
³ HFC-125 ³
³ potential greenhouse gases.
³ Alternative ³ Acceptable
....... ³ ..................................
³ processes (pumps, ³
³
³ mechanical ³
³
³ pressure ³
³
³ dispensers, non- ³
³
³ spray dispensers) ³
³
³ Compressed Gases ³ Acceptable
....... ³ ..................................
³ (Carbon dioxide, ³
³
³ air, nitrogen, ³
³
³ nitrous oxide) ³
³
CFC-11 as aerosol ³ HCFC-22, HCFC-142b ³
Acceptable........ ³ All aerosol propellant uses of
propellant. ³ ³
³ HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are already
³ ³
³ prohibited as of January 1, 1994
³ ³
³ under Section 610 (d) of the
³ ³
³ Clean Air Act. Only one exemption
³ ³
³ exists. It is described in the
³ ³
³ section on aerosol substitutes.
CFC-11, CFC-113, ³ C6-C20 Petroleum ³
Acceptable........ ³ Petroleum hydrocarbons are
MCF, HCFC-141b as ³ hydrocarbons ³
³ flammable. Use with the necessary
aerosol solvents. ³ ³
³ precautions. Pesticide aerosols
³ ³
³ must adhere to FIFRA standards.
³ Chlorinated ³
Acceptable........ ³ Extensive regulations under other
³ solvents ³
³ statutes govern use of these
³ ( ³
³ chemicals, including VOC
³ trichloroethylene ³
³ standards, workplace standards,
³ , ³
³ waste management standards, and
³ perchloroethylene ³
³ pesticide formulation and
³ , methylene ³
³ handling standards. Should be
³ chloride) ³
³ used only for products where
³ ³
³ nonflammability is a critical
³ ³
³ feature.
³ Oxygenated organic ³
Acceptable........ ³ These substitutes are flammable.
³ solvents (esters, ³
³ Use with the necessary
³ ethers, alcohols, ³
³ precautions.
³ ketones) ³
³
³ Terpenes ......... ³
Acceptable........ ³ These substitutes are flammable.
³ ³
³ Use with the necessary
³ ³
³ precautions.
³ Water-based ³ Acceptable
....... ³ ..................................
³ formulations ³
³
CFC-11, CFC-113, ³ HCFC-141b and its ³ Acceptable
....... ³ All aerosol solvent uses of HCFC-
MCF as aerosol. ³ blends ³
³ 141b, either by itself or blended
solvents. ³ ³
³ with other compounds, are already
³ ³
³ prohibited as of January 1, 1994
³ ³
³ under Section 610 (d) of the
³ ³
³ Clean Air Act. Limited exemptions
³ ³
³ exist. These are described in the
³ ³
³ section on aerosol substitutes.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Aerosols
Pending Substitutes
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³
Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
CFC-12 as aerosol ³ HFC-227 .................. ³ FDA
approval still required in metered dose
propellant. ³ ³
inhalers. Likely to have low environmental
³ ³
impacts.
CFC-11, CFC-113, ³ Monochlorotoluene/ ³ Agency
has not yet completed review of data.
MCF, HCFC-141b as ³ benzotrifluorides ³
aerosol solvents. ³ ³
³ HFC-4310mee .............. ³ Agency
has not completed review of data.
³ ³
Premanufacture Notice review under the
³ ³ Toxic
Substances Control Act not yet
³ ³
completed.
³ Perfluorocarbons (C6F14) . ³ Agency
has not completed review of data.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Tobacco
Expansion
Acceptable
Substitutes
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Application ³ Substitute ³ Decision
³ Conditions ³ Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³ ³
CFC-11 ³ Carbon Dioxide ... ³ Acceptable
..... ³ .................. ³ Carbon dioxide cannot be
used as a
Tobacco Expansion ³ ³
³ ³ drop-in or a retrofit, but
³ ³
³ ³ requires new equipment.
³ Propane .......... ³
Acceptable...... ³ .................. ³ Propane tobacco
expansion is a
³ ³
³ ³ patented process. Flammability
³ ³
³ ³ may be of concern for workers.
³ ³
³ ³ Major sources of VOC emissions
³ ³
³ ³ are subject to the New Source
³ ³
³ ³ Review (NSR) program under the
³ ³
³ ³ CAA.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Tobacco Expansion
Pending Substitutes
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-Use ³ Substitute ³
Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
CFC-11 ³ HFC-227ea ........ ³ Agency has not
completed review of
Tobacco Expansion. ³ ³ data.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Adhesives, Coatings, and Inks
Acceptable Substitutes
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³ Decision
³ Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³
Methyl Chloroform ³ Petroleum ³ Acceptable
..... ³ OSHA standards exist for many of
Adhesives, ³ Hydrocarbons ³
³ these chemicals. Formulators
Coatings, and ³ ³
³ should use chemicals with lowest
Inks. ³ ³
³ toxicity, where possible.
³ Oxygenated ³ Acceptable
..... ³ OSHA standards exist for many of
³ solvents ³
³ these chemicals. Formulators
³ (Alcohols, ³
³ should use chemicals with lowest
³ Ketones, Ethers, ³
³ toxicity, where possible.
³ and Esters) ³
³
³ Chlorinated ³ Acceptable
³ High inherent toxicity. Use only
³ solvents ³
³ when necessary. OSHA and RCRA
³ (methylene ³
³ standards must be met.
³ chloride, ³
³
³ trichloro- ³
³
³ ethylene, ³
³
³ perchloro- ³
³
³ ethylene) ³
³
³ Terpenes ......... ³ Acceptable
³ ..................................
³ Water-based ³ Acceptable
³ ..................................
³ formulations ³
³
³ High-solid ³ Acceptable
³ ..................................
³ formulations ³
³
³ Alternative ³ Acceptable
³ ..................................
³ technologies ³
³
³ (e.g., powder, ³
³
³ hot melt, ³
³
³ thermoplastic ³
³
³ plasma spray, ³
³
³ radiation-cured, ³
³
³ moisture-cured, ³
³
³ chemical-cured, ³
³
³ and reactive ³
³
³ liquid) ³
³
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Adhesives, Coatings, and Inks
Pending Decisions
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Application ³ Substitute ³
Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
Methyl Chloroform ³ Monochloro-toluene ³ Agency has not
completed review of
Adhesives, ³ /benzo- ³ data.
Coatings and Inks ³ trifluorides ³
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Appendix C to the Preamble
Data Confidentiality Claims
Data Confidentiality Claims
1. Special Requirements for Submitting Data to the Docket
Data submissions must be provided in three copies. If
information
is claimed as confidential, all CBI must be deleted from the
third copy which will become part of the public docket. If no
claims of confidentiality are made for the submission, the third
copy should be identical to the other two. When portions of
the submission are claimed as CBI, the first two copies will
include the CBI material as provided in section V of this notice,
which shall be deleted from the third copy. For the third copy,
the following special preparation is required:
-Remove the ``Supplemental Statement of Data Confidentiality
Claims.''
-Excise from the body of the study any information you claim
as confidential. Replace with generic information if it is
available.
-Mark the third copy plainly on both its cover and its title
page with the phrase ``Public Docket Material-contains no
information claimed as confidential.''
2. Supplemental Statement of Data Confidentiality Claims
For any portion of a submission that is claimed as confidential,
the following information must be included within a Supplementary
Statement of Data Confidentiality Claims:
-Identify specifically by page and line number(s) each portion
of the study for which you claim confidentiality.
-Give the reasons why the cited passage qualifies for confidential
treatment.
-Indicate the length of time-until a specific date or event,
or permanently-for which the information should be treated
as confidential.
-Identify the measures taken to guard against undesired disclosure
of this information.
-Describe the extent to which the information has been disclosed,
and what precautions have been taken in connection with these
disclosures.
-Enclose copies of any determinations of confidentiality made
by EPA, other Federal agencies, or courts concerning this
information.
-If you assert that disclosure of this information would be
likely to result in substantial harmful effects to you, describe
those harmful effects and explain why they should be viewed
as substantial.
-If you assert that the information is voluntarily submitted,
indicate whether you believe disclosure of this information
might tend to lessen the availability to EPA of similar
information
in the future, and if so, how.
If required substantiation is not provided along with the
submission
of information claimed as confidential, EPA may make the complete
submitted information available to the public without further
notice to the submitter.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 15, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR parts 9 and
82 are amended as follows:
PART 9-OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001,
2003, 2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C.
9701; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1321, 1326,
1330, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243,
3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246,
300f, 300g, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6,
300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k,
7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657, 11023, 11048.
2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding the new entries to the
table under the indicated heading to read as follows:
9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
40 CFR citation
OMB control
No.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
* * * *
*
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone
* * * *
*
82.176(a) .....................................................
2060-0226
82.176(c)(3) ..................................................
2060-0226
82.178 ........................................................
