[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 13, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31092-31107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-14337]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-5219-1]
RIN 2060-AF99
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule restricts or prohibits 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.
In this final rule, EPA is issuing decisions on the acceptability
of certain substitutes proposed by the Agency on September 26, 1994 (59
FR 49108). 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.
Public comments received regarding this rulemaking have been fully
summarized and responded to in the relevant sector sections of this
rule. Therefore, no separate comment response document has been
developed to accompany this rulemaking. Copies of the eleven public
comments received on the NPRM are available in the public docket
supporting this final rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on July 13, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to the rulemaking are contained in Air
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 5:30 p.m. weekdays.
Telephone (202) 260-7549. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable
fee may be charged for photocopying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Stratospheric Ozone Information
Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern Time or
Sally Rand at (202) 233-9739 or fax (202) 233-9577, Substitutes
Analysis and Review Branch, Stratospheric Protection Division, 401 M
Street, SW (6205J), Washington, DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Section 612 Program
A. Statutory Requirements
B. Regulatory History
III. Listing of Substitutes
IV. Administrative Requirements
V. Administrative Information
I. Background
On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated a final rulemaking setting forth
its plan for administering the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), and issued
its initial list of decisions on the acceptability and unacceptability
of a number of substitutes. Since the March 1994 rulemaking, EPA has
continued to evaluate and approve substitutes as they are submitted to
the program.
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.
[[Page 31093]]
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 FRM.
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 includes 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 determine 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 applications and end-uses which are not specified
as acceptable in the narrowed use limit renders these substitutes
unacceptable.
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 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 rule are in the Appendix A.
The comments contained in the 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
describe 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
1. Overview
The refrigeration and air conditioning sector includes all uses of
class I and class II substances to produce cooling, including
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:
Commercial comfort air conditioning;
Industrial process refrigeration systems;
Industrial process air conditioning;
Ice skating rinks;
Uranium isotope separation processing;
Cold storage warehouses;
Refrigerated transport;
Retail food refrigeration;
Vending machines;
Water coolers;
Commercial ice machines;
Household refrigerators;
Household freezers;
Residential dehumidifiers;
Motor vehicle air conditioning;
Residential air conditioning and heat pumps;
Heat transfer;
and
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 FRM.
EPA has modified the list of end-uses for this sector for this SNAP
update. EPA added a new end-use, very low temperature refrigeration.
Substitutes [[Page 31094]] for this end-use had been reviewed since the
final rule, and therefore were added to the August 26, 1994 Notice.
Please refer to the final SNAP rule (59 FR 13044) for a detailed
description of end-uses other than these. EPA may continue to add other
end-uses in future SNAP updates.
a. 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, freeze-dryers, 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 that extremely low temperature regimes are required. Although
some substitutes may work in both these extremely low temperatures and
in systems designed to use R-502, they may be acceptable only for this
end-use because of global warming and atmospheric lifetime concerns.
These concerns are discussed more fully below.
2. Response to Comments
a. Use conditions for automotive refrigerants. Two commenters
requested changes in the information proposed for labels to be placed
on automobiles retrofitted to use alternative refrigerants. They
explained that label space is constrained and requested that the
statements related to the ozone-depleting nature of automotive
refrigerants be deleted. EPA agrees that the proposed statements were
too cumbersome. This FRM shortens the relevant phrase for ozone-
depleting refrigerants and eliminates the phrase for non-ozone-
depleting refrigerants.
One commenter stated that EPA does not have the authority to
require unique fittings and labels for automotive retrofits. In fact,
EPA believes its broad mandate under SNAP does provide the authority.
One important goal of the SNAP program is to ease the transition away
from ozone-depleting substances. As the number of acceptable
alternatives increases, the likelihood of contaminating the supply of
recycled CFC-12 increases. EPA believes the fitting and label
requirements will help protect consumers and the environment by
preserving the purity of recycled CFC-12. The requirements will also
help ensure that clear information exists about the contents of motor
vehicle air conditioning systems. In addition, EPA has received a
petition requesting a requirement for fittings and labels. Several
commenters strongly supported EPA's efforts to reduce the risks of
cross-contamination of various alternatives. Therefore, this FRM
retains the fitting and label provisions from the NPRM.
Several commenters expressed concern that listing a refrigerant
acceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions implies that it is
effective in all systems, that it is compatible with existing
equipment, and that it will not affect system life. EPA believes the
purpose of the SNAP program is to review the human health and
environmental implications of alternatives and not to ensure the
effectiveness of new refrigerants or the long-term viability of
equipment. Certainly the SNAP lists should serve as a useful reference
to the user community. However, one of the guiding principles of the
SNAP program is to let the market decide whether there exists a
``best'' alternative.
Several commenters asked EPA to require a label for flammable non-
automotive refrigerants. EPA will consider this idea when reviewing
future submissions.
b. HCFC Blend Beta and R-401C. Several commenters expressed concern
that these blends contain flammable substances. As discussed in the
NPRM, testing has shown that HCFC Blend Beta and R-401C are not
flammable and do not become flammable through fractionation. Several
other acceptable refrigerants contain hydrocarbons and other flammable
components, which can add to a blend's effectiveness. If these
components are present in small enough amounts, the blends are
nonflammable.
Several commenters raised the issue of selective absorption of
flammable components by the lubricant. They are concerned that over
time, the oil will concentrate the flammable hydrocarbon, possibly
yielding a flammable mixture in the system. EPA is not aware of any
data validating this claim. However, should information become
available, EPA invites a petition to review its decision on HCFC Blend
Beta.
