[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25585-25594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12625]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-5467-1]
RIN 2060-AG12
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for
Ozone-Depleting Substances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes 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 (59 FR 13044), and issued
decisions on the acceptability and unacceptability of a number
substitutes. In this Final Rulemaking (FRM), 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 end-
use.
DATES: Effective date June 21, 1996.
The information collection requirements contained in Appendix C of
subpart G of part 82 have not been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) and are not effective until OMB has approved them. EPA
will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB
approval.
ADDRESSES: Public Docket: Public comments and data specific to this
final rule are in 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; fax (202) 260-4400. As
provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for
photocopying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Smagin at (202) 233-9126 or fax
(202) 233-9577, Stratospheric Protection Division, USEPA, Mail Code
6205J, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460
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. Listing of Substitutes
IV. Administrative Requirements
V. Additional Information
Appendix: Summary of 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 six months.
90-day Notification--Section 612(e) requires EPA to require any
person who
[[Page 25586]]
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 ozone-
depleting 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. 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 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 certain 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 Final Rulemaking (FRM), EPA is issuing decisions on the
acceptability of certain substitutes not previously reviewed by the
Agency. The proposed rulemaking for these decisions was published on
October 2, 1995 (60 FR 51383). As described in the proposed rule, 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 adds 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 C. below present a detailed discussion of the
substitute listing determinations by major use sector. Tables
summarizing listing decisions in this Final Rulemaking are in Appendix
below. The comments contained in the Appendix 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 application 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
Response to Comment
EPA received one comment supporting the requirement to use unique
fittings when retrofitting motor vehicle air conditioning systems
(MVACS). The commenter, however, requested EPA reduce the information
required on the label. EPA based the labeling requirements very closely
on SAE J1660 and a petition by the Mobile Air Conditioning Society
(MACS), and believes all of the information proposed in the NPRM is
necessary, as clarified below. The commenter requested that EPA remove
each of the following pieces of information from the label.
Technician name and address.
EPA requires this information to ensure that both the consumer and
various agencies know exactly who worked on the vehicle. In addition,
this information allows the consumer to check that the technician is
certified to work on MVACS.
ASHRAE designation.
[[Page 25587]]
The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) assigns unique numbers to new
refrigerants. Refrigerant properties depend very strongly on both the
components and the individual percentages within a blend. The
composition of all ASHRAE-designated refrigerants is public, and EPA
believes it is important for consumers and technicians to be aware of
such information if it is available.
Lubricant Manufacturer.
Given the large number of new refrigerants and lubricants, EPA
believes the consumer is best served by having this information. This
information is particularly important since it is extremely difficult
to test every possible refrigerant/lubricant combination in every
vehicle.
``Ozone depleter'' phrase.
The commenter reasoned that SNAP acceptability was the only
relevant criterion to protect the ozone layer. Until November 15, 1995,
however, only ozone-depleting substances were required to be recovered
from MVACS, and since the composition of certain blends was
confidential, EPA believed it was important to alert technicians of the
necessity of recovering the refrigerant during servicing and disposal.
EPA still believes that this statement does not add significantly to
the label size and provides useful information to the consumer.
Flammability phrase.
The commenter requested that this phrase be shortened from ``This
refrigerant is FLAMMABLE. Take appropriate precautions.'' to
``FLAMMABLE''. However, because flammable refrigerants are not
currently in use, EPA believes it is extremely important to draw
attention to a flammable substitute. Technicians and consumers need to
be aware of the potential hazards posed by flammable refrigerants, and
the entire phrase serves that purpose better than a single word.
In addition to the above rationale, the labeling requirements
cannot be changed each time EPA lists a new refrigerant as acceptable
for use in MVACS subject to use conditions. The labeling requirements
were finalized on June 13, 1995 (60 FR 51383) for HCFC Blend Beta, R-
401C, and HFC-134a. It is not reasonable to require vendors of those
refrigerants to modify their labels or to meet standards not imposed on
subsequent refrigerants. EPA believes the labeling requirements are
necessary and appropriate to help the MVAC industry in its transition
away from CFC-12 in as smooth and safe a manner as possible.