2060-0226
82.180(a)(5) ..................................................
2060-0226
82.180(b)(3) ..................................................
2060-0226
82.184(c) .....................................................
2060-0226
82.184(e) .....................................................
2060-0226
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
* * * * *
PART 82-PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
2. Part 82 is amended by adding subpart G consisting of
82.170 through 82.184 to read as follows:
Subpart G-Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
Sec.
82.170 Purpose and scope.
82.172 Definitions.
82.174 Prohibitions.
82.176 Applicability.
82.178 Information required to be submitted.
82.180 Agency review of SNAP submissions.
82.182 Confidentiality of data.
82.184 Petitions.
Appendix A to subpart G-Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions
and Unacceptable Substitutes
Subpart G-Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
82.170 Purpose and scope.
(a) The purpose of these regulations in this subpart is to
implement section 612 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, regarding
the safe alternatives policy on the acceptability of substitutes
for ozone-depleting compounds. This program will henceforth
be referred to as the ``Significant New Alternatives Policy''
(SNAP) program. The objectives of this program are to identify
substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds, to evaluate the
acceptability
of those substitutes, to promote the use of those substitutes
believed to present lower overall risks to human health and
the environment, relative to the class I and class II compounds
being replaced, as well as to other substitutes for the same
end-use, and to prohibit the use of those substitutes found,
based on the same comparisons, to increase overall risks.
(b) The regulations in this subpart describe persons and
substitutes subject to reporting requirements under the SNAP
program and explain preparation and submission of notices and
petitions on substitutes. The regulations also establish Agency
procedures for reviewing and processing EPA's determinations
regarding notices and petitions on substitutes. Finally, the
regulations prohibit the use of alternatives which EPA has
determined
may have adverse effects on human health or the environment
where EPA has identified alternatives in particular industrial
use sectors that on an overall basis, reduce risk to human health
and the environment and are currently or potentially available.
EPA will only prohibit substitutes where it has identified other
substitutes for a specific application that are acceptable and
are currently or potentially available.
(c) Notifications, petitions and other materials requested
shall be sent to: SNAP Document Control Officer, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (6205-J), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460.
82.172 Definitions.
Act means the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.
Agency means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Application means a specific use within a major industrial
sector end-use.
Class I or class II means the specific ozone-depleting compounds
described in section 602 of the Act.
Decision means any final determination made by the Agency
under section 612 of the Act on the acceptability or
unacceptability
of a substitute for a class I or II compound.
EPA means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
End-use means processes or classes of specific applications
within major industrial sectors where a substitute is used to
replace an ozone-depleting substance.
Formulator means any person engaged in the preparation or
formulation of a substitute, after chemical manufacture of the
substitute or its components, for distribution or use in commerce.
Health and safety study or study means any study of any effect
of a substitute or its components on health and safety, or the
environment or both, including underlying data and epidemiological
studies, studies of occupational, ambient, and consumer exposure
to a substitute, toxicological, clinical, and ecological, or
other studies of a substitute and its components, and any other
pertinent test. Chemical identity is always part of a health
and safety study. Information which arises as a result of a
formal, disciplined study is included in the definition. Also
included is information relating to the effects of a substitute
or its components on health or the environment. Any available
data that bear on the effects of a substitute or its components
on health or the environment would be included. Examples include:
(1) Long- and short-term tests of mutagenicity, carcinogenicity,
or teratogenicity; data on behavioral disorders; dermatoxicity;
pharmacological effects; mammalian absorption, distribution,
metabolism, and excretion; cumulative, additive, and synergistic
effects; acute, subchronic, and chronic effects; and
structure/activity
analyses;
(2) Tests for ecological or other environmental effects on
invertebrates, fish, or other animals, and plants, including:
Acute toxicity tests, chronic toxicity tests, critical life
stage tests, behavioral tests, algal growth tests, seed germination
tests, microbial function tests, bioconcentration or
bioaccumulation
tests, and model ecosystem (microcosm) studies;
(3) Assessments of human and environmental exposure, including
workplace exposure, and effects of a particular substitute on
the environment, including surveys, tests, and studies of:
Biological,
photochemical, and chemical degradation; air, water and soil
transport; biomagnification and bioconcentration; and chemical
and physical properties, e.g., atmospheric lifetime, boiling
point, vapor pressure, evaporation rates from soil and water,
octanol/water partition coefficient, and water solubility;
(4) Monitoring data, when they have been aggregated and analyzed
to measure the exposure of humans or the environment to a
substitute;
and
(5) Any assessments of risk to health or the environment
resulting from the manufacture, processing, distribution in
commerce, use, or disposal of the substitute or its components.
Importer means any person who imports a chemical substitute
into the United States. Importer includes the person primarily
liable for the payment of any duties on the merchandise or an
authorized agent acting on his or her behalf. The term also
includes, as appropriate:
(1) The consignee;
(2) The importer of record;
(3) The actual owner; and
(4) The transferee, if the right to draw merchandise in a
bonded warehouse has been transferred.
Major Industrial Use Sector or Sector means an industrial
category which EPA has reviewed under the SNAP program with
historically high consumption patterns of ozone-depleting
substances,
including: Refrigeration and air conditioning; foam-blowing;
fire suppression and explosion protection; solvents cleaning;
aerosols; sterilants; tobacco expansion; pesticides; and adhesives,
coatings and inks sectors.
Manufacturer means any person engaged in the direct manufacture
of a substitute.
Mixture means any mixture or blend of two or more compounds.
Person includes an individual, corporation, partnership,
association, state, municipality, political subdivision of a
state, and any agency, department, or instrumentality of the
United States and any officer, agent, or employee of such entities.
Pesticide has the meaning contained in the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. and the
regulations issued under it.
Potentially available is defined as any alternative for which
adequate health, safety, and environmental data, as required
for the SNAP notification process, exist to make a determination
of acceptability, and which the Agency reasonably believes to
be technically feasible, even if not all testing has yet been
completed and the alternative is not yet produced or sold.
Premanufacture Notice (PMN) Program has the meaning described
in 40 CFR part 720, subpart A promulgated under the Toxic
Substances
Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.
Producer means any person who manufactures, formulates or
otherwise creates a substitute in its final form for distribution
or use in interstate commerce.
Research and development means quantities of a substitute
manufactured, imported, or processed or proposed to be
manufactured,
imported, or processed solely for research and development.
Residential use means use by a private individual of a chemical
substance or any product containing the chemical substance in
or around a permanent or temporary household, during recreation,
or for any personal use or enjoyment. Use within a household
for commercial or medical applications is not included in this
definition, nor is use in automobiles, watercraft, or aircraft.
Significant new use means use of a new or existing substitute
in a major industrial use sector as a result of the phaseout
of ozone-depleting compounds.
Small uses means any use of a substitute in a sector other
than a major industrial use sector, or production by any producer
for use of a substitute in a major industrial sector of 10,000
lbs. or less per year.
Substitute or alternative means any chemical, product
substitute,
or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or new,
intended for use as a replacement for a class I or II compound.
Test marketing means the distribution in interstate commerce
of a substitute to no more than a limited, defined number of
potential customers to explore market viability in a competitive
situation. Testing must be restricted to a defined testing period
before the broader distribution of that substitute in interstate
commerce.
Use means any use of a substitute for a Class I or Class
II ozone-depleting compound, including but not limited to use
in a manufacturing process or product, in consumption by the
end-user, or in intermediate uses, such as formulation or packaging
for other subsequent uses.
Use Restrictions means restrictions on the use of a substitute
imposing either conditions on how the substitute can be used
across a sector end-use or limits on the end-uses or specific
applications where it can be used within a sector.
82.174 Prohibitions.
(a) No person may introduce a new substitute into interstate
commerce before the expiration of 90 days after a notice is
initially submitted to EPA under 82.176(a).
(b) No person may use a substitute which a person knows or
has reason to know was manufactured, processed or imported in
violation of the regulations in this subpart, or knows or has
reason to know was manufactured, processed or imported in violation
of any use restriction in the acceptability determination, after
the effective date of any rulemaking imposing such restrictions.
(c) No person may use a substitute without adhering to any
use restrictions set by the acceptability decision, after the
effective date of any rulemaking imposing such restrictions.
(d) No person may use a substitute after the effective date
of any rulemaking adding such substitute to the list of
unacceptable
substitutes.
82.176 Applicability.
(a) Any producer of a new substitute must submit a notice
of intent to introduce a substitute into interstate commerce
90 days prior to such introduction. Any producer of an existing
substitute already in interstate commerce must submit a notice
as of July 18, 1994 if such substitute has not already been
reviewed and approved by the Agency.
(b) With respect to the following substitutes, producers
are exempt from notification requirements: (1) Substitutes already
listed as acceptable. Producers need not submit notices on
substitutes
that are already listed as acceptable under SNAP.
