Protection of Stratospheric Ozone

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: September 26, 1994] Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Parts 9 and 82 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Proposed Rule ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 9 and 82 [FRL-5078-4] Protection of Stratospheric Ozone AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This action proposes restrictions or prohibitions on substitutes for ozone depleting substances (ODSs) under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP implements section 612 of the amended Clean Air Act of 1990 which requires EPA to evaluate and regulate substitutes for the ODSs to reduce overall risk to human health and the environment. Through these evaluations, SNAP generates lists of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes for each of the major industrial use sectors. The intended effect of the SNAP program is to expedite movement away from ozone depleting compounds while avoiding a shift into high-risk substitutes posing other environmental problems. On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated a final rulemaking setting forth its plan for administering the SNAP program, and issued decisions on the acceptability and unacceptability of a number substitutes. In this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is issuing its preliminary decisions on the acceptability of certain substitutes not previously reviewed by the Agency. To arrive at determinations on the acceptability of substitutes, the Agency completed a cross-media evaluation of risks to human health and the environment by sector enduse.

Today's action proposes new additions to the list of controlled or prohibited substitutes. As described in the final rule for the SNAP program, EPA does believe that notice-and-comment rulemaking is required to place any alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list an alternative as acceptable only under certain use conditions or certain narrow end-use applications. EPA does not, however, believe that rulemaking procedures are required to list alternatives as acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do not impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior license to use a substitute. Consequently, EPA is adding substitutes to the list of acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new listings. Updates to the acceptable lists are published as separate notices in the Federal Register. A comprehensive compilation of all listings will be published annually.

DATES: Written comments or data provided in response to this document must be submitted by November 10, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and data should be sent to Docket A-91-42, Central Docket Section, South Conference Room 4, U.S. Environmental Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. The docket may be inspected between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. on weekdays. Telephone (202) 260- 7549. As provided in 40 CFC part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for photocopying. To expedite review, a second copy of the comments should be sent to Sally Rand, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW., 6205-J, Washington, DC 20460. Information designated as Confidential Business Information (CBI) under 40 CFR, part 2 subpart B must be sent directly to the contact person for this notice. However, the Agency is requesting that all respondents submit a non-confidential version of their comments to the docket as well.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Rand at (202) 233-9739 or fax (202) 233-9577, Substitutes Analysis and Review Branch, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview of This Action

This action is divided into five sections, including this overview:

I. Overview of This Action
II. Section 612 Program
A. Statutory Requirements
B. Regulatory History
III. Proposed Listing of Substitutes
IV. Administrative Requirements
V. Additional Information

Appendix A: Summary of Proposed Listing Decisions

II. 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 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 (chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon) 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 substitute to or delete a substitute 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. Regulatory History

On March 18, 1994, EPA published the Final Rulemaking (FRM) (59 FR 13044) which described the process for administering the SNAP program and issued EPA's first acceptability lists for substitutes in the major industrial use sectors. These sectors include: refrigeration and air conditioning; foam blowing; solvent cleaning; fire suppression and explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal industrial sectors that historically consume large volumes of ozonedepleting compounds.
The Agency defines a ``substitute'' as any chemical, product, substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or new, that could replace a class I or class II substance. Anyone who produces a substitute must provide the Agency with health and safety studies on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. This requirement applies to chemical manufacturers, but may include importers, formulators or end-users when they are responsible for introducing a substitute into commerce.

III. Proposed Listing of Substitutes

To develop the lists of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes, EPA conducts screens of health and environmental risks posed by various substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds in each use sector. The outcome of these risks screens can be found in the public docket, as described above in the ADDRESSES portion of this notice. Under section 612, the Agency has considerable discretion in the risk management decisions it can make in SNAP. The Agency has identified five possible decision categories: acceptable, acceptable subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; unacceptable; and pending. Acceptable substitutes can be used with no limits for all applications within the relevant sector end-use. Conversely, it is illegal to replace an ODS with a substitute listed by SNAP as unacceptable. A pending listing represents substitutes for which the Agency has not received complete data or has not completed its review of the data.
After reviewing a substitute, 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. Use of such substitutes in ways that are inconsistent with such use conditions renders these substitutes unacceptable. 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 acceptable 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 application and end-uses which are not specified as acceptable in the narrowed use limit renders these substitutes unacceptable.
In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is issuing its preliminary decision on the acceptability of certain substitutes not previously reviewed by the Agency. As described in the final rule for the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), EPA believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking is required to place any alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute as acceptable only under certain use conditions or narrowed use limits, or to remove an alternative from either the list of prohibited or acceptable substitutes.
EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are required to list alternatives as acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do not impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior license to use a substitute. Consequently, EPA is adding substitutes to the list of acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new listings. Updates to the acceptable and pending lists are published as separate notices in the Federal Register. Parts A. through E. below present a detailed discussion of the substitute listing determinations by major use sector. Tables summarizing listing decisions in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are in Appendix A. The comments contained in Appendix A 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 all 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.

A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

Overview
The refrigeration and air conditioning sector includes all uses of class I and class II substances to produce cooling, including mechanical and non-mechanical refrigeration, air conditioning, and heat transfer. Please refer to the final SNAP rule (59 FR 13044) for a more detailed description of this sector.