2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. 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 imposing 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. Please note that EPA only
reviews refrigerants based on environmental and health factors.
When retrofitting a CFC-12 system to use any substitute
refrigerant, the following conditions must be met:
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 not retrofitted with conversion assemblies
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.
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
phrase ``ozone depleter''
*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.
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
[[Page 25588]]
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) HCFC Blend Delta
HCFC Blend Delta 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) Blend Zeta
Blend Zeta 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 does not contribute to ozone depletion. 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. Solvents
1. Response to Comment
In response to EPA's proposal, the Agency received public comment
stating that the scope of SNAP did not extend to setting workplace
standards for chemicals. The Agency disagrees with this comment, and it
discussed in the original SNAP rule-making (59 FR 13044, March 18,
1994) how it is using section 612 authority under the Clean Air Act to
set workplace standards as interim measures until OSHA has had an
opportunity to review and decide on the need for standards under OSHA
legislative authorities. The commenter suggested that EPA review with
OSHA its intention of setting these standards. The EPA has already
taken this step, and EPA and OSHA are in agreement about the ability
and the need for the SNAP program to set occupational standards as an
interim regulatory measure until the chemical in question has been
reviewed by OSHA. Further discussion of this issue is included under
the Fire Extinguishing section below.
2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. Metals Cleaning
(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides
Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are acceptable subject to use
conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in metals cleaning. These
two classes of chemicals are being sold as blends for a variety of
cleaning applications. Of all the structures of commercial interest,
the only chemical with an Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) standard is orthochlorotoluene, one of the monochlorotoluenes.
This substance has an OSHA Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) of 50 ppm.
Using this standard as a proxy, the Agency is setting a workplace
standard of 50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes as a group. None of the
benzotrifluorides has a PEL. Based on a toxicological study recently
completed by the company interested in commercialization of these
chemicals, the Agency is setting a workplace standard of 25 ppm for
benzotrifluorides. Companies intending to use monochlorotoluene/
benzotrifluoride mixtures should take the inherent hazard of these
chemicals into account.
These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as
defined in P.L. 91-596.
b. Electronics Cleaning
(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides
Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are acceptable subject to use
conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in electronics cleaning.
For the reasons described in the section on metals cleaning, the Agency
is setting a workplace standard of 50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes and 25
ppm for benzotrifluorides.
These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as
defined in P.L. 91-596.
c. Precision Cleaning
(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides
Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are acceptable subject to use
conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in precision cleaning.
For the reasons described in the section on metals cleaning, the Agency
is setting a workplace standard of 50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes and 25
ppm for benzotrifluorides.
These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as
defined in P.L. 91-596.
C. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
1. Response to Comments
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's regulation of total
flooding agents is within the purview of OSHA, and that EPA should
defer to OSHA rather than create duplicative regulation. Further, the
commenter states that the conditions EPA has stipulated allowing
exposure to oxygen deficient atmospheres of 10% to 12% oxygen is
hazardous and inconsistent with OSHA's requirement for 19.5% oxygen in
confined spaces. The commenter further advised EPA that OSHA published
an update to its Respiratory Protection Standard (November 15, 1994, 59
FR 58906) which includes a chart indicating that oxygen concentrations
below 16% at sea level should require the extra precautions that go
with IDLH atmospheres (immediately dangerous to life and health). The
commenter also pointed out the OSHA regulations requiring predischarge
alarms. In summary, the commenter recommended (1) that EPA revise the
proposed rule to be consistent with current OSHA regulation, (2) that
EPA not establish a 12% ``no effect level'' or a 10% ``lowest effect
level,'' and (3) that EPA leave this regulatory activity to OSHA.