(2) Small sectors. Persons using substitutes in sectors other
than the nine principal sectors reviewed under this program
are exempt from the notification requirements. This exemption
shall not be construed to nullify an unacceptability determination
or to allow use of an otherwise unacceptable substitute.
(3) Small volume use within SNAP sectors. Within the nine
principal SNAP sectors, persons introducing a substitute whose
expected volume of use amounts to less than 10,000 lbs. per
year within a SNAP sector are exempt from notification
requirements.
This exemption shall not be construed to allow use of an otherwise
unacceptable substitute in any quantity. Persons taking advantage
of this exemption for small uses must maintain documentation
for each substitute describing how the substitute meets this
small use definition. This documentation must include annual
production and sales information by sector.
(4) Research and development. Production of substitutes for
the sole purpose of research and development is exempt from
reporting requirements.
(5) Test marketing. Use of substitutes for the sole purpose
of test marketing is exempt from SNAP notification requirements
until 90 days prior to the introduction of such substitutes
for full-scale commercial sale in interstate commerce. Persons
taking advantage of this exemption are, however, required to
notify the Agency in writing that they are conducting test
marketing
30 days prior to the commencement of such marketing. Notification
shall include the name of the substitute, the volume used in
the test marketing, intended sector end-uses, and expected duration
of the test marketing period.
(6) Formulation changes. In cases where replacement of class
I or II compounds causes formulators to change other components
in a product, formulators are exempt from reporting with respect
to these auxiliary formulation changes. However, the SNAP submitter
is required to notify the Agency if such changes are expected
to significantly increase the environmental and human health
risk associated with the use of any class I or class II substitute.
(7) Substitutes used as feedstocks. Producers of substitutes
used as feedstocks which are largely or entirely consumed,
transformed
or destroyed in the manufacturing or use process are exempt
from reporting requirements concerning such substitutes.
(c) Use of a substitute in the possession of an end-user
as of March 18, 1994 listed as unacceptable or acceptable subject
to narrowed use limits may continue until the individual end-
users' existing supply, as of that date, of the substitute is
exhausted. Use of substitutes purchased after March 18, 1994
is not permitted subsequent to April 18, 1994.
82.178 Information required to be submitted.
(a) Persons whose substitutes are subject to reporting
requirements
pursuant to 82.176 must provide the following information:
(1) Name and description of the substitute. The substitute
should be identified by its: Chemical name; trade name(s);
identification
numbers; chemical formula; and chemical structure.
(2) Physical and chemical information. The substitute should
be characterized by its key properties including but not limited
to: Molecular weight; physical state; melting point; boiling
point; density; taste and/or odor threshold; solubility; partition
coefficients (Log KOW, Log KOC); atmospheric lifetime and vapor
pressure.
(3) Substitute applications. Identification of the applications
within each sector end-use in which the substitutes are likely
to be used.
(4) Process description. For each application identified,
descriptive data on processing, including in-place pollution
controls.
(5) Ozone depletion potential. The predicted 100-year ozone
depletion potential (ODP) of substitute chemicals. The submitter
must also provide supporting documentation or references.
(6) Global warming impacts. Data on the total global warming
potential of the substitute, including information on the GWP
index and the indirect contributions to global warming caused
by the production or use of the substitute (e.g., changes in
energy efficiency). GWP must be calculated over a 100, 500 and
1000-year integrated time horizon.
(7) Toxicity data. Health and safety studies on the effects
of a substitute, its components, its impurities, and its
degradation
products on any organism (e.g., humans, mammals, fish, wildlife,
and plants). For tests on mammals, the Agency requires a minimum
submission of the following tests to characterize substitute
risks: A range-finding study that considers the appropriate
exposure pathway for the specific use (e.g., oral ingestion,
inhalation, etc.), and a 90-day subchronic repeated dose study
in an appropriate rodent species. For certain substitutes, a
cardiotoxicity study is also required. Additional mammalian
toxicity tests may be identified based on the substitute and
application in question. To sufficiently characterize aquatic
toxicity concerns, both acute and chronic toxicity data for
a variety of species are required. For this purpose, the Agency
requires a minimum data set as described in ``Guidelines for
Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection
of Aquatic Organisms and their Uses,'' which is available through
the National Technical Information Service (#PB 85-227049).
Other relevant information and data summaries, such as the Material
Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), should also be submitted. To assist
in locating any studies previously submitted to EPA and referred
to, but not included in a SNAP submission, the submitter must
provide citations for the date, type of submission, and EPA
Office to which they were submitted, to help EPA locate these
quickly.
(8) Environmental Fate and Transport. Where available,
information
must be submitted on the environmental fate and transport of
substitutes. Such data shall include information on
bioaccumulation,
biodegradation, adsorption, volatility, transformation, and
other data necessary to characterize movement and reaction of
substitutes in the environment.
(9) Flammability. Data on the flammability of a substitute
chemical or mixture are required. Specifically, the flash point
and flammability limits are needed, as well as information on
the procedures used for determining the flammability limits.
Testing of blends should identify the compositions for which
the blend itself is flammable and include fractionation data
on changes in the composition of the blend during various leak
scenarios. For substitutes that will be used in consumer
applications,
documentation of testing results conducted by independent
laboratories
should be submitted, where available. If a substitute is flammable,
the submitter must analyze the risk of fire resulting from the
use of such a substitute and assess the effectiveness of measures
to minimize such risk.
(10) Exposure data. Available modeling or monitoring data
on exposures associated with the manufacture, formulation,
transport,
use and disposal of a substitute. Descriptive process information
for each substitute application, as described above, will be
used to develop exposure estimates where exposure data are not
readily available. Depending on the application, exposure profiles
may be needed for workers, consumers, and the general population.
(11) Environmental release data. Data on emissions from the
substitute application and equipment, as well as on pollutant
releases or discharge to all environmental media. Submitters
should provide information on release locations, and data on
the quantities, including volume, of anticipated waste associated
with the use of the substitute. In addition, information on
anticipated waste management practices associated with the use
of the substitute. Any available information on any pollution
controls used or that could be used in association with the
substitute (e.g., emissions reduction technologies, wastewater
treatment, treatment of hazardous waste) and the costs of such
technology must also be submitted.
(12) Replacement ratio for a chemical substitute. Information
on the replacement ratio for a chemical substitute versus the
class I or II substances being replaced. The term ``replacement
ratio'' means how much of a substitute must be used to replace
a given quantity of the class I or II substance being replaced.
(13) Required changes in use technology. Detail on the changes
in technology needed to use the alternative. Such information
should include a description of whether the substitute can be
used in existing equipment-with or without some retrofit-or
only in new equipment. Data on the cost (capital and operating
expenditures) and estimated life of any technology modifications
should also be submitted.
(14) Cost of substitute. Data on the expected average cost
of the alternative. In addition, information is needed on the
expected equipment lifetime for an alternative technology. Other
critical cost considerations should be identified, as appropriate.
(15) Availability of substitute. If the substitute is not
currently available, the timing of availability of a substitute
should be provided.
(16) Anticipated market share. Data on the anticipated near-
term and long-term nationwide substitute sales.
(17) Applicable regulations under other environmental statutes.
Information on whether the substitute is regulated under other
statutory authorities, in particular the Clean Water Act, Safe
Drinking Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the
Toxic Substances Control Act, the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act, or other titles under the Clean
Air Act.
(18) Information already submitted to the Agency. Information
requested in the SNAP program notice that has been previously
submitted to the Agency as part of past regulatory and information-
gathering activities may be referenced rather than resubmitted.
Submitters who cannot provide accurate references to data sent
previously to the Agency should include all requested information
in the SNAP notice.
(19) Information already available in the literature. If
any of the data needed to complete the SNAP program notice are
available in the public literature, complete references for
such information should be provided.
(b) The Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Information
Notice is designed to provide the Agency with the information
necessary to reach a decision on the acceptability of a substitute.
(1) Submitters requesting review under the SNAP program should
send the completed SNAP notice to: SNAP Document Control Officer,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (6205-J), 401 M Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20460.
(2) Submitters filing jointly under SNAP and the Premanufacture
Notice Program (PMN) should send the SNAP addendum along with
the PMN form to: PMN Document Control Officer, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (7407), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460. Submitters must also send both documents to the SNAP
program, with a reference to indicate the notice has been furnished
to the Agency under the PMN program. Submitters providing
information
on new chemicals for joint review under the TSCA and SNAP programs
may be required to supply additional toxicity data under TSCA
section 5.
(3) Submitters filing jointly under SNAP and under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act should send the
SNAP form to the Office of Pesticide Programs, Registration
Division, (7505C) 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20460,
as well as to the SNAP Document Control Officer.
82.180 Agency review of SNAP submissions.
(a) Processing of SNAP notices. (1) 90-day review process.