Several commenters expressed concern that HCFC Blend Beta and
R-401C contain class II compounds, HCFC-22 and HCFC-124, respectively.
While these compounds do contribute to ozone depletion, EPA controls
their production under the accelerated phaseout. As in the stationary
end-uses, EPA believes the HCFCs have a role as transitional
refrigerants. Until the end of production, HCFCs can help ease the
switch away from the CFCs by providing additional alternatives.
Several commenters suggest that using blend refrigerants will not
reduce the cost of retrofitting existing cars to use HFC-134a. Using
other refrigerants may help reduce these costs for some range of
models. However, even if it were possible to devise a reliable measure
of cost reductions for individual cars, EPA's primary interest is the
human health and environmental issues associated with a refrigerant.
The market will determine any substitute's success based on cost.
c. R-403B and R-405A. Several commenters requested that EPA
consider other factors besides global warming potential (GWP) and
lifetime and approve R-403B and R-405A, which contain high
concentrations of perfluorocarbons (PFCs), as substitutes for R-502 and
CFC-12, respectively. EPA considers energy savings, flammability, and
toxicity, in addition to ozone depletion potential and global warming
potential, in its SNAP review. The PFCs as a class have extremely long
lifetimes and very high GWPs. In addition to potential global warming
caused by PFCs, their lifetimes mean that any unanticipated effects
would be irreversible. These factors are significantly higher than
those of any other class of refrigerants. Although the average GWP of a
blend may be lower than that of the individual components, when
released to the atmosphere the components act independently. Thus, the
PFCs' high GWP and long lifetime will have the same impact as if they
had been released as pure substances. In accordance with the SNAP
guiding principles, EPA does not intend to make fine distinctions.
However, the lifetime and GWP of PFCs pose higher overall risk than the
other available substitutes.
Several commenters point out that because R-403B contains HCFC-22,
intentional venting is already prohibited under section 608, and
therefore [[Page 31095]] emissions would be minimal. This claim ignores
the substantial leakage emissions from nearly all refrigeration
equipment, and especially retail food and industrial refrigeration
systems.
One commenter expressed concern that EPA was forcing industry to
use
R-402A, another refrigerant deemed acceptable under SNAP. EPA
disagrees, as it has already listed several other alternatives for R-
502, including
R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-408A, and R-507. The commenter also stated
that using refrigerants other than R-403B would result in the
production of an untenable amount of contaminated oil requiring special
handling under RCRA. Exemptions exist for CFC-contaminated oil, and the
volumes involved would be absorbed easily into the existing used oil
infrastructure.
One commenter stated that EPA had departed from its usual listing
of PFCs as acceptable subject to narrowed use limits, and requested
that EPA include R-403B in the same category. However, EPA has only
found PFCs acceptable where no other alternative is feasible from a
technical or safety perspective. A large number of other acceptable
substitutes exist for R-502 that contain substances with much lower
GWPs and shorter lifetimes. Thus, this FRM promulgates the
unacceptability determinations for R-403B and R-405A.
However, two commenters requested that EPA consider grandfathering
existing uses of R-403B. In two specific cases, EPA determined that
grandfathering is appropriate: Industrial process refrigeration and
refrigerated transport. These cases are explained in detail in the
section discussing R-403B.
d. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs). One commenter requests that EPA not
impose a narrowed use limit on PFCs used in heat transfer applications.
The commenter further suggests that this designation is inconsistent
with previous narrowed use limits imposed in other sectors. The
commenter also indicated that EPA has already received ample proof of
several applications where PFCs are the only viable alternatives.
EPA believes the PFCs may be the only viable substitutes for
specific types of existing heat transfer equipment. For example, as
listed in the SNAP FRM, uranium enrichment plants are already an
acceptable use for PFCs. This user has already demonstrated that no
other substitute would work. EPA agrees with the commenter that for
existing equipment, sufficient evidence exists that no substitutes
other than PFCs exist. Thus, EPA is allowing the use of PFCs in
retrofit and existing system designs only.
For new equipment designs, however, EPA believes other alternatives
may well exist. Therefore, for new equipment designs, users must
conduct a study to determine that no other alternative is feasible.
Note that users need only retain the analysis for their own records; no
submission of information to EPA is required.
If EPA were to grant unconditional acceptability, there would be no
requirement for users to examine other substitutes before adopting
PFCs. EPA has articulated the view that, because of their high GWPs and
very long lifetimes, PFCs must remain alternatives of last resort; in
other words, their use should be limited to those areas where no other
means exist to replace ODS. While the niche market for PFCs in heat
transfer applications may be small, EPA has a strong interest in
restricting its growth. As discussed above, PFCs have extremely long
lifetimes and high GWPs. EPA strongly encourages manufacturers to
devise other means of replacing the ODS used in heat transfer.
The commenter also objects to EPA's description of PFCs as agents
of last resort. EPA maintains that for new heat transfer equipment,
systems should use PFCs only where no other alternatives will work. For
the reasons described in the paragraph above, this FRM retains the
original language.
However, EPA agrees with the commenter's request to provide
additional guidance about the types of systems that may require PFCs.
EPA has included specific examples in the listing for PFCs.
The commenter also objected to EPA's reference to future
rulemakings under section 608 of the Clean Air Act. EPA agrees and has
removed the reference.
The commenter further believes EPA should grant acceptance to the
use of PFCs in several specific end-uses, rather than issuing a
narrowed use limit determination for heat transfer as a whole. The
commenter cites as an example the listing of PFCs as acceptable for use
in uranium enrichment plants. EPA believes that heat transfer systems
bear enough similarity to be included under one end-use. The
substitutes list should not be complicated by too many subcategories
which would result in significant redundancy. The distinction between
retrofit and new use will allow existing equipment to use non-ODS
substitutes while still restricting the design of new systems that
would use PFCs. For the reasons stated above, EPA believes it is
important to place such a restriction on the design of new systems.