The refrigeration and air conditioning sector is divided into the following end-uses:
<bullet> commercial comfort air conditioning; <bullet> industrial process refrigeration system; <bullet> industrial process air conditioning; <bullet> ice skating rinks;
<bullet> uranium isotope separation processing; <bullet> cold storage warehouses; <bullet> refrigerated transport; <bullet> retail food refrigeration; <bullet> vending machines;
<bullet> water coolers;
<bullet> commercial ice machines; <bullet> household refrigerators; <bullet> household freezers;
<bullet> residential dehumidifiers; <bullet> motor vehicle air conditioning; <bullet> residential air conditioning and heat pumps; <bullet> non-mechanical heat transfer; and <bullet> very low temperature refrigeration. In addition, each end-use is divided into retrofit and new equipment applications. EPA has not necessarily reviewed substitutes in every end-use for this NPRM.
EPA has modified the list of end-uses for this sector for this SNAP update. First, EPA has changed the name of the heat transfer end-use to non-mechanical heat transfer. This change is intended to avoid confusion between systems that move heat from a cool area to a warm one (mechanical refrigeration) and systems that simply aid the movement of heat away from warm areas (non-mechanical heat transfer). The second change is that EPA added a new end-use, very low temperature refrigeration. Substitutes for this end-use have been reviewed since the final rule, and therefore have been added for this SNAP update. Finally, EPA has also reviewed substitutes for CFC-13, R-13B1, and R- 503 industrial process refrigeration. Please refer to the final SNAP rule (59 FR 13044) for a detailed description of end-uses other than these three. EPA may continue to add other end-uses in future SNAP updates.
a. Non-mechanical Heat Transfer. As discussed above, this end-use includes all cooling systems that rely on a fluid to remove heat from a heat source to a cooler area, rather than relying on mechanical refrigeration to move heat from a cool area to a warm one. Generally, there are two types of systems: systems with fluid pumps, referred to as recirculating coolers, and those that rely on natural convection currents, known as thermosyphons.
b. Very Low Temperature Refrigeration. Medical freezers, freezedryers, and other small appliances require extremely reliable refrigeration cycles. These systems must meet stringent technical standards that do not normally apply to refrigeration systems. They usually have very small charges. Because they operate at very high vapor pressures, and because performance is critically affected by any charge loss, standard maintenance for these systems tends to reduce leakage to a level considerably below that for other types of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. c. CFC-13, R-13B1, and R-503 Industrial Process Refrigeration. This end-use differs from other types of industrial refrigeration only in the extremely low temperature regimes that are required. Although some substitutes may work in both these extremely low temperatures and in systems designed to use R-502, they are acceptable only for this enduse because of global warming and atmospheric lifetime concerns. These concerns are discussed more fully below.
Substitutes for Refrigerants
Substitutes fall into eight broad categories. Seven of these categories are chemical substitutes used in the same vapor compression cycle as the ozone-depleting substances being replaced. They include hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrocarbons, refrigerant blends, ammonia, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and chlorine systems. The eighth category includes alternative technologies that generally do not rely on vapor compression cycles. Please refer to the final SNAP rule (59 FR 13044) for more discussion of these broad categories.
a. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions. (1) CFC-12 Automobile and Non-automobile Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners, Retrofit and New. EPA is concerned that the existence of several substitutes in this end-use may increase the likelihood of significant refrigerant cross-contamination and potential failure of both air conditioning systems and recovery/ recycling equipment. In addition, a smooth transition to the use of substitutes strongly depends on the continued purity of the recycled CFC-12 supply. In order to prevent cross-contamination and preserve the purity of recycled refrigerants, EPA is proposing several conditions on the use of all motor vehicle air conditioning refrigerants. For the purposes of this rule, no distinction is made between ``retrofit'' and ``drop-in'' refrigerants; retrofitting a car to use a new refrigerant includes all procedures that result in the air conditioning system using a new refrigerant.
In particular, when retrofitting a CFC-12 system to use any substitute refrigerant, the following conditions must be met: <bullet> Each refrigerant may only be used with a set of fittings that is unique to that refrigerant. These fittings (male or female, as appropriate) must be used with all containers of the refrigerant, on can taps, on recovery, recycling, and charging equipment, and on all air conditioning system service ports. These fittings must be designed to mechanically prevent cross-charging with another refrigerant. A refrigerant may only be used with the fittings and can taps specifically intended for that refrigerant. Using an adapter or deliberately modifying a fitting to use a different refrigerant will be a violation of this use condition. In addition, fittings shall meet the following criteria, derived from Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards and recommended practices: --When existing CFC-12 service ports are to be retrofitted, conversion assemblies shall attach to the CFC-12 fitting with a thread lock adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism in a manner that permanently prevents the assembly from being removed. --All conversion assemblies and new service ports must satisfy the vibration testing requirements of sections 3.2.1 or 3.2.2 of SAE J1660, as applicable, excluding references to SAE J639 and SAE J2064, which are specific to HFC-134a.
--In order to prevent discharge of refrigerant to the atmosphere, systems shall have a device to limit compressor operation before the pressure relief device will vent refrigerant. This requirement is waived for systems that do not feature such a pressure relief device. --All CFC-12 service ports shall be retrofitted with conversion assemblies or shall be rendered permanently incompatible for use with CFC-12 related service equipment by fitting with a device attached with a thread lock adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism in a manner that prevents the device from being removed. <bullet> When a retrofit is performed, a label must be used as follows:
--The person conducting the retrofit must apply a label to the air conditioning system in the engine compartment that contains the following information:
*--the name and address of the technician and the company performing the retrofit
*--the date of the retrofit
*--the trade name, charge amount, and, when applicable, the ASHRAE refrigerant numerical designation of the refrigerant *--the type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used *--if the refrigerant is or contains an ozone-depleting substance, the statement ``This refrigerant contains an ozone-depleting substance and it is therefore subject to the venting prohibition, recycling, and other provisions of regulations issued under section 609 of the Clean Air Act.''