Response: EPA would like to direct the commenter's attention to the
original SNAP rulemaking published March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), as
discussed in the Solvents section above. The Agency responded to many
comments questioning its authority to promulgate workplace safety
[[Page 25589]]
regulations. To quote earlier language from the Comment Response
document:
In imposing conditions of 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
limitations will only remain in place until the appropriate standard
setting agency acts. Once existing gaps are filled, EPA will rescind
any conditions which have become redundant. The mechanism for
informing the public of this change will be the quarterly Federal
Register notices updating the status of the SNAP lists.
For the March 18, 1994 SNAP rulemaking, EPA had conducted an
analysis of existing regulation of low oxygen atmospheres and
determined that none relates to the use of a fixed gaseous system.
(Available from the EPA Air Docket A-91-42, IV-A-4. ``Evaluation of
Federal Regulations and Industry Guidelines Governing Minimum Oxygen
Levels in Work Areas Protected By Gaseous Total Flooding Fire
Protection Systems,'' Memo from ICF Incorporated to Karen Metchis, EPA,
1993.) OSHA had a number of inquiries concerning the definition of
``oxygen deficient atmospheres'', but the definition remained unclear
with OSHA stating that any atmosphere containing less than 19.5 per
cent oxygen falls within the definition of ``oxygen deficient
atmosphere.'' However existing regulations concerned only such things
as entering tanks (Ventilation Standard, 29 CFR 1910.94), confined
spaces not intended for occupancy, etc. In addition, the proposed OSHA
Respiratory Standard cited by the commenter does not apply to fire
protection systems, except in situations where personnel wish to
reenter an area that has experienced a system discharge.
The Agency views discharge of fire extinguishment systems as
emergency situations, whether they be accidental discharges or
discharges in response to a fire. In these cases, personnel are
expected to quickly egress from an area, presumably before discharge
occurs, but potentially very quickly after discharge. To prohibit use
of this technology for fear of emergency situations would be akin to
prohibiting the use of a particular chemical for fear of an accidental
spill. Both cases represent an emergency situation that should be
handled accordingly. Inert gas systems are not to be used while
personnel remain in an area to conduct normal duties.
Current OSHA regulations (1910.162) allow use of halon in fixed
extinguishing systems in normally occupied areas in amounts that would
result in an oxygen deficient atmosphere. The same regulation allows
use of carbon dioxide systems in normally occupied areas even though
exposure to discharge of a CO2 system results in immediate death.
Thus, it is not inconsistent with current OSHA regulations to design
fire extinguishing systems that might result in low oxygen atmospheres
provided that certain protections are present.
Comment: The manufacturer of one inert gas system commented that
EPA has erred in determining that inert gases without CO2 can be
used at the same levels and for the same exposure times as inert gases
with added CO2, and referenced a supporting document,
``Physiological Effects of Abrupt Exposure to 10% O2 with 4%
CO2,'' dated February 15, 1995. Further, the commenter explained
why EPA's concern that added CO2 might cause an increased
inspiration of combustion products is not warranted, by elaborating on
three exposure scenarios to a fire agent: no-fire, small-fire, and
large-fire. The commenter pointed out that only in the case of a large
fire will high levels of combustion products exist and in that case the
risk of the fire greatly exceeds any incremental risk from the added
CO2.
Response: While EPA generally agrees with the commenter's
elaboration of the scenarios of exposure, the question of the relative
importance of the effects of inert gases systems with and without added
CO2 in fire protection scenarios is the subject of a current peer
review on hypoxic atmospheres. Pending the outcome of that assessment,
EPA may re-propose use conditions on these agents either to increase
flexibility in the use of these agents and/or to differentiate the use
conditions applicable to systems with or without added CO2.
Comment: One manufacturer of this agent stated that the most
recently published atmospheric information on CF3I indicates that
its atmospheric lifetime is less than one day, the ozone depletion
potential is less than 0.0008 and more likely below 0.0001, and its
global warming potential is less than five.
The commenter further stated that, compared to Halon 1211, its
weight and volume equivalence are 0.94 and 0.83 respectively. Finally,
the commenter requested that CF3I not be referred to as Halon
13001, as this might confuse the public as to why ``halon'' was being
replaced by a ``halon.''