However, even within new use, the narrowed use limit is intended to
allow the use of an otherwise unacceptable substitute in cases where
nothing else is feasible from a safety or technical perspective.
The commenter also expresses a belief that EPA should not include
heat transfer systems within the refrigeration and air conditioning
sector. EPA disagrees and has already issued a final applicability
determination that Vaportran transformers are appliances that fall
under regulations issued under section 608 of the Clean Air Act. While
heat transfer is not refrigeration in the thermodynamic sense of moving
heat from a cool area to a warm one, it is a process aimed at
temperature control.
The commenter further notes that EPA indicated that the
refrigeration and air conditioning sector includes all mechanical and
non-mechanical refrigeration, air conditioning, and heat transfer. The
commenter believes this statement causes confusion by neglecting to
define ``non-mechanical refrigeration.'' EPA's intention was to include
alternative processes that do not use a refrigerant in the strictest
sense, such as evaporative cooling or absorption cycle machinery. The
term ``mechanical'' is intended to refer to compressor-drive vapor
compression cycle systems. However, EPA agrees that the statement in
the NPRM was confusing and has removed the reference to non-mechanical
refrigeration in this FRM.
e. Hydrocarbon Blend B. One commenter requested that EPA find
Hydrocarbon Blend B acceptable based on several reports. EPA had
previously reviewed the bulk of these reports and found them
insufficient to demonstrate the safety of this substitute. In addition,
the statement that Hydrocarbon Blend B has a high ignition point is
misleading. This blend readily ignites at room temperature in the
presence of a spark or a flame. No report has supported the notion that
this blend must be heated to very high temperatures before it will
propagate a flame. As stated in the SNAP FRM on March 18, 1994, EPA
requires a comprehensive, scientifically valid risk assessment if a
refrigerant is flammable, and no such study has been performed. EPA
therefore maintains its position that Hydrocarbon Blend B is
unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in automobiles and several
other end-uses.
3. 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),
[[Page 31096]] 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.
4. Listing Decisions
a. Acceptable. CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, CFC-115 Heat
Transfer, Retrofit and Existing Equipment Designs.
(a) Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons are acceptable as
substitutes for CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and CFC-115 in
retrofitted heat transfer systems and in existing designs. Although EPA
normally discusses acceptable substitutes in its Notices, this decision
is the result of comments received on the proposal. PFCs covered by
this determination are C3F8, C4F10,
C5F12, C5F11NO, C6F14, C6F13NO,
C7F16, C7F15NO, C8F18, C8F16O,
and C9F21N. PFCs offer high dielectric resistance,
noncorrosivity, thermal stability, materials compatibility, chemical
inertness, low toxicity, and nonflammability. In addition, they do not
contribute to ground-level ozone formation or stratospheric ozone
depletion. 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, C5F12 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 listing PFCs as
acceptable in heat transfer 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.
In cases where users must adopt PFCs, they should make every effort
to:
Recover and recycle these fluids during servicing;
Adopt maintenance practices that reduce leakage as much as
is technically feasible;
Recover these fluids after the end of the equipment's
useful life and either recycle them or destroy them; and
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 upon consideration of cost
and timing of testing and implementation of new substitutes. EPA urges
industry to develop new alternatives for this end-use that do not
contain substances with such high GWPs and long lifetimes.
b. 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 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. It should be noted that
EPA primarily reviews refrigerants based on environmental and health
factors. Issues related to performance and durability fall outside the
scope of SNAP review.
To meet the requirements under section 612, 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 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.
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
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''; and
* If the refrigerant displays flammability limits as blended, 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.
[[Page 31097]] 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 SNAP 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 substitutes available 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 ester-
based, 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, which consists of HCFC-124,
HFC-134a, and isobutane, 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.
c. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
(1) CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, CFC-115 Heat Transfer, New.
(a) Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons are acceptable as substitutes
for CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and CFC-115 in heat transfer
systems only where no other alternatives are technically feasible due
to safety or performance requirements. PFCs covered by this
determination are C3F8, C4F10, C5F12,
C5F11NO, C6F14, C6F13NO, C7F16,
C7F15NO, C8F18, C8F16O, and
C9F21N. The principal characteristic of concern for PFCs is
that they have very long atmospheric lifetimes and have the potential
to contribute to global climate change. For instance, C5F12
has a lifetime of 4,100 years and a 100-year GWP of 5,600.
Despite concerns about high global warming potential, EPA is
listing PFCs as acceptable in certain limited applications because a
PFC may be the only substitute that can satisfy safety or performance
requirements. These requirements might include very high dielectric
strength, noncorrosivity, thermal stability, materials compatibility,
and chemical inertness. In addition, PFCs do not contribute to
stratospheric ozone depletion. Examples of applications where PFCs may
represent the only alternative to ODS include uranium isotope
separation, chemical processing, electrical inverters, ozone generation
for water purification, space simulators, air purification, and
integrated chip manufacturing.
Users should note, however, that use of a PFC should be an ODS
substitute of last resort. As the determination states, PFCs should be
used ``only where no other alternatives are technically feasible due to
safety or performance requirements.'' Potential users are required to
conduct a thorough review of other more environmentally acceptable
substitutes. Although EPA does not require users to submit the results
of their substitute evaluation, companies must keep the results on file
for future reference.