*--if the refrigerant is not or does not contain any ozonedepleting substances, the statement ``This refrigerant does not deplete stratospheric ozone, and as of November 15, 1995, at the latest, it is subject to the venting prohibition, recycling, and other provisions of regulations issued under section 609 of the Clean Air Act.'' *--if the refrigerant displays flammability limits as measured according to ASTM E681, the statement ``This refrigerant is FLAMMABLE. Take appropriate precautions.''
--This label must be large enough to be easily read and must be permanent.
--The background color must be unique to the refrigerant. --The label must be affixed to the system over information related to the previous refrigerant, in a location not normally replaced during vehicle repair.
--Information on the previous refrigerant that cannot be covered by the new label must be permanently rendered unreadable.
<bullet> No substitute refrigerant may be used to ``top-off'' a system that uses another refrigerant. The original refrigerant must be recovered in accordance with regulations issued under section 609 of the CAA prior to charging with a substitute. Since these use conditions necessitate unique fittings and labels, it will be necessary for developers of automotive refrigerants to consult with EPA about the existence of other alternatives. Such discussions will lower the risk of duplicating fittings already in use. No determination guarantees satisfactory performance from a refrigerant. Consult the original equipment manufacturer or service personnel for further information on using a refrigerant in a particular system.
(a) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in retrofitted and new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject to the use conditions applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described above. 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 motor vehicle air conditioning systems (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 appropriate esterbased, polyalkylene glycol-based, or other type of lubricant should be used. Consult the original equipment manufacturer or the retrofit kit manufacturer for further information.
(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 and new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject to the use conditions applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described above. HCFC-22 and HCFC-124 contribute to ozone depletion, but to a much lesser degree than CFC-12. The production of HCFC-22 will be phased out according to the accelerated phaseout schedule (published 12/10/93, 58 FR 65018). 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. Leak testing demonstrated that the blend never becomes flammable. (c) HCFC Blend Beta. HCFC Blend Beta is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in retrofitted and new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject to the use conditions applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described above. The composition of this blend has been claimed confidential by the manufacturer. This blend contains at least one HCFC, and therefore contributes to ozone depletion, but to a much lesser degree than CFC-12. Regulations regarding recycling and reclamation issued under section 609 of the Clean Air Act apply to this blend. Its production will be phased out according to the accelerated schedule (published 12/10/93, 58 FR 65018). The GWPs of the components are moderate to low. This blend is nonflammable, and leak testing has demonstrated that the blend never becomes flammable. b. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits. (1) Non-mechanical Heat Transfer, New and Retrofit.
(a) Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons are proposed acceptable as substitutes for CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and CFC-115 in new and retrofitted thermosyphons and recirculating coolers only where no other alternatives are technically feasible due to safety or performance requirements. PFCs covered by this determination are C<INF>3F<INF>8, C<INF>4F<INF>10, C<INF>5F<INF>12, C<INF>5F<INF>11NO, C<INF>6F<INF>14, C<INF>6F<INF>13NO, C<INF>7F<INF>16, C<INF>7F<INF>15NO, C<INF>8F<INF>18, C<INF>8F<INF>16O, AND C<INF>9F<INF>21N. PFCs offer high dielectric resistance and they are low in toxicity and nonflammable. The principal characteristic of concern for PFCs is that they have long atmospheric lifetimes and have the potential to contribute to global climate change. For instance, C<INF>5F<INF>12 has a lifetime of 4,100 years and a 100-year GWP of 5,600. PFCs are also included in the Climate Change Action Plan which broadly instructs EPA to use section 612 of the CAA, as well as voluntary programs, to control emissions. Despite these concerns, EPA is proposing to list PFCs as acceptable in certain small applications because they may be the only substitutes that can satisfy safety or performance requirements. For example, a transformer may require very high dielectric strength, or a heat transfer system for a chlorine manufacturing process could require compatibility with the process stream.
Users should note, however, that use of a PFC should be a last resort. As the proposed determination states, PFCs should be used ``only where no other alternatives are technically feasible due to safety or performance requirements.'' This statement requires users to conduct a thorough search for other substitutes. Although EPA does not require users to submit information on such a search, companies must keep the results on file for future reference. In cases where users must adopt PFCs, they should make every effort to:
<bullet> Recover and recycle these fluids during servicing <bullet> Adopt maintenance practices that reduce leakage as much as is technically feasible
<bullet> Recover these fluids after the end of the equipment's useful life and either recycle them or destroy them <bullet> Continue to search for other long-term alternatives Users of PFCs should note that if other alternatives become available, EPA could be petitioned to list PFCs as unacceptable due to the availability of other suitable substitutes. If such a petition were granted, EPA may grandfather existing uses but only upon consideration of cost and timing of testing and implementation of new substitutes. In addition, while this listing allows for use of PFCs in some new systems, a petition indicating widespread design of systems using PFCs where other alternatives exist could adversely impact any grandfathering decisions.
EPA believes these end-uses are covered under section 608 of the CAA and encourages voluntary compliance with the recycling and leak repair provisions of that rule until new rulemakings specifically address non-ozone-depleting refrigerants. c. Unacceptable Substitutes.
(1) R-403B
R-403B, which consists of HCFC-22, R-218, and propane, is proposed unacceptable as a substitute for R-502 in the following new and retrofitted end-uses:
<bullet> industrial process refrigeration; <bullet> cold storage warehouses; <bullet> refrigerated transport; <bullet> retail food refrigeration; <bullet> commercial ice machines; and <bullet> household freezers.