The 90-day review process will begin once EPA receives a submission
and determines that such submission includes data on the substitute
that are complete and adequate, as described in 82.178. The
Agency may suspend or extend the review period to allow for
submission of additional data needed to complete the review
of the notice.
(2) Initial review of notice. The SNAP Document Control Officer
will review the notice to ensure that basic information necessary
to process the submission is present (i.e., name of company,
identification of substitute, etc.). The SNAP Document Control
Officer will also review substantiation of any claim of
confidentiality.
(3) Determination of data adequacy. Upon receipt of the SNAP
submission, the Agency will review the completeness of the
information
supporting the application. If additional data are needed, the
submitter will be contacted following completion of this review.
The 90-day review period will not commence until EPA has received
data it judges adequate to support analysis of the submission.
(4) Letter of receipt. The SNAP Document Control Officer
will send a letter of receipt to the submitter to confirm the
date of notification and the beginning of EPA's 90-day review
period. The SNAP Document Control Officer will also assign the
SNAP notice a tracking number, which will be identified in the
letter of receipt.
(5) Availability of new information during review period.
If critical new information becomes available during the review
period that may influence the Agency's evaluation of a substitute,
the submitter must notify the Agency about the existence of
such information within 10 days of learning of such data. The
submitter must also inform the Agency of new studies underway,
even if the results will not be available within the 90-day
review period. The Agency may contact the submitter to explore
extending or suspending the review period depending on the type
of information received and the stage of review.
(6) Completion of detailed review. Once the initial data
review, described in paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section,
has been completed, the Agency will complete a detailed evaluation
of the notice. If during any time the Agency perceives a lack
of information necessary to reach a SNAP determination, it will
contact the submitter and request the missing data.
(7) Criteria for review. To determine whether a substitute
is acceptable or unacceptable as a replacement for class I or
II compounds, the Agency will evaluate:
(i) Atmospheric effects and related health and environmental
impacts;
(ii) General population risks from ambient exposure to compounds
with direct toxicity and to increased ground-level ozone;
(iii) Ecosystem risks;
(iv) Occupational risks;
(v) Consumer risks;
(vi) Flammability; and
(vii) Cost and availability of the substitute.
(8) Communication of decision. (i) Communication of decision
to the submitter. Once the SNAP program review has been completed,
the Agency will notify the submitter in writing of the decision.
Sale or manufacture of new substitutes may commence after the
initial 90-day notification period expires even if the Agency
fails to reach a decision within the 90-day review period or
fails to communicate that decision or the need for additional
data to the submitter. Sale or manufacture of existing substitutes
may continue throughout the Agency's 90-day review.
(ii) Communication of Decision to the Public. The Agency
will publish in the Federal Register on a quarterly basis a
complete list of the acceptable and unacceptable alternatives
that have been reviewed to date. In the case of substitutes
proposed as acceptable with use restrictions, proposed as
unacceptable
or proposed for removal from either list, a rulemaking process
will ensue. Upon completion of such rulemaking, EPA will publish
revised lists of substitutes acceptable subject to use conditions
or narrowed use limits and unacceptable substitutes to be
incorporated
into the Code of Federal Regulations. (See appendix A of this
subpart.)
(b) Types of listing decisions. When reviewing substitutes,
the Agency will list substitutes in one of five categories:
(1) Acceptable. Where the Agency has reviewed a substitute
and found no reason to prohibit its use, it will list the
alternative
as acceptable for the end-uses listed in the notice.
(2) Acceptable subject to use conditions. After reviewing
a notice, the Agency may make a determination that a substitute
is acceptable only if conditions of use are met to minimize
risks to human health and the environment. Where users intending
to adopt a substitute acceptable subject to use conditions must
make reasonable efforts to ascertain that other alternatives
are not feasible due to safety, performance or technical reasons,
documentation of this assessment must be retained on file for
the purpose of demonstrating compliance. This documentation
shall include descriptions of substitutes examined and rejected,
processes or products in which the substitute is needed, reason
for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical
or safety standards. Use of such substitutes in ways that are
inconsistent with such use conditions renders them unacceptable.
(3) Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits. Even though
the Agency can restrict the use of a substitute based on the
potential for adverse effects, it may be necessary to permit
a narrowed range of use within a sector end-use because of the
lack of alternatives for specialized applications. Users intending
to adopt a substitute acceptable with narrowed use limits must
ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible.
Companies must document the results of their evaluation, and
retain the results on file for the purpose of demonstrating
compliance. This documentation shall include descriptions of
substitutes examined and rejected, processes or products in
which the substitute is needed, reason for rejection of other
alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards,
and the anticipated date other substitutes will be available
and projected time for switching to other available substitutes.
Use of such substitutes in applications and end-uses which are
not specified as acceptable in the narrowed use limit renders
them unacceptable.
(4) Unacceptable. This designation will apply to substitutes
where the Agency's review indicates that the substitute poses
risk of adverse effects to human health and the environment
and that other alternatives exist that reduce overall risk.
(5) Pending. Submissions for which the Agency has not reached
a determination will be described as pending. For all substitutes
in this category, the Agency will work with the submitter to
obtain any missing information and to determine a schedule for
providing the missing information if the Agency wishes to extend
the 90-day review period. EPA will use the authority under section
114 of the Clean Air Act to gather this information, if necessary.
In some instances, the Agency may also explore using additional
statutory provisions (e.g., section 5 of TSCA) to collect the
needed data.
(c) Joint processing under SNAP and TSCA. The Agency will
coordinate reviews of substitutes submitted for evaluation under
both the TSCA PMN program and the CAA.
(d) Joint processing under SNAP and FIFRA. The Agency will
coordinate reviews of substitutes submitted for evaluation under
both FIFRA and the CAA.
82.182 Confidentiality of data.
(a) Clean Air Act provisions. Anyone submitting information
must assert a claim of confidentiality at the time of submission
for any data they wish to have treated as confidential business
information (CBI) under 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. Failure to
assert a claim of confidentiality at the time of submission
may result in disclosure of the information by the Agency without
further notice to the submitter. The submitter should also be
aware that under section 114(c), emissions data may not be claimed
as confidential.
(b) Substantiation of confidentiality claims. At the time
of submission, EPA requires substantiation of any confidentiality
claims made. Failure to provide any substantiation may result
in disclosure of information without further notice by the Agency.
All submissions must include adequate substantiation in order
for an acceptability determination on a substitute to be published.
Moreover, under 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, there are further
instances in which confidentiality assertions may later be reviewed
even when confidentiality claims are initially received. The
submitter will also be contacted as part of such an evaluation
process.
(c) Confidentiality provisions for toxicity data. In the
event that toxicity or health and safety studies are listed
as confidential, this information cannot be maintained as
confidential
where such data are also submitted under TSCA or FIFRA, to the
extent that confidential treatment is prohibited under those
statutes. However, information contained in a toxicity study
that is not health and safety data and is not relevant to the
effects of a substance on human health and the environment (e.g.,
discussion of process information, proprietary blends) can be
maintained as confidential subject to 40 CFR part 2, subpart
B.
(d) Joint submissions under other statutes. Information
submitted
as part of a joint submission to either SNAP/TSCA or SNAP/FIFRA
must adhere to the security provisions of the program offices
implementing these statutes. For such submissions, the SNAP
handling of such notices will follow the security provisions
under these statutes.
82.184 Petitions.
(a) Who may petition. Any person may petition the Agency
to amend existing listing decisions under the SNAP program,
or to add a new substance to any of the SNAP lists.
(b) Types of petitions. Five types of petitions exist: (1)
Petitions to add a substitute not previously reviewed under
the SNAP program to the acceptable list. This type of petition
is comparable to the 90-day notifications, except that it would
generally be initiated by entities other than the companies
that manufacture, formulate, or otherwise use the substitute.
Companies that manufacture, formulate, or use substitutes that
want to have their substitutes added to the acceptable list
should submit information on the substitute under the 90-day
review program;
(2) Petitions to add a substitute not previously reviewed
under the SNAP program to the unacceptable list;
(3) Petitions to delete a substitute from the acceptable
list and add it to the unacceptable list or to delete a substitute
from the unacceptable and add it to the acceptable list;
(4) Petitions to add or delete use restrictions on an
acceptability
listing.
(5) Petitions to grandfather use of a substitute listed as
unacceptable or acceptable subject to use restrictions.
(c) Content of the petition. The Agency requires that the
petitioner submit information on the type of action requested
and the rationale for the petition. Petitions in paragraphs
(b)(1) and (2) of this section must contain the information
described in 82.178, which lists the items to be submitted
in a 90-day notification. For petitions that request the re-
examination of a substitute previously reviewed under the SNAP
program, the submitter must also reference the prior submittal
or existing listing. Petitions to grandfather use of an
unacceptable
substitute must describe the applicability of the test to judge
the appropriateness of Agency grandfathering as established
by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Circuit (see Sierra Club v. EPA, 719 F.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1983)).