In cases where users must adopt PFCs, they should make every effort
to:
Recover and recycle these fluids during servicing;
Adopt maintenance practices that reduce leakage as much as
is technically feasible;
Recover these fluids after the end of the equipment's
useful life and either recycle them or destroy them; and
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 would determine whether to grandfather existing uses based
upon consideration of cost and timing of testing and implementation of
new substitutes.
d. Unacceptable Substitutes. (1) R-403B. R-403B, which consists of
HCFC-22, R-218, and propane, is unacceptable as a substitute for R-502
in the following new and retrofitted end-uses:
Industrial process refrigeration;
Cold storage warehouses;
Refrigerated transport;
Retail food refrigeration;
Commercial ice machines; and
Household freezers.
R-218, perfluoropropane, has an extremely high GWP and lifetime,
which pose additional risk beyond that of other acceptable substitutes
for these end-uses. In particular, the lifetime of R-218 is over 2000
years, which means that global warming effects would be essentially
irreversible. While other substitutes may have high GWPs, they do not
exhibit such long lifetimes. [[Page 31098]]
In addition to direct global warming effects, EPA considers
indirect impacts associated with changes in energy efficiency. Many
manufacturers, including that of R-403B, claim energy efficiency gains
associated with their products. Such gains are highly dependent on
equipment type, ambient conditions, optimization of the system, and
other factors. No data demonstrate, however, that R-403B would produce
such large indirect benefits as to overcome the direct impact of its
use as compared to the use of other already acceptable substitutes.
Thus, EPA performed no detailed analysis of the indirect global warming
impacts of R-403B.
As discussed in the SNAP FRM, the Agency is authorized to
grandfather existing uses from a prohibition where appropriate under
the four-part test established in Sierra Club v. EPA, 719 F.2d 436
(D.C. Cir. 1983). As requested by two commenters, the Agency has
conducted the four analyses required under this test, and has concluded
that the balance of equities favors the grandfathering of two current
uses of R-403B. Within industrial process refrigeration, use of R-403B
is permitted until supplies purchased prior to September 26, 1994, the
date EPA proposed to list R-403B as unacceptable, are exhausted. Within
refrigerated transport, R-403B may be used in systems converted to its
use as of September 26, 1994 for the lifetime of that particular
equipment. No use outside these two specific cases is allowed.
Under the first prong of the Sierra Club analysis, the prohibition
set forth in this action clearly represents a departure from previously
established practice, as use of this substitute was not previously
restricted. However, through the proposed action on September 26, 1994
EPA provided notice that it was considering a change to this previous
practice. Therefore, existing users of R-403B who, prior to September
26, 1994, switched from class I substances and invested in this
substitute on the assumption that it would be a sufficient improvement
over the class I used, relied on the fact that use of R-403B was
unrestricted. Prohibiting their use of the substitute immediately would
impose a severe economic burden on these users. Although there is a
substantial interest in applying this requirement immediately, this
interest is balanced by the fact that the restriction will apply
immediately to new equipment using R-403B. Therefore, the requirement
will apply immediately to a substantial number of systems and there
will be no incentive for future investment in R-403B equipment. These
factors taken together outweigh any statutory interest in applying the
new rule immediately to existing users who had invested in R-403 prior
to September 26, 1994.
(2) R-405A. R-405A, which is composed of HCFC-22, HFC-152a, HCFC-
142b, and R-c318, is unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500,
and R-502 in the following new and retrofitted end-uses:
Commercial comfort air conditioning;
Industrial process refrigeration;
Ice skating rinks;
Cold storage warehouses;
Refrigerated transport;
Retail food refrigeration;
Vending machines;
Water coolers;
Commercial ice machines;
Household refrigerators;
Household freezers;
Residential dehumidifiers; and
Motor vehicle air conditioning.
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. In
particular, the lifetime of R-c318 is over 3000 years, which means that
global warming effects would be essentially irreversible. While other
substitutes may have high GWPs, they do not exhibit such long
lifetimes.
In addition to direct global warming effects, EPA considers
indirect impacts associated with changes in energy efficiency. Many
refrigerant manufacturers claim energy efficiency gains associated with
their products. Such gains are highly dependent on equipment type,
ambient conditions, optimization of the system, and other factors. No
data demonstrate, however, that R-405A would produce such large
indirect benefits as to overcome the direct impact of its use as
compared to the use of other already acceptable substitutes. Thus, EPA
performed no detailed analysis of the indirect global warming impacts
of R-405A.
(3) Hydrocarbon Blend B.--Hydrocarbon Blend B is unacceptable as a
substitute for CFC-12 in the following new and retrofitted end-uses:
Commercial comfort air conditioning;
Ice skating rinks;
Cold storage warehouses;
Refrigerated transport;
Retail food refrigeration;
Vending machines;
Water coolers;
Commercial ice machines;
Household refrigerators;
Household freezers;
Residential dehumidifiers; and
Motor vehicle air conditioning.
Flammability is the primary concern. Use of this substitute in very
leaky end-uses like motor vehicle air conditioning may pose a high risk
of fire. EPA requires that 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 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
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 end-use and charge size.
In motor vehicle air conditioning systems (MVACS), flammable
refrigerants pose risks not found in stationary equipment, including
the potential for explosions in collisions, potential punctures of the
condenser because of its placement directly behind the grille,
potential punctures of flexible hoses, the hazard to technicians who
are not 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 may pose 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
[[Page 31099]] substitutes from being sold without 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 an
acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in electronics cleaning
subject to a 25 ppm occupational exposure level for the ca-isomer. The
use condition is based on the toxicity of this chemical. The Agency's
analysis of this substitute found that the exposure limit indicated is
sufficient to protect worker health and that this limit can be met with
exposure controls. The exposure limit of the HCFC-225 cb isomer is 250
ppm. The new limit for the ca-isomer should be readily achievable since
HCFC-225 is only sold commercially as a (45%/55%) blend of ca- and cb-
isomers. In addition, the cleaning equipment where HCFC-225 is used is
characterized by low emissions, and the manufacturer of HCFC-225 is
currently conducting personal monitoring to corroborate the projected
emission levels.