R-218, perfluoropropane, has an extremely high GWP and lifetime. Although this substitute may offer energy efficiency gains, its lifetime and direct GWP pose additional risk beyond that of other substitutes for these end-uses. In particular, the lifetime of R-218 is over 2000 years, which means that global warming and other effects would be essentially irreversible. EPA believes that while other substitutes may have high GWPs, they do not exhibit such long lifetimes.
(2) R-405A
R-405A, which is composed of HCFC-22, HFC-152a, HCFC-142b, and Rc 318, is proposed unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500, and R-502 in the following new and retrofitted end-uses: <bullet> commercial comfort air conditioning; <bullet> industrial process refrigeration; <bullet> ice skating rinks;
<bullet> cold storage warehouses; <bullet> refrigerated transport; <bullet> retail food refrigeration; <bullet> vending machines;
<bullet> water coolers;
<bullet> commercial ice machines; <bullet> household refrigerators; <bullet> household freezers;
<bullet> residential dehumidifiers; and <bullet> motor vehicle air conditioning. R-405A was listed as HCFC/HFC/fluoroalkane Blend A in previous notices. R-405A contains a high proportion of R-c318, cycloperfluorobutane, which has an extremely high GWP and lifetime. Although this substitute may offer energy efficiency gains, its lifetime and direct GWP pose additional risk beyond that of other substitutes for these end-uses. In particular, the lifetime of R-c318 is over 3000 years, which means that global warming and other effects would be essentially irreversible. EPA believes that while other substitutes may have high GWPs, they do not exhibit such long lifetimes.
(3) Hydrocarbon Blend B
Hydrocarbon Blend B is proposed unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in the following new and retrofitted end-uses: <bullet> commercial comfort air conditioning; <bullet> ice skating rinks;
<bullet> cold storage warehouses; <bullet> refrigerated transport; <bullet> retail food refrigeration; <bullet> vending machines;
<bullet> water coolers;
<bullet> commercial ice machines; <bullet> household refrigerators; <bullet> household freezers;
<bullet> residential dehumidifiers; and <bullet> 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. The manufacturer of this blend has not submitted such a risk assessment, and EPA therefore finds it unacceptable. (4) Flammable Substitutes
Flammable substitutes, defined as having flammability limits as measured according to ASTM E-681 with modifications included in Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J1657, including blends which become flammable during fractionation, are proposed unacceptable as substitutes for CFC-12 in retrofitted motor vehicle air conditioning systems.
Flammable refrigerants differ from traditional substances in several ways: potential gains in energy efficiency, reductions in direct contribution to global warming, and additional risks from fire. Flammable refrigerants may be good substitutes in systems designed with fire risks in mind. In addition, in certain circumstances, they may serve well as substitutes in retrofit uses. EPA encourages research efforts into the use of flammable refrigerants, but remains concerned about the dangers. Because of these concerns, EPA has established the requirement that manufacturers of flammable refrigerants conduct detailed risk assessments in all end-uses. The risks from flammability are extremely sensitive to the size of charge and end-use. In MVACS, flammable refrigerants pose risks not found in stationary equipment, including the potential for collisions, the placement of the condenser directly behind the grille, flexible hoses which could be punctured, the hazard to technicians who are expecting to handle flammable fluids, the danger to passengers from evaporator leaks, and the dangers to personnel involved in disposal of old automobiles. Due to the length of SNAP review, certain substitutes have been marketed which EPA believes may pose substantial risk to users. The intent of the 90-day review process was not to allow manufacturers to market risky substitutes, but rather to ensure a thorough review. Because of potential risks to users and service personnel, EPA finds it necessary to find all flammable substitutes unacceptable in retrofitted automotive air conditioning to prevent hazardous substitutes from being marketed prior to a thorough risk assessment. EPA continues to encourage investigation of all substitute refrigerants, including flammable substances. This unacceptable determination only applies to retrofitted MVACS. If a manufacturer wishes an acceptable determination for a flammable substitute in MVACS, this risk assessment must be conducted in a scientifically valid manner. EPA will consider such a risk assessment in any determination on the substitute.
B. Solvents
1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions a. Electronics Cleaning. (1) HCFC-225 ca/cb. HCFC-225 is proposed acceptable subject to use conditions as a substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in electronics cleaning. The HCFC-225 ca isomer has a company-set exposure limit of 25 ppm. The company set exposure limit of the HCFC- 225 cb isomer is 250 ppm. These limits should be readily achievable since HCFC-225 is only sold commercially as a (45/50) blend of -ca and -cb isomers. In addition, the vapor degreasing and cold cleaning equipment where HCFC-225 is used, typically has very low emissions. b. Precision Cleaning. (1) HCFC-225 ca/cb. HCFC-225 is proposed acceptable subject to use conditions as a substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in precision cleaning. The HCFC-225 ca isomer has a company-set exposure limit of 25 ppm. The company set exposure limit of the HCFC- 225 cb isomer is 250 ppm. These limits should be readily achievable since HCFC-225 is only sold commercially as a (45/50) blend of -ca and -cb isomers. In addition, the vapor degreasing and cold cleaning equipment where HCFC-225 is used, typically has very low emissions.