In addition, the manufacturer provided the Agency with the report
entitled ``Exposure Assessment of Firefighters to Triodide during
Streaming Scenarios,'' conducted at Tyndall Air Force Base. The results
of personal monitoring indicated that exposure to this agent during use
indoors does not exceed its cardiotoxic effect levels.
Response: The Agency agrees with the commenter and will use the
most recent information on atmospheric characteristics as well as
weight and volume equivalence, as noted by the commenter. In addition,
CF3I will not be labeled Halon 13001 in order to avoid general
confusion. Finally, the Agency is proceeding to list this agent as
acceptable for use as a streaming agent in nonresidential uses.
2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
As was discussed in the March 18, 1994 SNAP rulemaking, 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 P.L. 91-596
authority.
a. Total Flooding Agents
(1) IG-55 (Formerly [Inert Gas Blend] B)
IG-55 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute for total flooding
[[Page 25590]]
applications. IG-55, which is comprised of 50% nitrogen and 50% argon,
is designed to lower the oxygen level in a protected area to a level
that does not support combustion, and, unlike pure carbon dioxide
systems, sufficient oxygen remains to maintain life support.
The toxicological issues of concern with inert gas systems differ
from those of halocarbon agents, in that the end-point for hypoxic (low
oxygen) atmospheres is asphyxiation while the end-point for halocarbons
is cardiac sensitization leading to cardiac arrhythmias. Thus, EPA
requested the manufacturers of the inert gas systems to conduct a peer
review by a panel of medical specialists to consider specific questions
concerning exposing the typical working population to this agent. In
addition, a panel of medical specialists convened by EPA to review all
inert gas systems concluded that the use conditions imposed by EPA are
conservative and adequate.
The results of the peer reviews further convinces us that the SNAP
conditions previously listed for IG-541 are appropriate for IG-55 and
IG-01 as well. Specifically, while the terms No Observed Adverse Effect
Level (NOAEL) and Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) refer to
cardiotoxic effect levels which are not appropriate when discussing
hypoxic atmospheres, EPA is establishing a `no effect level' for inert
gas systems at 12% oxygen, and a `lowest effect level' at 10% oxygen.
Thus, consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) conditions used by EPA for all total flooding
agents, EPA is specifying that an IG-55 system could be designed to an
oxygen level of 10% if employees can egress the area within one minute,
but may be designed only to the 12% level if it takes longer than one
minute to egress the area. If the possibility exists for the oxygen to
drop below 10%, employees must be evacuated prior to such oxygen
depletion. A design concentration of less than 10% oxygen may only be
used in normally unoccupied areas, as long as any employee who could
possibly be exposed can egress within 30 seconds.
EPA stresses that, even though the medical specialists concur that
it is probably safe to expose the typical worker to 10% or 12% oxygen
for up to five minutes, EPA does not encourage any employee to
intentionally remain in the area, even in the event of accidental
discharge. In addition, the system must include alarms and warning
mechanisms as specified by OSHA.
EPA intends that all personnel be evacuated from an area prior to,
or quickly after, discharge. An inert gas system may not be designed
with the intention of personnel remaining in the area unless
appropriate protection is provided, such as self-contained breathing
apparatus.
(2) IG-01 (Formerly [Inert Gas Blend] C)
IG-01 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute for total flooding
applications. IG-01 is comprised 100% of argon, and as with IG-55, is
designed to lower the oxygen level in a protected area to a level that
does not support combustion, while maintaining sufficient oxygen for
life support.
As with IG-55, an IG-01 system may be designed to an oxygen level
of 10% if employees can egress the area within one minute, but may be
designed only to the 12% level if it takes longer than one minute to
egress the area. If the possibility exists for the oxygen to drop below
10%, employees must be evacuated prior to such oxygen depletion. A
design concentration of less than 10% may only be used in normally
unoccupied areas, as long as any employee who could possibly be exposed
can egress within 30 seconds.