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. Precision Cleaning. (1) HCFC-225 ca/cb. HCFC-225 is an
acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in precision cleaning subject
to a 25 ppm occupational exposure level for the ca-isomer. The reasons
for this decision are described in the preceding section.
2. Unacceptable Substitutes
a. Metals Cleaning. (1) Dibromomethane. Dibromomethane (DBM) is an
unacceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in metals cleaning.
Dibromomethane has a comparatively high ODP (.17), and EPA's analysis
of use of this chemical in cleaning processes revealed correspondingly
high ozone depletion effects. In the case of DBM, the Agency's concern
for high ODP is compounded by the fact that DBM can in some cases be
used as a drop-in replacement, which could result in greater
probability of uncontrolled venting to the atmosphere. Since other
alternatives with lower overall environmental impacts exist for the
cleaning processes in question, EPA elected to ban use of DBM as a
cleaning substitute.
b. Electronics Cleaning. (2) Dibromomethane. Dibromomethane is an
unacceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in electronics cleaning.
Reasons for this decision are described in the preceding section.
c. Precision Cleaning. (3) Dibromomethane. Dibromomethane is an
unacceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in precision cleaning.
Reasons for this decision are described in the preceding section.
c. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
1. Response to Comments
One commenter believes that CF3I should not be acceptable for
use in any fire protection applications until two-year chronic testing
is done, and should be treated as a suspect carcinogen as defined by
OSHA regulations, along with appropriate warnings for handlers.
The commenter bases his belief on two points. First, the commenter
suggests that the cardiosensitization test resulting in death of a test
animal is not like the results from Halon 1211, CFC-11 or HCFC-123,
which resulted in heart arrhythmias followed by recovery when the test
animal was removed from exposure.
Second, the commenter states that the results of the genotoxicity
tests give positive indications that CF3I is potentially a
carcinogen. The commenter states that the structural relationship of
CF3I to CH3I, which the commenter states is a known skin
carcinogen, increases the likelihood that CF3I is a carcinogen.
The cardiosensitization protocol incorporates simulation of a
worse-case response by injecting the test animal with epinephrine prior
to administering the test agent. The standard protocol interpretation
requires observation of at least five life-threatening ventricular
arrhythmias in order to conclude that the LOAEL has been attained. This
response is a precursor to the imminent death of the animal.
In addition, the response of an animal to a cardiosensitizing agent
is somewhat random. Whereas one animal may experience heart
arrhythmias, another animal might experience immediate death by the
same dose. Thus, the observations of ventricular arrhythmias are
considered to be the same as observations of death and both are
considered valid indicators of the LOAEL value.
Regarding the commenters' concern that CF3I is a carcinogen,
EPA conducts a risk assessment of an agent by initially asking
qualitative questions such as: ``Is the structure of the compound
likely to be carcinogenic, and does the agent test positive in a
mutagenesis assay? If so, how potent is the reaction, in other words,
what dosage level gives a positive reaction?''
CF3I is not a known carcinogen, although it tested positive in
a mutagenicity screening assay to determine which are potential
candidates for further testing. The Ames mutagenicity test used as a
predictor of carcinogenicity is accurate as a predictor approximately
50 per cent of the time. The ability of this assay to predict for
carcinogenicity, even given the positive finding, is questionable in
the case of halogenated compounds.
Even should it be determined in a two-year carcinogenicity bioassay
that the agent is a carcinogen, its use under the particular conditions
representative of fire suppression applications in which could be
expected only one or a few exposures in a life time, is likely not to
constitute a cancer risk. A cancer risk usually requires long term
exposure to the agent.
If the agent is a very good fire agent, on balance, the risk to
protect lives overrides the remote concern of carcinogenicity from the
agent. In such a case, for those situations where a manufacturing or
service worker or fire fighter would be repeatedly exposed, appropriate
precautions would be taken. A firefighter is not training in an
environment where he is not already protected. And in industrial
settings, the acceptable exposure limits are set using the subchronic
and chronic data that is available and due precautions are taken, as in
any other industrial chemical use.
One commenter requested that the use restrictions on SF6 be
altered to allow its use as a discharge test agent for all civilian as
well as military aircraft fire suppression systems. The commenter
reported that research efforts by private companies, the U.S. Navy, and
the National Institute for Standards and Technology have identified
SF6 as the preferred test agent for simulating halon 1301 in
aircraft fire suppression systems. The commenter indicated that the
amount of SF6 released in developing and certifying new commercial
aircraft will be approximately 1,000 pounds per year or less.
[[Page 31100]]
EPA concurs with the commenter's request. EPA is aware that the
airline industry is conducting a strategic research effort to identify
new agents for use in new aircraft. Meanwhile, airlines and aircraft
manufacturers are maintaining banks of recycled halon to service
existing aircraft as well as new aircraft being built before the new
systems and aircraft design can be developed and implemented. To
preserve the stock of recycled halon for critical onboard use, and to
minimize emission of halon during testing, EPA is broadening the
language in this final rulemaking to allow the use of SF6 as a
discharge test agent in commercial as well as military aircraft fire
suppression systems.