2. Unacceptable Substitutes
  a. Metals Cleaning. (1) Dibromomethane. Dibromomethane is proposed as an unacceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in metals cleaning. Dibromomethane has a comparatively high ODP and other alternatives exist which do not pose comparable risk. b. Electronics Cleaning. (2) Dibromomethane. Dibromomethane is proposed as an unacceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in electronics cleaning. Dibromomethane has a comparatively high ODP and other alternatives exist.
  c. Precision Cleaning. (3) Dibromomethane. Dibromomethane is proposed as an unacceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in precision cleaning. Dibromomethane has a comparatively high ODP and other alternatives exist. C. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
  1. Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions a. Total Flooding Agents. (1) C<INF>3F<INF>8. C<INF>3F<INF>8 is proposed 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 proposed agent is subject to the same use conditions stipulated for all total flooding agents, that is: <bullet> Where egress from an area cannot be accomplished within one minute, the employer shall not use this agent in concentrations exceeding its NOAEL.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    Cup burner tests in heptane indicate that C<INF>3F<INF>8 can extinguish fires in a total flood application at concentrations of 7.30 per cent and therefore has a design concentration of 8.8 per cent. The cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 30 per cent for this agent is well above its extinguishment concentration and therefore is safe for use in occupied areas. This agent can replace Halon 1301 by a ratio of 2 to 1 by weight.
    Using agents in high concentrations poses a risk of asphyxiation by displacing oxygen. With an ambient oxygen level of 21 per cent, a design concentration of 22.6 per cent may reduce oxygen levels to approximately 16 per cent, 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 per cent.
    C<INF>3F<INF>8 has no ozone depletion potential, and is nonflammable, essentially non-toxic, and is not a VOC. However, this agent has an atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years and a 100-year GWP of
  2. Due to the long atmospheric lifetime of C<INF>3F<INF>8, 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 C<INF>3F<INF>8 exist. EPA intends that users select C<INF>3F<INF>8 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 C<INF>3F<INF>8 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.
    EPA recommends that users minimize unnecessary emissions of this agent by limiting testing of C<INF>3F<INF>8 to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements; recovering C<INF>3F<INF>8 from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing; and destroying or recycling C<INF>3F<INF>8 for later use. EPA encourages manufacturers to develop aggressive product stewardship programs to help users avoid such unnecessary emissions. (2) CF<INF>3I. CF<INF>3I is proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute in normally unoccupied areas. Any employee that could possibly be in the area must be able to escape within 30 seconds. The employer shall assure that no unprotected employees enter the area during agent discharge.
    CF<INF>3I (Halon 13001) is a fluoroiodocarbon with an atmospheric lifetime of only 1.15 days due to its rapid photolysis in the presence of light. The resulting GWP of this agent is less than one, and its ODP when released at ground level is likely to be extremely low, with current conservative estimates ranging from .008 to .01. Complete analysis of the ozone depleting potential of this agent will be available in the near future.
    Anticipating EPA's concern about releases of CF<INF>3I from aircraft, and the associated likelihood of a higher ODP value when released at altitude, the military has conducted an analysis of historical releases of Halon 1301 from both military and commercial aircraft. Initial assessment indicate that emissions from U.S. military aircraft appear to have averaged about 56 pounds annually, of which 2 pounds were emitted above 30,000 feet. Commercial aircraft worldwide released an estimated average of 933 pounds of Halon 1301 annually, of which 158 pounds was released above 30,000 feet. While EPA is awaiting the results of the ODP calculations of CF<INF>3I, it is unlikely that such low emissions at high altitude will pose a significant threat to the ozone layer.
    Interest in this agent is very high because it may constitute a drop-in replacement to Halon 1301 on a weight and volume basis. Initial tests have shown its weight equivalence for fire extinguishment to be 1.36, and its volume equivalence to be 1.0, while for explosion inertion it is 1.42 and 1.04 respectively. The research community is continuing to qualify the properties of this agent, including its materials compatibility, its storage stability and its effectiveness. While the manufacturer's SNAP submission only requests listing in normally unoccupied areas, preliminary cardiosensitization data received by the Agency indicate that CF<INF>3I has a NOAEL of 0.2 per cent and a LOAEL of 0.4 per cent, and thus this agent would not suitably be for use in normally occupied areas. (3) Gelled Halocarbon/Dry Chemical Suspension. Gelled Halocarbon/ Dry Chemical Suspension is proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute in normally unoccupied areas. Any employee who could possibly be in the area must be able to escape within 30 seconds. The employer shall assure that no unprotected employees enter the area during agent discharge.
    The manufacturer is proposing to blend either of two halocarbons (HFC-125 or HFC-134a) with either ammonium polyphosphate (which is not corrosive) or monoammonium phosphate (which is corrosive on hard surfaces). An initial assessment of inhalation toxicology of fine particulates indicates that some risk exists of inhalation exposure when the particles are below a certain size compared to the mass per cubic meter in air. Particle sizes less than 10 to 15 microns and a mass above the ACGIH nuisance dust levels raise concerns which need to be further studied. In a total flooding application, the exposure levels may be of concern. In addition, because the discharge of powders obscures vision, evacuation could be impeded. EPA is asking manufacturers of total flooding systems using powdered aerosols to submit to the Agency a review of the medical implications of inhaling atmospheres flooded with fine powder particulates. While the manufacturer requested a SNAP listing for unoccupied areas only, EPA would not consider its use in occupied areas until the requested peer review is complete. Meanwhile, EPA is finding this technology acceptable for use in normally unoccupied areas. For further discussion of this agent, including a review of particle size distributions, see the listing under ``Streaming Agents-- Acceptable.''
    (4) Inert Gas/Powdered Aerosol Blend. Inert Gas/Powdered Aerosol Blend is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute in normally unoccupied areas. In areas where personnel could possibly be present, as in a cargo area, the employer shall provide a pre-discharge employee alarm capable of being perceived above ambient light or noise levels for alerting employees before system discharge. The pre-discharge alarm shall provide employees time to safely exit the discharge area prior to system discharge.