This test includes whether the new rule represents an abrupt
departure from previously established practice, the extent to
which a party relied on the previous rule, the degree of burden
which application of the new rule would impose on the party,
and the statutory interest in applying the new rule immediately.
(d) Petition process. (1) Notification of Affected Companies.
If the petition concerns a substitute previously either approved
or restricted under the SNAP program, the Agency will contact
the original submitter of that substitute.
(2) Review for data adequacy. The Agency will review the
petition for adequacy of data. As with a 90-day notice, the
Agency may suspend review until the petitioner submits the
information
necessary to evaluate the petition. To reach a timely decision
on substitutes, EPA may use collection authorities such as those
contained in section 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended, as
well as information collection provisions of other environmental
statutes.
(3) Review procedures. To evaluate the petition, the Agency
may submit the petition for review to appropriate experts inside
and outside the Agency.
(4) Timing of determinations. If data are adequate, as described
in 82.180, the Agency will respond to the petition within
90 days of receiving a complete petition. If the petition is
inadequately supported, the Agency will query the petitioner
to fill any data gaps before the 90-day review period begins,
or may deny the petition because data are inadequate.
(5) Rulemaking procedures. EPA will initiate rulemaking whenever
EPA grants a petition to add a substance to the list of
unacceptable
substitutes, remove a substance from any list, or change or
create an acceptable listing by imposing or deleting use conditions
or use limits.
(6) Communication of decision. The Agency will inform
petitioners
within 90 days of receiving a complete petition whether their
request has been granted or denied. If a petition is denied,
the Agency will publish in the Federal Register an explanation
of the determination. If a petition is granted, the Agency will
publish the revised SNAP list incorporating the final petition
decision within 6 months of reaching a determination or in the
next scheduled update, if sooner, provided any required rulemaking
has been completed within the shorter period.
Appendix A to Subpart G-Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions
and Unacceptable Substitutes
Refrigerants
Unacceptable Substitutes
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³ Decision
³ Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³
CFC-11 centrifugal ³ HCFC-141b ........ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Has a high ODP relative to other
chillers. ³ ³
³ alternatives.
(retrofit). ³ ³
³
CFC-12 centrifugal ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
chillers. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can used safely in
³ ³
³ this end-use.
CFC-11, CFC-12, ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
CFC-113, CFC-114, ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
R-500 centrifugal ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
chillers (new. ³ ³
³ substances.
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³
³ Hydrocabon blend A ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
³ HCFC-141b ........ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Has a high ODP relative to other
³ ³
³ alternatives.
CFC-12 ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
reciprocating. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
chillers ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12 ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
reciprocating. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
chillers (new ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-11, CFC-12, R- ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
502 industrial. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
process ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
refrigeration. ³ ³
³ substances.
(retrofit). ³ ³
³
CFC-11, CFC-12, R- ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
502 industrial. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
process ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
refrigeration. ³ ³
³ substances.
(new equipment/ ³ ³
³
NIKs). ³ ³
³
CFC-12, R-502 ice ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
skating rinks. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 ice ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
skating rinks. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
(new equipment/ ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
NIKs). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 cold ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
storage. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
warehouses ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 cold ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
storage. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
warehouses (new ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-500, R- ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
502 refrigerated. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
transport ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-500, R- ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
502 refrigerated. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
transport (new ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
retail food. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
refrigeration ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
retail food. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
refrigeration ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
(new equipment/. ³ ³
³ substances.
NIKs). ³ ³
³
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
commercial ice. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
machines ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
commercial ice. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
machines (new ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12 vending ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
machines. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFC-12 vending ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
machines (new. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFR-12, water ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
coolers (retrofit)³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFR-12, water ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
coolers (New. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFR-12, household ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
refrigerators. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFR-12, household ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
refrigerators. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
(new equipment/ ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
NIKs). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFR-12, R-502 ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
household. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
freezers ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFR-12, 502 ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
household. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
freezers (new ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFR-12, R-500 ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
residential. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
dehumidifiers ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFR-12, R-500 ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
residential. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
dehumidifiers ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
(new equipment/. ³ ³
³ substances.
NIKs). ³ ³
³
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFR-12, motor ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
vehicle air. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
conditioners ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
(retrofit). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be used safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
CFR-12, motor ³ HCFC-22/HFC-142b/ ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ As a blend of both Class I and
vehicle air. ³ CFC-12 ³
³ Class II substances, it has a
conditioners (new ³ ³
³ higher ODP than use of Class II
equipment/NIKs). ³ ³
³ substances.
³ Hydrocarbon blend ³ Unacceptable
....... ³ Flammability is a serious concern.
³ A ³
³ Data have not been submitted to
³ ³
³ demonstrate it can be sued safely
³ ³
³ in this end-use.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Foams
Unacceptable Substitutes
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³ Decision
³ Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³
CFC-11 Polyolefin ³ HCFC-141b (or ³ Unacceptable
........ ³ HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11,
³ blends thereof) ³
³ almost equivalent to that of
³ ³
³ methyl chloroform, a Class I
³ ³
³ substance. The Agency believes
³ ³
³ that non-ODP alternatives are
³ ³
³ sufficiently available to render
³ ³
³ the use of HCFC-141b unnecessary
³ ³
³ in polyolefin foams.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Narrowed
Use Limits
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³ Decision
³ Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³
Electronics ³ Perfluoro-carbons ³ Acceptable for
³ The principal environmental
cleaning w/CFC- ³ (C5F12, C6F12, ³
high-performance, ³ characteristic of concern for
113, MCF. ³ C6F14, C7F16, ³ precision-
³ PFCs is that they have long
³ C8F18, C5F11NO, ³ engineered
³ atmospheric lifetimes and high
³ C6F13NO, C7F15NO, ³ applications
only ³ global warming potentials.
³ and C8F16) ³ where
reasonable ³ Although actual contributions to
³ ³ efforts have
been ³ global warming depend upon the
³ ³ made to
ascertain ³ quantities of PFCs emitted, the
³ ³ that other
³ effects are for practical
³ ³ alternatives
are ³ purposes irreversible.
³ ³ not
technically ³ Users must observe this limitation
³ ³ feasible due
to ³ on PFC acceptability by
³ ³ performance or
³ conducting a reasonable
³ ³ safety
³ evaluation of other substitutes
³ ³ requirements
³ to determine that PFC use is
³ ³
³ necessary to meet performance or
³ ³
³ safety requirements.
³ ³
³ Documentation of this evaluation
³ ³
³ must be kept on file.
³ ³
³ For additional guidance regarding
³ ³
³ applications in which PFCs may be
³ ³
³ appropriate, users should consult
³ ³
³ the Preamble for this rulemaking.
Precision cleaning ³ Perfluoro-carbons ³ Acceptable for
³ The principal environmental
w/CFC-113, MCF. ³ (C5F12, C6F12, ³
high-performance, ³ characteristic of concern for
³ C6F14, C7F16, ³ precision-
³ PFCs is that they have long
³ C8F18, C5F11NO, ³ engineered
³ atmospheric lifetimes and high
³ C6F13NO, C7F15NO, ³ applications
only ³ global warming potentials.
³ and C8F16) ³ where
reasonable ³ Although actual contributions to
³ ³ efforts have
been ³ global warming depend upon the
³ ³ made to
ascertain ³ quantities of PFCs emitted, the
³ ³ that other
³ effects are for practical
³ ³ alternatives
are ³ purposes irreversible.
³ ³ not
technically ³ Users must observe this limitation
³ ³ feasible due
to ³ on PFC acceptability by
³ ³ performance or
³ conducting a reasonable
³ ³ safety
³ evaluation of other substitutes
³ ³ requirements
³ to determine that PFC use is
³ ³
³ necessary to meet performance or
³ ³
³ safety requirements.
³ ³
³ Documentation of this evaluation
³ ³
³ must be kept on file.
³ ³
³ For additional guidance regarding
³ ³
³ applications in which PFCs may be
³ ³
³ appropriate, users should consult
³ ³
³ the Preamble for this rulemaking.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Unacceptable Substitutes
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³ Decision
³ Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³
Metals cleaning w/ ³ HCFC 141b and its ³ Unacceptable
........ ³ High ODP; other alternatives exist.
CFC-113. ³ blends ³
³ Effective date: As of 30 days
³ ³
³ after final rule for uses in new
³ ³
³ equipment (including retrofits
³ ³
³ made after the effective date);
³ ³
³ as of January 1, 1996 for uses in
³ ³
³ existing equipment. EPA will
³ ³
³ grant, if necessary, narrowed use
³ ³
³ acceptability listings for CFC-
³ ³
³ 113 past the effective date of
³ ³
³ the prohibition.
Metals cleaning w/ ³ HCFC 141b and its ³ Unacceptable
........ ³ High ODP; other alternatives exist.