One commenter took issue with the use of the EPA's statement that
PFCs are agents of ``last resort'' and that ``in most total flooding
applications, the Agency believes that alternatives to C3F8
exist.'' The commenter cited cases where confusion resulted in no
action being taken by the user to move into an alternative. The
commenter took no issue with the use conditions or the narrowed use
limits imposed on PFCs in previous SNAP rulemakings. The commenter
requested that EPA issue guidance on the `narrowed use limits'
evaluation.
EPA's use of the term `agent of last resort' is intended to further
explain, in simple terms, EPA's intention to the end-user. Further, EPA
cannot agree to eliminate the statement ``in most total flooding
applications, the Agency believes that alternatives to C3F8
exist.'' This same language was used in the original SNAP rulemaking
(59 FR 13109, 13110), and conveys to the user that most applications
can be served by non-PFC technology and should be evaluated as such.
The narrowed use restriction imposed on PFCs was developed with the
input of users and industry. EPA was requested to leave the technical
evaluations to end-users and fire protection engineers, as each use
scenario presented its own challenges and requirements. It was felt
that specific guidance by EPA would limit the ability of the fire
protection community to select and design the most appropriate system
for each application. Thus, EPA requires that end-users conduct an
evaluation of the alternatives, and maintain documentation in the event
a PFC is selected. EPA regrets there is some confusion in the market
concerning the determination that other alternatives are not
technically feasible, but to be more specific may inadvertently limit a
user's choices. EPA is expressly leaving technical evaluations to the
user community.
2. Listing Decisions
a. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
(1) Total Flooding Agents. (a) C3F8. C3F8 is
acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute where other alternatives are not
technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements: (a) Due
to their physical or chemical properties or (b) where human exposure to
the agents may approach cardiosensitization levels or result in other
unacceptable health effects under normal operating conditions. This
agent is subject to the same use conditions stipulated for all total
flooding agents, that is:
Where egress from an area cannot be accomplished within
one minute, the employer shall not use this agent in concentrations
exceeding its NOAEL.
Where egress takes longer than 30 seconds but less than
one minute, the employer shall not use the agent in a concentration
greater than its LOAEL.
Agent concentrations greater than the LOAEL are only
permitted in areas not normally occupied by employees provided that any
employee in the area can escape within 30 seconds. The employer shall
assure that no unprotected employees enter the area during agent
discharge.
Cup burner tests in heptane indicate that C3F8 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 and therefore this agent 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.
C3F8 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
6100. Due to the long atmospheric lifetime of C3F8, 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 C3F8
exist. EPA intends that users select C3F8 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 C3F8 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 C3F8 to that which is essential
to meet safety or performance requirements; recovering C3F8
from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or
servicing; and destroying or recycling C3F8 for later use.
EPA encourages manufacturers to develop aggressive product stewardship
programs to help users avoid such unnecessary emissions.
(b) CF3I CF3I is 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.
CF3I (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 CF3I from
aircraft, and the associated likelihood of increased ozone-depleting
effectiveness when released at higher altitudes, the military has
conducted an analysis of historical releases of Halon 1301 from both
military and commercial aircraft. Initial assessment indicates 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 [[Page 31101]] 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 CF3I, 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 CF3I has a NOAEL of 0.2 per
cent and a LOAEL of 0.4 per cent, and thus this agent would not be
suited for use in normally occupied areas.
(c) Gelled Halocarbon/Dry Chemical Suspension. Gelled Halocarbon/
Dry Chemical Suspension is 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.''
(d) 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.
b. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
(1) Total Flooding Agents. (a) C3F8. C3F8 is
acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute where other alternatives are not
technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements: a) due
to their physical or chemical properties or b) where human exposure to
the agents may approach cardiosensitization levels or result in other
unacceptable health effects under normal operating conditions. This
agent is subject to the use conditions stipulated for all total
flooding agents, that is:
Where egress from an area cannot be accomplished within
one minute, the employer shall not use this agent in concentrations
exceeding its NOAEL.
Where egress takes longer than 30 seconds but less than
one minute, the employer shall not use the agent in a concentration
greater than its LOAEL.
Agent concentrations greater than the LOAEL are only
permitted in areas not normally occupied by employees provided that any
employee in the area can escape within 30 seconds. The employer shall
assure that no unprotected employees enter the area during agent
discharge.
Cup burner tests in heptane indicate that C3F8 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 judgment 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
C3F8, 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
C3F8 exist. EPA intends that users select C3F8 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 C3F8 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 [[Page 31102]] limiting testing of C3F8 to that
which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements;
recovering C3F8 from the fire protection system in
conjunction with testing or servicing; and destroying or recycling
C3F8 for later use. EPA encourages manufacturers to develop
aggressive product stewardship programs to help users avoid such
unnecessary emissions.
(b) Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6). SF6 is acceptable for use
as a discharge test agent in military uses and civilian aircraft 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. SF6 is relatively
inert, and has an atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years, with a 100-year,
500-year, and 1,000-year GWP of 16,500, 24,900 and 36,500 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.
Similarly, the airline industry has an interest in using SF6 as a
discharge test agent simulating Halon 1301 in aircraft system
certification testing to ensure aircraft inflight fire safety. During
the period of development, FAA certification, and implementation of
suitable substitutes for aircraft, the airlines will continue to build
new aircraft with halon systems. The amount of SF6 released in
developing and certifying these critical systems for commercial
aircraft will be approximately 1,000 pounds per year or less. EPA
believes that the quantities involved in these two use sectors are
moderate, and avoiding the discharge of halon to test new halon systems
is an immediate priority.
While SF6 is not currently used in other commercial sector
testing regimes, EPA is imposing 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.
c. Unacceptable
(1) Total Flooding. (a) HFC-32. HFC-32 is 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,
1993) 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.''