    This alternative agent is formulated from a mixture of dry powders pressed together into pill form. Upon exposure to heat from a fire, a pyrotechnic charge initiates a series of exothermic, gas-producing reactions composed mainly of a mixture of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water vapor, with small amounts of carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, nitrogen dioxide, and solid residues. The oxygen level in the room is largely depleted, thus extinguishing the fire. The manufacturer has proposed this technology for use in normally unoccupied areas only, such as engine nacelles and engine compartments, aircraft dry bay areas and unoccupied cargo areas. Comparing agents alone, deployment of 2.0 pounds of this agent at 400 deg.F has an equivalent fire suppression effectiveness to 1.0 pound of Halon 1301 at 70 deg.F.
    This agent has no ODP. The carbon dioxide generated in the combustion of this agent has a GWP of 1.
  3. Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits a. Total Flooding Agents. (1) C<INF>3F<INF>8. C<INF>3F<INF>8 is proposed 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 stipulated for all total flooding agents, that is:
    <bullet> Where egress from an area cannot be accomplished within one minute, the employer shall not use this agent in concentrations exceeding its NOAEL.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    Cup burner tests in heptane indicate that C<INF>3F<INF>8 can extinguish fires in a total flood application at concentrations of 7.30 per cent and therefore has a design concentration of 8.8 per cent. The cardiotoxic NOAEL of 30 per cent for this agent is well above its extinguishment concentration; therefore, it is safe for use in occupied areas. This agent has a weight equivalence of two-to-one by weight compared to Halon 1301.
    Using agents in high concentrations poses a risk of asphyxiation by displacing oxygen. With an ambient oxygen level of 21 per cent, a design concentration of 22.6 per cent may reduce oxygen levels to approximately 16 per cent, 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 per cent.
    This agent has an atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years and a 100- year GWP of 6,100. Due to the long atmospheric lifetime of C<INF>3F<INF>8, 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 C<INF>3F<INF>8 exist. EPA intends that users select C<INF>3F<INF>8 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 C<INF>3F<INF>8 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.
    EPA recommends that users minimize unnecessary emissions of this agent by limiting testing of C<INF>3F<INF>8 to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements; recovering C<INF>3F<INF>8 from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing; and destroying or recycling C<INF>3F<INF>8 for later use. EPA encourages manufacturers to develop aggressive product stewardship programs to help users avoid such unnecessary emissions. (2) Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF<INF>6). SF<INF>6 is acceptable for use as a discharge test agent in military uses only. Sulfur Hexafluoride is a nonflammable, nontoxic gas which is colorless and odorless. With a density of approximately five times that of air, it is one of the heaviest known gases. SF<INF>6 is relatively inert, and has an atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years, with a 100-year, 500-year, and 1,000-year GWP of 16,100, 26,110 and 32,803 respectively. This agent has been developed by the U.S. Navy as a test gas simulant in place of halon in new halon total flooding systems on ships which have been under construction prior to identification and qualification of substitute agents. Halon systems are no longer included in designs for new ships. The Navy estimates its annual usage to be less than 10,000 pounds annually, decreasing over time. Thus, the Agency believes that the quantities involved are not significant. While SF<INF>6 is not currently used in the commercial sector and new halon systems are rarely installed, EPA is proposing a narrowed use limit to ensure that emissions of this agent remain minimal. The NFPA 12a and NFPA 2001 standards recommend that halon or other total flooding gases not be used in discharge testing, but that alternative methods of ensuring enclosure and piping integrity and system functioning be used. Alternative methods can often be used, such as the ``door fan'' test for enclosure integrity, UL 1058 testing to ensure system functioning, pneumatic test of installed piping, and a ``puff'' test to ensure against internal blockages in the piping network. These stringent design and testing requirements have largely obviated the need to perform a discharge test for total flood systems containing either Halon 1301 or a substitute agent.
  4. Proposed Unacceptable
    a. Total Flooding. (1) HFC-32. HFC-32 is proposed unacceptable as a total flooding agent. HFC-32 has been determined to be flammable, with a large flammability range, and is therefore inappropriate as a halon substitute when used as a pure agent. This agent was proposed acceptable in the first SNAP proposed rulemaking (58 FR 28093, May 12,
  5. but public comment received indicated agreement about the flammability characteristics of this agent. EPA is not aware of any interest in commercializing this agent as a fire suppression agent. IV. Administrative Requirements
    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 communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, 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 rule 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 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 class II substances they may be using, by requiring manufacturers to make information on such substitues available.
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
    V. Additional Information
    Contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at 1-800-296-1996, Monday-Friday, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. (EST). For more information on the Agency's process for administering the SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the SNAP final rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044). Federal Register notices can be ordered from the Government Printing Office Order Desk (202) 783-3238; the citation is the date of publication. Notices and rulemaking under the SNAP program can also be retrieved electronically from EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN), Clean Air Act Amendment Bulletin Board. The access number for users with a 1200 or 2400 bps modem is (919) 541-5742. For users with a 9600 bps modem the access number is (919) 541-1447. For assistance in accessing this service, call (919) 541-5384 during normal business hours (EST).
    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 requirments.
    Dated: September 16, 1994.
    Carol M. Browner,
    Administrator.