EPA stresses that, even though the medical specialists concur that
it is probably safe to expose the typical worker to 10% or 12% oxygen
for up to five minutes, EPA does not encourage any employee to
intentionally remain in the area, even in the event of accidental
discharge. In addition, the system must include alarms and warning
mechanisms as specified by OSHA.
Please refer to the discussion of IG-55 for a fuller description of
inert gas systems.
3. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
(a) Streaming Agents
(1) CF3I
CF3I is acceptable as a Halon 1211 substitute in
nonresidential applications. CF3I is a fluoroiodocarbon with an
atmospheric lifetime of less than one day due to its rapid photolysis
in the presence of light. Due to its short atmospheric lifetime of one
day and its photolytic decomposition mechanism, the resulting GWP of
this agent is less than 5, while its ODP when released at ground level
is 0.0008 and more likely below.
CF3I has a weight and volume equivalence to Halon 1211 of 0.94
and 0.83, respectively. While it is potentially a `drop-in' replacement
for Halon 1211, with some modifications in elastomers or other system
materials, there exists a question as to whether current technical
standards allow the reuse of halon 1211 canisters for other chemicals.
Both the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard and UL
listings should be examined in this context.
Cardiac sensitization data received by the Agency indicate that
CF3I has a NOAEL of 0.2 per cent and a LOAEL of 0.4 per cent.
Personal monitoring for this agent was conducted using 2\1/2\ to 13
pound extinguishers in various indoor applications. The resulting data
indicate that cardiotoxic levels are not likely to be exceeded when
used as a streaming agent. While the tests were conducted in different
scenarios both with and without ventilation, EPA recommends that this
agent be used in well ventilated areas. Because of the low cardiac
sensitization values, EPA is prohibiting use of this agent in consumer
residential applications where the possibility exists of incorrect use
by untrained users.
D. Aerosols
1. Response to Comment
As discussed in the section on solvent cleaning, EPA received a
comment stating that it did not have authority under SNAP to set
workplace standards. For the reasons described above, the Agency
disagrees with this comment.
2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. Solvents
(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides
Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are acceptable subject to use
conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF as aerosol solvents.
These two classes of chemicals are being sold as blends for aerosol
applications. Of all the structures of commercial interest, the only
chemical with an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
standard is orthochlorotoluene, one of the monochlorotoluenes. This
substance has an OSHA Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) of 50 ppm. Using
this standard as a proxy, the Agency is setting a workplace standard of
50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes as a group. None of the benzotrifluorides
has a PEL. Based on a toxicological study recently completed by the
company interested in commercialization of these chemicals, the Agency
is setting a workplace standard of 25 ppm for benzotrifluorides.
Companies intending to use monochlorotoluene/benzotrifluoride mixtures
should take the inherent hazard of these chemicals into account in
implementing applications.
These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its
own
[[Page 25591]]
standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in no
way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as defined
in P.L. 91-596.
E. Adhesives, Coatings and Inks
1. Response to Comment
As discussed in the section on solvent cleaning, EPA received a
comment stating that it did not have authority under SNAP to set
workplace standards. For the reasons described above, the Agency
disagrees with this comment.
2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides
Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are acceptable subject to use
conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in adhesives, coatings,
and inks. These two classes of chemicals are being sold as blends for
these applications. Of all the substances of commercial interest, the
only chemical with an Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) standard is orthochlorotoluene, one of the monochlorotoluenes.
This substance has an OSHA Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) of 50 ppm.
Using this standard as a proxy, the Agency is setting a workplace
standard of 50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes as a group. None of the
benzotrifluorides has a PEL. Based on a toxicological study recently
completed by the company interested in commercialization of these
chemicals, the Agency is setting a workplace standard of 25 ppm for
benzotrifluorides. Companies intending to use monochlorotoluene/
benzotrifluoride mixtures should take the inherent toxicity of these
chemicals into account in implementing applications.
These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as
defined in P.L. 91-596.
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.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB notified EPA
that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within the
meaning of the Executive Order and EPA submitted this action to OMB for
review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations
have been documented in the public record.