MCF. ³ blends ³
³ Effective date: As of 30 days
³ ³
³ after final rule for uses in new
³ ³
³ equipment (including retrofits
³ ³
³ made after the effective date);
³ ³
³ as of January 1, 1996 for uses in
³ ³
³ existing equipment.
Electronics ³ HCFC 141b and its ³ Unacceptable
........ ³ High ODP; other alternatives exist.
cleaning w/CFC-. ³ blends ³
³ Effective date: As of 30 days
113. ³ ³
³ after final rule for uses in new
³ ³
³ equipment (including retrofits
³ ³
³ made after the effective date);
³ ³
³ as of January 1, 1996 for uses in
³ ³
³ existing equipment. EPA will
³ ³
³ grant, if necessary, narrowed use
³ ³
³ acceptability listings for CFC-
³ ³
³ 113 past the effective date of
³ ³
³ the prohibition.
Electronics ³ HCFC 141b and its ³ Unacceptable
........ ³ High ODP; other alternatives exist.
cleaning w/MCF. ³ blends ³
³ Effective date: As of 30 days
³ ³
³ after final rule for uses in new
³ ³
³ equipment (including retrofits
³ ³
³ made after the effective date);
³ ³
³ as of January 1, 1996 for uses in
³ ³
³ existing equipment.
Precision cleaning ³ HCFC 141b and its ³ Unacceptable
........ ³ High ODP; other alternatives exist.
w/CFC-113. ³ blends ³
³ Effective date: As of 30 days
³ ³
³ after final rule for uses in new
³ ³
³ equipment (including retrofits
³ ³
³ made after the effective date);
³ ³
³ as of January 1, 1996 for uses in
³ ³
³ existing equipment. EPA will
³ ³
³ grant, if necessary, narrowed use
³ ³
³ acceptability listings for CFC-
³ ³
³ 113 past the effective date of
³ ³
³ the prohibition.
Precision cleaning ³ HCFC 141b and its ³ Unacceptable
........ ³ High ODP; other alternatives exist.
w/MCF. ³ blends ³
³ Effective date: As of 30 days
³ ³
³ after final rule for uses in new
³ ³
³ equipment (including retrofits
³ ³
³ made after the effective date);
³ ³
³ as of January 1, 1996 for uses in
³ ³
³ existing equipment.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Fire Suppression and Explosion
Protection Streaming Agents
Substitutes Acceptable Subject
to Narrowed Use Limits
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³
Decision ³ Conditions ³ Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³ ³
Halon 1211 ³ [CFC Blend] ......... ³ Acceptable
in ³ ................. ³ Use of CFCs are controlled
under
Streaming Agents. ³ ³
nonresidential ³ ³ CAA section 610
which bans use of
³ ³ uses only
³ ³ CFCs in pressurized
dispensers,
³ ³
³ ³ and therefore are not
permitted
³ ³
³ ³ for use in portable fire
³ ³
³ ³ extinguishers. EPA will list
this
³ ³
³ ³ agent as proposed
unacceptable in
³ ³
³ ³ the next SNAP proposed
rulemaking.
³ ³
³ ³ Because CFCs are a Class I
³ ³
³ ³ substance, production will
be
³ ³
³ ³ phased out by January 1,
1996.
³ ³
³ ³ See additional comments 1, 2.
³ HBFC-22B1............ ³
.................. ³ Acceptable in ³ Proper
procedures regarding the
³ ³
³ nonresidential ³ operation of the
extinguisher and
³ ³
³ uses only ³ ventilation following
dispensing
³ ³
³ ³ the extinguishant is
recommended.
³ ³
³ ³ Worker exposure may be a
concern
³ ³
³ ³ in small office areas.
³ ³
³ ³ HBFC-22B1 is considered an
interim
³ ³
³ ³ substitute for Halon 1211.
³ ³
³ ³ Because the HBFC-22B1 has an
ODP
³ ³
³ ³ of .74, production will be
phased
³ ³
³ ³ out (except for essential
uses)
³ ³
³ ³ on January 1, 1996.
³ ³
³ ³ This agent was submitted to
the
³ ³
³ ³ Agency as a Premanufacture
Notice
³ ³
³ ³ (PMN) and is presently
subject to
³ ³
³ ³ requirements contained in a
Toxic
³ ³
³ ³ Substance Control Act (TSCA)
³ ³
³ ³ Consent Order.
³ ³
³ ³ See additional comments 1, 2.
³ C6F14 ............... ³ Acceptable
for ³ ................. ³ Users must observe the
limitations
³ ³
nonresidential ³ ³ on PFC
acceptability by making
³ ³ uses where
other ³ ³ reasonable effort to
undertake
³ ³
alternatives are ³ ³ the following
measures:
³ ³ not
technically ³ ³ (i) conduct an
evaluation of
³ ³ feasible
due to ³ ³ foreseeable conditions of
end use;
³ ³ performance
or ³ ³ (ii) determine that the
physical
³ ³ safety
³ ³ or chemical properties or
other
³ ³
requirements: ³ ³ technical
constraints of the
³ ³
³ ³ other available agents
preclude
³ ³
³ ³ their use; and
³ ³ a. due to
the ³ ................. ³ (iii) determine that human
³ ³ physical or
³ ³ exposure to the other
alternative
³ ³ chemical
³ ³ extinguishing agents may
approach
³ ³ properties
of the ³ ³ or result in
cardiosensitization
³ ³ agent, or
³ ³ or other unacceptable
toxicity
³ ³
³ ³ effects under normal
operating
³ ³
³ ³ conditions;
³ ³
³ ³ Documentation of such
measures
³ ³
³ ³ must be available for review
upon
³ ³
³ ³ request.
³ ³ b. where
human ³ ................. ³ The principal
environmental
³ ³ exposure to
the ³ ³ characteristic of concern
for
³ ³
extinguishing ³ ³ PFCs is that
they have high GWPs
³ ³ agent may
³ ³ and long atmospheric
lifetimes.
³ ³ approach
cardios ³ ³ Actual contributions to
global
³ ³ ensitization
³ ³ warming depend upon the
³ ³ levels or
result ³ ³ quantities of PFCs
emitted.
³ ³ in other
³ ³ For additional guidance
regarding
³ ³
unacceptable ³ ³ applications in
which PFCs may be
³ ³ health
effects ³ ³ appropriate, users
should consult
³ ³ under
normal ³ ³ the description of
potential uses
³ ³ operating
³ ³ which is included in the
preamble
³ ³ conditions
³ ³ to this rulemaking.
³ ³
³ ³ See additional comments 1, 2.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Additional Comments:
1-Discharge testing and training should be strictly limited only
to that which is essential to meet safety or
performance requirements.
2-The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system
in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled
for later use or destroyed.
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
Streaming Agents
Unacceptable Substitutes
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³ Decision
³ Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³
Halon 1211 ³ [CFC-11] ......... ³ Unacceptable
........ ³ This agent has been suggested for
Streaming Agents. ³ ³
³ use on large outdoor fires for
³ ³
³ which non-ozone depleting
³ ³
³ alternatives are currently used.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Fire Suppression and
Explosion Protection Total Flooding Agents
Substitutes
Acceptable Subject To Use Conditions
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³ Decision
³ Conditions ³
Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³ ³
Halon 1301 Total ³ HBFC-22B1 ........ ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Until OSHA establishes applicable ³ The
comparative design
Flooding Agents. ³ ³
³ workplace requirements: ³
concentration based on cup burner
³ ³
³ Where egress from an area cannot ³ values is
approximately 5.3%,
³ ³
³ be accomplished within one minute,³ while its
cardiotoxic LOAEL is 1%
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use this ³ . Thus, it
is unlikely that this
³ ³
³ agent in concentrations exceeding ³ agent will
be used in normally
³ ³
³ its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 0.3% ³ occupied
areas.
³ ³
³ ³ HBFC-22B1 can
be considered only
³ ³
³ ³ an interim
substitute for Halon
³ ³
³ ³ 1301.
HBFC-22B1 has an ODP of .74;
³ ³
³ ³ thus,
production will be phased
³ ³
³ ³ out January
1, 1996.
³ ³
³ Where egress takes longer than 30 ³ This agent
was submitted to the
³ ³
³ seconds but less than one minute, ³ Agency as a
Premanufacture Notice
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use the ³ (PMN) and is
presently subject to
³ ³
³ agent in a concentration greater ³ requirements
contained in a Toxic
³ ³
³ than its cardiotoxic LOAEL of 1.0 ³ Substance
Control Act (TSCA)
³ ³
³ % ³ Consent
Order.