    Appendix A to the Preamble: Summary of Proposed Decisions Refrigerants--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions End-Use Substitute Decision Comments Conditioning unique fittings and increase the likelihood of significant (Retrofit and New detailed labels and refrigerant cross-contamination and Equipment/NIKS). (2) all CFC-12 has potential failure of both air been removed from conditioning systems and recovery/ the system prior to recycling equipment. In addition, a retrofitting. Refer smooth transition to the use of to the text for a substitutes strongly depends on the full description.. continued purity of the recycled CFC-12 supply. For the purposes of this rule, no distinction is made between ``retrofit'' and ``drop-in'' refrigerants; retrofitting a car to use a new refrigerant includes all procedures that result in the air conditioning system using a new refrigerant. Refrigerants--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits End-Use Substitute Decision Comments performance Documentation of such measures must be requirements. available for review upon request. The principal environmental characteristic of concern for PFCs is that they have high GWPs and long atmospheric lifetimes. Refrigerants--Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes End-Use Substitute Decision Comments 113, CFC-114, R-500 an extremely high GWP and lifetime. Centrifugal Chillers Other substitutes exist which do not (Retrofit and New contain PFCs. Equipment/NIKs). Hydrocarbon Blend Beta Proposed Unacceptable Flammability is a serious concern. Data have not been submitted to demonstrate it can be used safely in this end-use. Chillers (Retrofit an extremely high GWP and lifetime. and New Equipment/ Other substitutes exist which do not NIKs). contain PFCs. Hydrocarbon Blend Beta Proposed Unacceptable Flammability is a serious concern. Data have not been submitted to demonstrate it can be used safely in this end-use. Industrial Process an extremely high GWP and lifetime. Refrigeration Other substitutes exist which do not (Retrofit and New contain PFCs. Equipment/NIKs). R-405A................ Proposed Unacceptable R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs. Skating Rinks an extremely high GWP and lifetime. (Retrofit and New Other substitutes exist which do not Equipment/NIKs). contain PFCs. Hydrocarbon Blend Beta Proposed Unacceptable Flammability is a serious concern. Data have not been submitted to demonstrate it can be used safely in this end-use. Storage Warehouses an extremely high GWP and lifetime. (Retroit and New Other substitutes exist which do not Equipment/NIKs). contain PFCs. R-405A................ Proposed Unacceptable R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs. Hydrocarbon Blend Beta Proposed Unacceptable Flammability is a serious concern. Data have not been submitted to demonstrate it can be used safely in this end-use. Refrigerated an extremely high GWP and lifetime. Transport (Retrofit Other substitutes exist which do not and New Equipment/ contain PFCs. NIKs). R-405A................ Proposed Unacceptable R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs. Hydrocarbon Blend Beta Proposed Unacceptable Flammability is a serious concern. Data have not been submitted to demonstrate it can be used safely in this end-use. Food Refrigeration an extremely high GWP and lifetime. (Retrofit and New Other substitutes exist which do not Equipment/NIKs). contain PFCs. R-405A................ Proposed Unacceptable R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs. Hydrocarbon Blend Beta Proposed Unacceptable Flammability is a serious concern. Data have not been submitted to demonstrate it can be used safely in this end-use. Commercial Ice an extremely high GWP and lifetime. Machines (Retrofit Other substitutes exist which do not and New Equipment/ contain PFCs. NIKs). R-405A................ Proposed Unacceptable R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs. Hydrocarbon Blend Beta Proposed Unacceptable Flammability is a serious concern. Data have not been submitted to demonstrate it can be used safely in this end-use. Machines (Retrofit an extremely high GWP and lifetime. and New Equipment/ Other substitutes exist which do not NIKs). contain PFCs. Hydrocarbon Blend Beta Proposed Unacceptable Flammability is a serious concern. Data have not been submitted to demonstrate it can be used safely in this end-use. (Retrofit and New an extremely high GWP and lifetime. Equipment/NIKs). Other substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs. Hydrocarbon Blend Beta Proposed Unacceptable Flammability is a serious concern. Data have not been submitted to demonstrate it can be used safely in this end-use. Refrigerators an extremely high GWP and lifetime. (Retrofit and New Other substitutes exist which do not Equipment/NIKs). contain PFCs. Hydrocarbon Blend Beta Proposed Unacceptable Flammability is a serious concern. Data have not been submitted to demonstrate it can be used safely in this end-use. Household Freezers an extremely high GWP and lifetime. (Retrofit and New Other substitutes exist which do not Equipment/NIKs). contain PFCs. R-405A................ Proposed Unacceptable R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs. Hydrocarbon Blend Beta Proposed Unacceptable Flammability is a serious concern. Data have not been submitted to demonstrate it can be used safely in this end-use. Residential an extremely high GWP and lifetime. Dehumidifiers Other substitutes exist which do not (Retrofit and New contain PFCs. Equipment/NIKs). Hydrocarbon Blend Beta Proposed Unacceptable Flammability is a serious concern. Data have not been submitted to demonstrate it can be used safely in this end-use. Air Conditioners an extremely high GWP and lifetime. (Retrofit and New Other substitutes exist which do not Equipment/NIKs). contain PFCs. Hydrocarbon Blend Beta Proposed Unacceptable Flammability is a serious concern. Data have not been submitted to demonstrate it can be used safely in this end-use. Flammable Substitutes. Proposed Unacceptable The risks associated with using flammable substitutes in this end-use have not been addressed by a risk assessment. Solvent Cleaning Sector--Proposed Acceptable Subject To Use Conditions Substitutes Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments 113, MCF. exposure limit of 25 ppm 45 of the -ca isomer. set exposure limit of the -ca isomer is 25 ppm. The company set exposure limit of the -cb isomer is 250 ppm. It is the Agency's opinion that with the low emission cold cleaning and vapor degreasing equipment designed for this use, the 25 ppm limit of the HCFC-225 ca isomer can be met. The company is submitting further exposure monitoring data. 113, MCF. exposure limit of 25 ppm 45 of the -ca isomer. set exposure limit of the -ca isomer is 25 ppm. The company set exposure limit of the -cb isomer is 250 ppm. It is the Agency's opinion that with the low emission cold cleaning and vapor degreasing equipment designed for this use, the 25 ppm limit of the HCFC-225 ca isomer can be met. The company is submitting further exposure monitoring data. Solvent Cleaning Sector--Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes End use Substitute Decision Comments 113. CFC-113. MCF. CFC-113. MCF. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions: Total Flooding Agents Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments Total flooding agents other alternatives are not applicable workplace based on cup burner values is technically feasible due requirements, EPA approximately 8.8 to performance or safety proposes: For occupied Users must observe the limitations requirements: areas from which personnel on PFC acceptability by making a. due to their physical or cannot be evacuated in one reasonable efforts to undertake the chemical properties, or minute, use is permitted following measures: b. where human exposure to only up to concentrations (i) conduct an evaluation of the extinguishing agents not exceeding the foreseeable conditions of end use; may approach cardiotoxicity NOAEL of (ii) determine that human exposure cardiosensitization levels 30. to the other alternative or result in other Although no LOAEL has been extinguishing agents may approach unacceptable health established for this or result in cardiosensitization or effects under normal product, standard OSHA other unacceptable toxicity effects operating conditions. requirements apply, i.e. under normal operating conditions; for occupied areas from and which personnel can be (iii) determine that the physical or evacuated or egress can chemical properties or other occur between 30 and 60 technical constraints of the other seconds, use is permitted available agents preclude their up to a concentration not use; exceeding the LOAEL. Documentation of such measures must All personnel must be be available for review upon evacuated before request. concentration of C<INF>3F<INF>8 The principal environmental exceeds 30 Design concentration must is that they have high GWPs and result in oxygen levels of long atmospheric lifetimes. Actual at least 16 depend upon the quantities of PFCs emitted. For additional guidance regarding applications in which PFCs may be appropriate, users should consult the description of potential uses which is included in the March 18, 1994 Rulemaking (59 FR 13043). See additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4. CF<INF>3I....................... Proposed acceptable in EPA proposes that any Manufacturer has not applied for normally unoccupied areas. employee who could listing for use in normally possibly be in the area occupied areas. Preliminary must be able to escape cardiosensitization data indicates within 30 seconds. The that this agent would not be employer shall assure that suitable for use in normally no unprotected employees occupied areas. enter the area during EPA is awaiting results of ODP agent discharge. calculations. See additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4. Gelled halocarbon/dry Proposed acceptable in EPA proposes that any The manufacturer's SNAP application chemical suspension. normally unoccupied areas. employee who could requested listing for use in possibly be in the area unoccupied areas only. must be able to escape See additional comment 2. within 30 seconds. The employer shall assure that no unprotected employees enter the area during agent discharge. Inert gas/powdered aerosol Proposed acceptable as a In areas where personnel The manufacturer's SNAP application blend. Halon 1301 substitute in could possibly be present, requested listing for use in normally unoccupied areas. as in a cargo area, EPA unoccupied areas only. proposes that the employer See additional comment 2. shall provide a pre- discharge employee alarm capable of being perceived above ambient light or noise levels for alerting employees before system discharge. The pre- discharge alarm shall provide employees time to safely exit the discharge area prior to system discharge. 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 enter/reenter the area. 3--Discharge testing should be strictly limited only to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements. Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments Total flooding agents...... other alternatives are not applicable workplace based on cup burner values is technically feasible due requirements: approximately 8.8 to performance or safety For occupied areas from Users must observe the limitations requirements: which personnel cannot be on PFC acceptability by making a. due to their physical or evacuated in one minute, reasonable efforts to undertake the chemical properties, or use is permitted only up following measures: b. where human exposure to to concentrations not (i) conduct an evaluation of the extinguishing agents exceeding the foreseeable conditions of end use; may approach cardiotoxicity NOAEL of (ii) determine that human exposure cardiosensitization levels 30to the other alternative or result in other Although no LOAEL has been extinguishing agents may approach unacceptable health established for this or result in cardiosensitization or effects under normal product, standard OSHA other unacceptable toxicity effects operating conditions. requirements apply, i.e. under normal operating conditions; for occupied areas from and which personnel can be (iii) determine that the physical or evacuated or egress can chemical properties or other occur between 30 and 60 technical constraints of the other seconds, use is permitted available agents preclude their up to a concentration not use; exceeding the LOAEL. Documentation of such measures must All personnel must be be available for review upon evacuated before request. concentration of C<INF>3F<INF>8 The principal environmental exceeds 30 Design concentration must is that they have high GWPs and result in oxygen levels of long atmospheric lifetimes. Actual at least 16 depend upon the quantities of PFCs emitted. For additional guidance regarding applications in which PFCs may be appropriate, users should consult the description of potential uses which is included in the March 18, 1994 Final Rulemaking (58 FR 13043). Sulfurhexafluoride (SF<INF>6)... Proposed acceptable as a ........................... This agent has an atmospheric discharge test agent in lifetime greater than 1,000 years, military uses only. with an estimated 100-year, 500- year, and 1,000-year GWP of 16,100, 26,110, and 32,803 respectively. Users should limit testing only to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements. This agent is only used to test new Halon 1301 systems. Application Substitute Decision Comments Total flooding agents. and therefore is not suitable as a halon substitute.

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone

Local Navigation