B. Unfunded Mandates Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
EPA to prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule
that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by
state, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 203 requires
the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing
any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely affected by
the rule. Section 205 requires that regulatory alternatives be
considered before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact
statement is prepared. The Agency must select the least costly, most
cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
rule's objectives, unless there is an explanation why this alternative
is not selected or this alternative is inconsistent with law.
Because this final rule is estimated to result in the expenditure
by State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of less
than $100 million in any one year, the Agency has not prepared a
budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the selection of
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative.
Because small governments will not be significantly or uniquely
affected by this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a plan
with regard to small governments. However, the rule has the net effect
of reducing burden from part 82, Stratospheric Protection regulations,
on regulated entities.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 604(a), applies to any
rulemaking that is subject to public notice and comment requirements.
The Act requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be performed or
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
substitutes available.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule will be
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document will be prepared by EPA
and a copy will be available from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory
Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2136); 401
M St., S.W.; Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740. The
information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them. The
reasons for these information requirements are explained in the section
on automobile air conditioning (III.A.2.a), and will be mandatory once
the ICR is approved under section 612 of the Clean Air Act.
EPA estimates that, over a 5 year period, approximately 30 million
cars will be retrofitted with alternative refrigerants, and that the
burden to complete and apply a label will not exceed 5 minutes per car.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire,
[[Page 25592]]
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
V. Additional Information
For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists or additional
information on SNAP contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at 1-
800-296-1996, Monday-Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00
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 Protection of
Stratospheric Ozone 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).
Finally, all ozone depletion-related NPRMS, FRMs, and Notices may be
retrieved from EPA's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site, at http://
www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/title6/usregs.html.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 13, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended
as follows:
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. Section 82.180 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(8)(ii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 82.180 Agency review of SNAP submissions.
(a) * * *
(8) * * *
(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 Appendices to this subpart.)
* * * * *
3. Subpart G is amended by adding Appendix C to read as follows:
Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
* * * * *
Appendix C to Subpart G--Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions
and Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in the May 22, 1996 Final Rule,
Effective June 21, 1996
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector-- Acceptable Subject to Use
Conditions
HCFC Blend Delta and Blend Zeta are acceptable subject to the
following conditions when used to retrofit a CFC-12 motor vehicle
air conditioning system:
1. 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:
a. 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.
b. 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.
c. 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.
d. All CFC-12 service ports not retrofitted with conversion
assemblies 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.
2. When a retrofit is performed, a label must be used as
follows:
a. The person conducting the retrofit must apply a label to the
air conditioning system in the engine compartment that contains the
following information:
i. The name and address of the technician and the company
performing the retrofit.
ii. The date of the retrofit.
iii. The trade name, charge amount, and, when applicable, the
ASHRAE refrigerant numerical designation of the refrigerant.
iv. The type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used.
v. If the refrigerant is or contains an ozone-depleting
substance, the phrase ``ozone depleter.''
vi. If the refrigerant displays flammability limits as measured
according to ASTM E681, the statement ``This refrigerant is
FLAMMABLE. Take appropriate precautions.''
b. This label must be large enough to be easily read and must be
permanent.
c. The background color must be unique to the refrigerant.
d. The label must be affixed to the system over information
related to the previous refrigerant, in a location not normally
replaced during vehicle repair.
e. Information on the previous refrigerant that cannot be
covered by the new label must be permanently rendered unreadable.
3. 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.
[[Page 25593]]
Solvent Cleaning Sector--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Cleaning with CFC-113, Monochlorotoluen Acceptable....... Subject to a 50 ppm The workplace
MCF and HCFC-141b. es and workplace standard standard for
benzotrifluorid for monochlorotoluenes
es. monochlorotoluenes is based on an OSHA
and a 25 ppm PEL of 50 ppm for
standard for orthochlorotoluene.
benzotrifluorides. The workplace
standard for
benzotrifluorides is
based on a recent
toxicology study.