³ ³
³ HBFC-22B1 concentrations greater ³ See
additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
³ ³
³ than 1.0% are only permitted in ³
³ ³
³ areas not normally occupied by ³
³ ³
³ employees provided that any ³
³ ³
³ employee in the area can escape ³
³ ³
³ within 30 seconds. The employer ³
³ ³
³ shall assure that no unprotected ³
³ ³
³ employees enter the area during ³
³ ³
³ agent discharge ³
³ HCFC-22 .......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Until OSHA establishes applicable ³ The
comparative design
³ ³
³ workplace requirements: ³
concentration based on cup burner
³ ³
³ ³ values is
approximately 13.9%
³ ³
³ ³ while its
cardiotoxic LOAEL is
³ ³
³ ³ 5.0%. Thus,
it is unlikely that
³ ³
³ ³ this agent
will be used in
³ ³
³ ³ normally
occupied areas.
³ ³
³ Where egress from an area cannot ³ See
additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
³ ³
³ be accomplished within one minute,³
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use this ³
³ ³
³ agent in concentrations exceeding ³
³ ³
³ its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 2.5% ³
³ ³
³ Where egress takes longer than 30 ³
..................................
³ ³
³ seconds but less than one minute, ³
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use the ³
³ ³
³ agent in a concentration greater ³
³ ³
³ than its cardiotoxic LOAEL of 5.0 ³
³ ³
³ % ³
³ ³
³ HCFC-22 concentrations greater ³
..................................
³ ³
³ than 5.0% are only permitted in ³
³ ³
³ areas not normally occupied by ³
³ ³
³ employees provided that any ³
³ ³
³ employee in the area can escape ³
³ ³
³ within 30 seconds. The employer ³
³ ³
³ shall assure that no unprotected ³
³ ³
³ employees enter the area during ³
³ ³
³ agent discharge ³
³ HCFC-124 ......... ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Until OSHA establishes applicable ³ The
comparative design
³ ³
³ workplace requirements: ³
concentration based on cup burner
³ ³
³ Where egress from an area cannot ³ values is
approximately 8.4%
³ ³
³ be accomplished within one minute,³ while its
cardiotoxic LOAEL is
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use this ³ 2.5%. Thus,
it is unlikely that
³ ³
³ agent in concentrations exceeding ³ this agent
will be used in
³ ³
³ its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 1.0%. ³ normally
occupied areas.
³ ³
³ ³ See
additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
³ ³
³ Where egress takes longer than 30 ³
³ ³
³ seconds but less than one minute, ³
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use the ³
³ ³
³ agent in a concentration greater ³
³ ³
³ than its cardiotoxic LOAEL OF 2.5 ³
³ ³
³ % ³
³ ³
³ HCFC-123 concentrations greater ³
³ ³
³ than 2.5% are only permitted in ³
³ ³
³ areas not normally occupied by ³
³ ³
³ employees provided that any ³
³ ³
³ employee in the area can escape ³
³ ³
³ within 30 seconds. The employer ³
³ ³
³ shall assure that no unprotected ³
³ ³
³ employees enter the area during ³
³ ³
³ agent discharge ³
³ [HCFC BLEND] A.... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Until OSHA establishes applicable
³ The comparative design
³ ³
³ workplace requirements: ³
concentration based on full-scale
³ ³
³ Where egress from an area cannot ³ testing is
approximately 8.6%.
³ ³
³ be accomplished within one minute,³ The agent
should be recovered from
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use [HCFC ³ the fire
protection system in
³ ³
³ Blend] A in concentrations ³ conjunction
with testing or
³ ³
³ exceeding its cardiotoxic NOAEL ³ servicing,
and should be recycled
³ ³
³ of 10.0%. ³ for later
use or destroyed.
³ ³
³ ³ See
additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
³ ³
³ Where egress takes greater than 30 ³
³ ³
³ seconds but less than one minute, ³
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use [HCFC ³
³ ³
³ Blend] A in a concentration ³
³ ³
³ greater than its cardiotoxic ³
³ ³
³ LOAEL of 10.0% ³
³ ³
³ [HCFC Blend] A concentrations ³
³ ³
³ greater than 10 percent are only ³
³ ³
³ permitted in areas not normally ³
³ ³
³ occupied by employees provided ³
³ ³
³ that any employee in the area can ³
³ ³
³ escape within 30 seconds. The ³
³ ³
³ employer shall assure that no ³
³ ³
³ unprotected employees enter the ³
³ ³
³ area during agent discharge ³
³ HFC-23............ ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Until OSHA establishes applicable
³ The comparative design
³ ³
³ workplace requirements: ³
concentration based on cup burner
³ ³
³ Where egress from an area cannot ³ values is
approximately 14.4%
³ ³
³ be accomplished within one minute,³ while data
indicates that its
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use HFC-23 ³
cardiotoxicity NOAEL is 30%
³ ³
³ in concentrations exceeding 30%. ³ without
added oxygen and 50% with
³ ³
³ ³ added
oxygen. Its LOAEL is likely
³ ³
³ ³ to exceed
50%.
³ ³
³ ³ See
additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
³ ³
³ Where egress takes greater than 30 ³
..................................
³ ³
³ seconds but less than one minute, ³
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use HFC-23 ³
³ ³
³ in a concentration greater than ³
³ ³
³ 50.0%. ³
³ ³
³ HFC-23 concentrations greater than ³
³ ³
³ 50 percent are only permitted in ³
³ ³
³ areas not normally occupied by ³
³ ³
³ employees provided that any ³
³ ³
³ employee in the area can escape ³
³ ³
³ within 30 seconds. The employer ³
³ ³
³ shall assure that no unprotected ³
³ ³
³ employees enter the area during ³
³ ³
³ agent discharge ³
³ ³
³ The design concentration must ³
³ ³
³ result in an oxygen level of at ³
³ ³
³ least 16% ³
³ HFC-125........... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Until OSHA establishes applicable
³ The comparative design
³ ³
³ workplace requirements: ³
concentration based on cup burner
³ ³
³ Where egress from an area cannot ³ values is
approximately 11.3%
³ ³
³ be accomplished within one minute,³ while its
cardiotoxic LOAEL is
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use this ³ 10.0%. Thus,
it is unlikely that
³ ³
³ agent in concentrations exceeding ³ this agent
will be used in
³ ³
³ its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 7.5%. ³ normally
occupied areas.
³ ³
³ ³ See
additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
³ ³
³ Where egress takes longer than 30 ³
³ ³
³ seconds but less than one minute, ³
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use the ³
³ ³
³ agent in a concentration greater ³
³ ³
³ than its cadiotoxic LOAEL of 10.0 ³
³ ³
³ % ³
³ ³
³ HFC-125 concentrations greater ³
³ ³
³ than 10.0% are only permitted in ³
³ ³
³ areas not normally occupied by ³
³ ³
³ employees provided that any ³
³ ³
³ employee in the area can escape ³
³ ³
³ within 30 seconds. The employer ³
³ ³
³ shall assure that no unprotected ³
³ ³
³ employees enter the area during ³
³ ³
³ agent discharge ³
³ HFC-134a.......... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Until OSHA establishes applicable
³ The comparative design
³ ³
³ workplace requirements: ³
concentration based on cup burner
³ ³
³ Where egress from an area cannot ³ values is
approximately 12.6%
³ ³
³ be accomplished within one minute,³ while its
cardiotoxic LOAEL is
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use this ³ 8.0%. Thus,
it is unlikely that
³ ³
³ agent in concentrations exceeding ³ this agent
will be used in
³ ³
³ its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 4.0%. ³ normally
occupied areas.
³ ³
³ ³ See
additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
³ ³
³ Where egress takes longer than 30 ³
³ ³
³ seconds but less than one minute, ³
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use the ³
³ ³
³ agent in a concentration greater ³
³ ³
³ than its cardiotoxic LOAEL of 8.0 ³
³ ³
³ % ³
³ ³
³ HFC-134a concentrations greater ³
..................................
³ ³
³ than 8.0% are only permitted in ³
³ ³
³ areas not normally occupied by ³
³ ³
³ employees provided that any ³
³ ³
³ employee in the area can escape ³
³ ³
³ within 30 seconds. The employer ³
³ ³
³ shall assure that no unprotected ³
³ ³
³ employees enter the area during ³
³ ³
³ agent discharge ³
³ HFC-227ea......... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Until OSHA establishes applicable
³ The comparative design
³ ³
³ workplace requirements: ³
concentration based on cup burner
³ ³
³ Where egress from an area cannot ³ values is
approximately 7.0%
³ ³
³ be accomplished within one minute,³ while data
indicate that its
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use HFC- ³
cardiotoxicity LOAEL is probably
³ ³
³ 227ea in concentrations exceeding ³ greater than
10.5%. EPA is
³ ³
³ its cardiotoxic NOAEL of 9.0% ³ accepting
10.5% as its LOAEL.