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 [[Page 31103]] requiring manufacturers to make
information on such substitutes available.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The EPA has determined that this final rule contains no information
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 44 S.S.C. 3501 et
seq.
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).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 2, 1995.
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.)
* * * * *
4. Subpart G is amended by adding appendix B to read as follows:
Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
* * * * *
Appendix B to Subpart G--Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions and
Unacceptable Substitutes
Listed in the June 13, 1995 final rule, effective July 13, 1995.
Refrigerants--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-12 Automobile HFC-134a, R-401C, Acceptable.......... --must be used with EPA is concerned that
Motor Vehicle Air HCFC Blend Beta. unique fittings. the existence of
Conditioning --must be used with several substitutes in
(Retrofit and New detailed labels. this end-use may
Equipment/NIKS). --all CFC-12 must be increase the likelihood
removed from the of significant
system prior to refrigerant cross-
retrofitting. contamination and
Refer to the text potential failure of
for a full both air conditioning
description. systems and recovery/
recycling equipment.
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--Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-11, CFC-12, C3F8, C4F10, Acceptable only Users must observe
CFC-113, CFC- C5F12, where no other the limitations on
114, CFC-115 C5F11NO, alternatives PFC acceptability
Non-Mechanical C6F14, are by determining that
Heat Transfer, C6F13NO, technically the physical or
New. C7F16, feasible due chemical properties
C7F15NO, to safety or or other technical
C8F18, C8F16O, performance constraints of the
and C9F21N. requirements. other available
agents preclude
their use.
Documentation of
such measures must
be available for
review upon
request.
The principal
environmental
characteristic of
concern for PFCs is
that they have high
GWPs and long
atmospheric
lifetimes. EPA
strongly recommends
recovery and
recycling of these
substitutes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 31104]]
Refrigerants--Unacceptable Substitutes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-11, CFC-12, R-405A......... Unacceptable... R-405A contains R-
CFC-113, CFC- c318, a PFC, which
114, R-500 has an extremely
Centrifugal high GWP and
Chillers lifetime. Other
(Retrofit and substitutes exist
New Equipment/ which do not
NIKs). contain PFCs.
Hydrocarbon Unacceptable... Flammability is a
Blend B. serious concern.
Data have not been
submitted to
demonstrate it can
be used safely in
this end-use.
CFC-12 R-405A......... Unacceptable... R-405A contains R-
Reciprocating c318, a PFC, which
Chillers has an extremely
(Retrofit and high GWP and
New Equipment/ lifetime. Other
NIKs). substitutes exist
which do not
contain PFCs.
Hydrocarbon Unacceptable... Flammability is a
Blend B. serious concern.
Data have not been
submitted to
demonstrate it can
be used safely in
this end-use.
CFC-11, CFC-12, R-403B......... Unacceptable... R-403B contains R-
R-502 218, a PFC, which
Industrial has an extremely
Process high GWP and
Refrigeration lifetime. Other
(Retrofit and substitutes exist
New Equipment/ which do not
NIKs). contain PFCs.
R-405A......... Unacceptable... R-405A contains R-
c318, a PFC, which
has an extremely
high GWP and
lifetime. Other
substitutes exist
which do not
contain PFCs.
CFC-12, R-502 R-405A......... Unacceptable... R-405A contains R-
Ice Skating c318, a PFC, which
Rinks (Retrofit has an extremely
and New high GWP and
Equipment/NIKs). lifetime. Other
substitutes exist
which do not
contain PFCs.
Hydrocarbon Unacceptable... Flammability is a
Blend B. serious concern.
Data have not been
submitted to
demonstrate it can
be used safely in
this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 R-403B......... Unacceptable... R-403B contains R-
Cold Storage 218, a PFC, which
Warehouses has an extremely
(Retrofit and high GWP and
New Equipment/ lifetime. Other
NIKs). substitutes exist
which do not
contain PFCs.
R-405A......... 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 Unacceptable... Flammability is a
Blend B. serious concern.
Data have not been
submitted to
demonstrate it can
be used safely in
this end-use.
CFC-12, R-500, R- R-403B......... Unacceptable... R-403B contains R-
502 218, a PFC, which
Refrigerated has an extremely
Transport high GWP and
(Retrofit and lifetime. Other
New Equipment/ substitutes exist
NIKs). which do not
contain PFCs.
R-405A......... 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 Unacceptable... Flammability is a
Blend B. serious concern.
Data have not been
submitted to
demonstrate it can
be used safely in
this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 R-403B......... Unacceptable... R-403B contains R-
Retail Food 218, a PFC, which
Refrigeration has an extremely
(Retrofit and high GWP and
New Equipment/ lifetime. Other
NIKs). substitutes exist
which do not
contain PFCs.
R-405A......... 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 Unacceptable... Flammability is a
Blend B. serious concern.
Data have not been
submitted to
demonstrate it can
be used safely in
this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 R-403B......... Unacceptable... R-403B contains R-
Commercial Ice 218, a PFC, which
Machines has an extremely
(Retrofit and high GWP and
New Equipment/ lifetime. Other
NIKs). substitutes exist
which do not
contain PFCs.
R-405A......... 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 Unacceptable... Flammability is a
Blend B. serious concern.
Data have not been
submitted to
demonstrate it can
be used safely in
this end-use.
CFC-12 Vending R-405A......... Unacceptable... R-405A contains R-
Machines c318, a PFC, which
(Retrofit and has an extremely
New Equipment/ high GWP and
NIKs). lifetime. Other
substitutes exist
which do not
contain PFCs.