Electronics Cleaning w/ CFC- Monochlorotoluen Acceptable....... Subject to a 50 ppm The workplace
113, MCF and HCFC-141b. es and workplace standard standard for
benzotrifluorid for monochlorotoluenes
es. monochlorotoluenes is based on an OSHA
and a 25 ppm PEL of 50 ppm for
standard for orthochlorotoluene.
benzotrifluorides. The workplace
standard for
benzotrifluorides is
based on a recent
toxicology study.
Precision Cleaning w/ CFC- Monochlorotoluen Acceptable....... Subject to a 50 ppm The workplace
113, MCF and HCFC-141b. es and workplace standard standard for
benzotrifluorid for monochlorotoluenes
es. monochlorotoluenes is based on an OSHA
and a 25 ppm PEL of 50 ppm for
standard for orthochlorotoluene.
benzotrifluorides. The workplace
standard for
benzotrifluorides is
based on a recent
toxicology study.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions: Total Flooding Agents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301................... IG-55 (formerly Acceptable....... Until OSHA The Agency does not
[Inert Gas establishes contemplate
Blend] B). applicable workplace personnel remaining
requirements: in the space after
system discharge
during a fire
without Self
Contained Breathing
Apparatus (SCBA) as
required by OSHA.
Total Flooding Agents........ ................ ................. IG-55 systems may be
designed to an
oxygen level of 10%
if employees can
egress the area
within one minute,
but may be designed
only to the 12%
oxygen level if it
takes longer than
one minute to egress
the area.
If the possibility EPA does not
exists for the encourage any
oxygen to drop below employee to
10%, employees must intentionally remain
be evacuated prior in the area after
to such oxygen system discharge,
depletion. even in the event of
accidental
discharge. In
addition, the system
must include alarms
and warning
mechanisms as
specified by OSHA.
A design See additional
concentration of comments 1, 2.
less than 10% may
only be used in
normally unoccupied
areas, as long as
any employee who
could possibly be
exposed can egress
within 30 seconds.
IG-01 (formerly Acceptable....... Until OSHA The Agency does not
[Inert Gas establishes contemplate
Blend] C). applicable workplace personnel remaining
requirements: in the space after
system discharge
during a fire
without Self
Contained Breathing
Apparatus (SCBA) as
required by OSHA.
IG-01 systems may be
designed to an
oxygen level of 10%
if employees can
egress the area
within one minute,
but may be designed
only to the 12%
oxygen level if it
takes longer than
one minute to egress
the area.
If the possibility EPA does not
exists for the encourage any
oxygen to drop below employee to
10%, employees must intentionally remain
be evacuated prior in the area after
to such oxygen system discharge,
depletion. even in the event of
accidental
discharge. In
addition, the system
must include alarms
and warning
mechanisms as
specified by OSHA.
[[Page 25594]]
A design See additional
concentration of comments 1, 2.
less than 10% may
only be used in
normally unoccupied
areas, as long as
any employee who
could possibly be
exposed can egress
within 30 seconds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits: Streaming Agents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1211..................... CF3I............... Acceptable in non-
residential uses only.
Streaming Agents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerosols--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-113, MCF and HCFC-141b as Monochlorotoluen Acceptable....... Subject to a 50 ppm The workplace
solvent. es and workplace standard standard for
benzotrifluo- for monochlorotoluenes
rides. monochlorotoluenes is based on an OSHA
and a 25 ppm PEL of 50 ppm for
standard for orthochlorotoluene.
benzotrifluorides. The workplace
standard for
benzotrifluorides is
based on a recent
toxicology study.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adhesives, Coatings and Inks--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-113, MCF and HCFC-141b... Monochlorotoluen Acceptable....... Subject to a 50 ppm The workplace
es and workplace standard standard for
benzotrifluo- for monochlorotoluenes
rides. monochlorotoluenes is based on an OSHA
and a 25 ppm PEL of 50 ppm for
standard for orthochlorotoluene.
benzotrifluorides. The workplace
standard for
benzotrifluorides is
based on a recent
toxicology study.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-12625 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