³ ³
³ Where egress takes longer than 30 ³ This agent
was submitted to the
³ ³
³ seconds but less than one minute, ³ Agency as a
Premanufacture Notice
³ ³
³ the employer shall not use the ³ (PMN) agent
and is presently
³ ³
³ agent in a concentration greater ³ subject to
requirements contained
³ ³
³ than its cardiotoxic LOAEL of ³ in a Toxic
Substances Control Act
³ ³
³ 10.5%. ³ (TSCA)
Significant New Use Rule
³ ³
³ ³ (SNUR).
³ ³
³ ³ See
additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
³ ³
³ HFC-227ea concentrations greater ³
..................................
³ ³
³ than 10.5% are only permitted in ³
³ ³
³ areas not normally occupied by ³
³ ³
³ employees provided that any ³
³ ³
³ employee in the area can escape ³
³ ³
³ within 30 seconds. The employer ³
³ ³
³ shall assure that no unprotected ³
³ ³
³ employees enter the area during ³
³ ³
³ agent discharge ³
³ C4F10............. ³ Acceptable
......... ³ Until OSHA establishes applicable ³ The
comparative design
³ ³
³ workplace requirements: ³
concentration based on cup burner
³ ³
³ ³ values is
approximately 6.6%.
³ ³ where other
³ For occupied areas from which ³ Users must
observe the limitations
³ ³ alternatives
are ³ personnel cannot be evacuated in ³ on PFC
acceptability by making
³ ³ not
technically ³ one minute, use is permitted only ³
reasonable efforts to undertake
³ ³ feasible due
to ³ up to concentrations not ³ the
following measures:
³ ³ performance or
³ exceeding the cardiotoxicity ³ (i) conduct
an evaluation of
³ ³ safety
requirements:³ NOAEL of 40% ³
foreseeable conditions of end use;
³ ³ a. due to their
³ Although no LOAEL has been ³ (ii)
determine that human exposure
³ ³ physical or
³ established for this product, ³ to the other
alternative
³ ³ chemical
properties,³ standard OSHA requirements apply, ³
extinguishing agents may approach
³ ³ or
³ i.e., for occupied areas from ³ or result in
cardiosensitization
³ ³
³ which personnel can be evacuated ³ or other
unacceptable toxicity
³ ³
³ or egress can occur between 30 ³ effects
under normal operating
³ ³
³ and 60 seconds, use is permitted ³ conditions;
and
³ ³
³ up to a concentration not ³ (iii)
determine that the physical
³ ³
³ exceeding the LOAEL ³ or chemical
properties or other
³ ³
³ ³ technical
constraints of the
³ ³
³ ³ other
available agents preclude
³ ³
³ ³ their use.
³ ³ b. where human
³ ³
³ ³ exposure to
the ³ ³
³ ³ extinguishing
³ ³
³ ³ agents may
approach ³ ³
³ ³
cardiosensitization ³
³
³ ³ levels or
result in ³ ³
³ ³ other
unacceptable ³ ³
³ ³ health effects
³ ³
³ ³ under normal
³ ³
³ ³ operating
³ ³
³ ³ conditions
³ ³
³ ³
³ All personnel must be evacuated ³ The principal
environmental
³ ³
³ before concentration of C4F10 ³
characteristic of concern for
³ ³
³ exceeds 40%. ³ PFCs is that
they have high GWPs
³ ³
³ Design concentration must result ³ and long
atmospheric lifetimes.
³ ³
³ in oxygen levels of at least 16%. ³ Actual
contributions to global
³ ³
³ Documentation of such measures ³ warming
depend upon the
³ ³
³ must be available for review upon ³ quantities
of PFCs emitted.
³ ³
³ request. ³
³ ³
³ ³ For
additional guidance regarding
³ ³
³ ³ applications
in which PFCs may be
³ ³
³ ³ appropriate,
users should consult
³ ³
³ ³ the
description of potential uses
³ ³
³ ³ which is
included in this
³ ³
³ ³ rulemaking.
³ ³
³ ³ See
additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
³ [IG-541].......... ³
Acceptable.......... ³ Until OSHA establishes applicable
³ Studies have shown that healthy,
³ ³
³ workplace requirements: ³ young
individuals can remain in a
³ ³
³ The design concentration must ³ 10% to 12%
oxygen atmosphere for
³ ³
³ result in at least 10% oxygen and ³ 30 to 40
minutes without
³ ³
³ no more than 5% CO2 ³ impairment.
However, in a fire
³ ³
³ If the oxygen concentration of the ³ emergency,
the oxygen level may
³ ³
³ atmosphere falls below 10%, ³ be reduced
below safe levels, and
³ ³
³ personnel must be evacuated and ³ the
combustion products formed by
³ ³
³ egress must occur within 30 ³ the fire are
likely to cause harm.
³ ³
³ seconds. ³ Thus, the
Agency does not
³ ³
³ ³ contemplate
personnel remaining
³ ³
³ ³ in the space
after system
³ ³
³ ³ discharge
during a fire without
³ ³
³ ³ Self
Contained Breathing
³ ³
³ ³ Apparatus
(SCBA) as required by
³ ³
³ ³ OSHA.
³ ³
³ ³ See
additional comments 1, 2.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Additional Comments:
1-Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart L Section 1910.160
of the U.S. Code.
2-Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) must be available
in the event personnel must reenter the area.
3-Discharge testing should be strictly limited only to that which
is essential to meet safety or performance requirements.
4-The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system
in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later
use or
destroyed.
Fire Suppression and Explosion
Protection Total Flooding Agents
Substitutes Acceptable
Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
End-use ³ Substitute ³ Decision
³ Conditions ³
Comments
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³ ³
Halon 1301 Total ³ C4F10............. ³ Acceptable
where ³ Until OSHA establishes applicable ³ The
comparative design
Flooding Agents. ³ ³ other
³ workplace requirements: ³ concentration
based on cup burner
³ ³ alternatives
³ For occupied areas from which ³ values is
approximately 6.6%.
³ ³ are not
³ personnel cannot be evacuated in ³ Users must
observe the limitations
³ ³ technically
³ one minute, use is permitted only ³ on PFC approval
by undertaking
³ ³ feasible due
to ³ up to concentrations not ³ the following
measures:
³ ³ performance or
³ exceeding the cardiotoxicity ³ (i) Conduct an
evaluation of
³ ³ safety
³ NOAEL of 40%. ³ foreseeable
conditions of end use;
³ ³ requirements:
³ ³ (ii) Determine
that human exposure
³ ³
³ ³ to the other
alternative
³ ³
³ ³ extinguishing
agents may approach
³ ³
³ ³ or result in
cardiosensitization
³ ³
³ ³ or other
unacceptable toxicity
³ ³
³ ³ effects under
normal operating
³ ³
³ ³ conditions; and
³ ³ a. Due to their
³ Although no LOAEL has been ³ (iii) Determine
that the physical
³ ³ physical or
³ established for this product, ³ or chemical
properties or other
³ ³ chemical
³ standard OSHA requirements apply, ³ technical
constraints of the
³ ³ properties, or
³ i.e. for occupied areas from ³ other available
agents preclude
³ ³ b. Where human
³ which personnel can be evacuated ³ their use;
³ ³ exposure to
the ³ or egress can occur between 30 ³ Documentation
of such measures
³ ³ extinguishing
³ and 60 seconds, use is permitted ³ must be
available for review upon
³ ³ agents may
³ up to a concentration not ³ request.
³ ³ approach cardi
³ exceeding the LOAEL ³ The principal
environmental
³ ³ osensitization
³ All personnel must be evacuated ³ characteristic of
concern for
³ ³ levels or
³ before concentration of C4F10 ³ PFCs is that
they have high GWPs
³ ³ result in
other ³ exceeds 40% ³ and long
atmospheric lifetimes.
³ ³ unacceptable
³ Design concentration must result ³ Actual
contributions to global
³ ³ health effects
³ in oxygen levels of at least 16% ³ warming depend
upon the
³ ³ under normal
³ ³ quantities of
PFCs emitted.
³ ³ operating
³ ³ For additional
guidance regarding
³ ³ conditions.
³ ³ applications in
which PFCs may be
³ ³
³ ³ appropriate,
users should consult
³ ³
³ ³ the description
of potential uses
³ ³
³ ³ which is
included in the preamble
³ ³
³ ³ to this
rulemaking.
³ ³
³ ³ See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Additional Comments
1-Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart L Section 1910.160
of the U.S. Code.
2-Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) must be available
in the event personnel must reenter the area.
3-Discharge testing should be strictly limited only to that which
is essential to meet safety or performance requirements.
4-The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system
in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later
use or destroyed.
[FR Doc. 94-4753 Filed 3-17-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
The Contents entry for this article reads as follows:
Air programs:
Stratospheric ozone protection-
Significant new alternatives policy program, 13044
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Ozone Layer Depletion - Regulatory Programs
- You are here: EPA Home
- Ozone Layer Depletion
- Regulatory Programs
- 59 FR 13044