Hydrocarbon Unacceptable... Flammability is a
Blend B. serious concern.
Data have not been
submitted to
demonstrate it can
be used safely in
this end-use.
CFC-12 Water R-405A......... Unacceptable... R-405A contains R-
Coolers c318, a PFC, which
(Retrofit and has an extremely
New Equipment/ high GWP and
NIKs). lifetime. Other
substitutes exist
which do not
contain PFCs.
Hydrocarbon Unacceptable... Flammability is a
Blend B. serious concern.
Data have not been
submitted to
demonstrate it can
be used safely in
this end-use.
[[Page 31105]]
CFC-12 Household R-405A......... Unacceptable... R-405A contains R-
Refrigerators c318, a PFC, which
(Retrofit and has an extremely
New Equipment/ high GWP and
NIKs). lifetime. Other
substitutes exist
which do not
contain PFCs.
Hydrocarbon Unacceptable... Flammability is a
Blend B. serious concern.
Data have not been
submitted to
demonstrate it can
be used safely in
this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 R-403B......... Unacceptable... R-403B contains R-
Household 218, a PFC, which
Freezers has an extremely
(Retrofit and high GWP and
New Equipment/ lifetime. Other
NIKs). substitutes exist
which do not
contain PFCs.
R-405A......... 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 Unacceptable... Flammability is a
Blend B. serious concern.
Data have not been
submitted to
demonstrate it can
be used safely in
this end-use.
CFC-12, R-500 R-405A......... Unacceptable... R-405A contains R-
Residential c318, a PFC, which
Dehumidifiers has an extremely
(Retrofit and high GWP and
New Equipment/ lifetime. Other
NIKs). substitutes exist
which do not
contain PFCs.
Hydrocarbon Unacceptable... Flammability is a
Blend B. serious concern.
Data have not been
submitted to
demonstrate it can
be used safely in
this end-use.
CFC-12 Motor R-405A......... Unacceptable... R-405A contains R-
Vehicle Air c318, a PFC, which
Conditioners has an extremely
(Retrofit and high GWP and
New Equipment/ lifetime. Other
NIKs). substitutes exist
which do not
contain PFCs.
Hydrocarbon Unacceptable... Flammability is a
Blend B. serious concern.
Data have not been
submitted to
demonstrate it can
be used safely in
this end-use.
Flammable Unacceptable... The risks associated
Substitutes. with using
flammable
substitutes in this
end-use have not
been addressed by a
risk assessment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvent Cleaning Sector--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics Cleaning HCFC-225 ca/cb...... Acceptable.......... Subject to the HCFC-225 ca/cb blend is
w/CFC-113, MCF. company set offered as a 45%-ca/55%-
exposure limit of cb blend. The company
25 ppm of the -ca set exposure limit of
isomer. 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.
Precision Cleaning w/ HCFC-225 ca/cb...... Acceptable.......... Subject to the HCFC-225 ca/cb blend is
CFC-113, MCF. company set offered as a 45%-ca/55%-
exposure limit of cb blend. The company
25 ppm of the -ca set exposure limit of
isomer. 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--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals cleaning w/CFC-113 Dibromomethane.............. Unacceptable................ High ODP; other
alternatives exist.
Metals cleaning w/MCF... Dibromomethane.............. Unacceptable................ High ODP; other
alternatives exist.
Electronics cleaning w/ Dibromomethane.............. Unacceptable................ High ODP; other
CFC-113. alternatives exist.
Electronics cleaning w/ Dibromomethane.............. Unacceptable................ High ODP; other
MCF. alternatives exist.
[[Page 31106]]
Precision cleaning w/CFC- Dibromomethane.............. Unacceptable................ High ODP; other
113. alternatives exist.
Precision cleaning w/MCF Dibromomethane.............. Unacceptable................ High ODP; other
alternatives exist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions: Total Flooding Agents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301 Total C3F8................ Acceptable where Until OSHA The comparative design
Flooding Agents. other alternatives establishes concentration based on
are not technically applicable cup burner values is
feasible due to workplace approximately 8.8%.
performance or requirements:. Users must observe the
safety For occupied areas limitations on PFC
requirements:. from which acceptability by making
a. due to their personnel cannot be reasonable efforts to
physical or evacuated in one undertake the following
chemical minute, use is measures:
properties, or. permitted only up (i) conduct an
b. where human to concentrations evaluation of
exposure to the not exceeding the foreseeable conditions
extinguishing cardiotoxicity of end use;
agents may approach NOAEL of 30%. (ii) determine that
cardiosensitization Although no LOAEL human exposure to the
levels or result in has been other alternative
other unacceptable established for extinguishing agents
health effects this product, may approach or result
under normal standard OSHA in cardiosensitization
operating requirements apply, or other unacceptable
conditions. i.e. for occupied toxicity effects under
areas from which normal operating
personnel can be conditions; and
evacuated or egress (iii) determine that the
can occur between physical or chemical
30 and 60 seconds, properties or other
use is permitted up technical constraints
to a concentration of the other available
not exceeding the agents preclude their
LOAEL. use;
All personnel must Documentation of such
be evacuated before measures must be
concentration of available for review
C3F8 exceeds 30%. upon request.
Design concentration The principal
must result in environmental
oxygen levels of at characteristic of
least 16%. concern for PFCs is
that they have high
GWPs and long
atmospheric lifetimes.
Actual contributions to
global warming 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.
CF3I................ Acceptable in EPA requires that Manufacturer has not
normally unoccupied any employee who applied for listing for
areas. could possibly be use in normally
in the area must be occupied areas.
able to escape Preliminary
within 30 seconds. cardiosensitization
The employer shall data indicates that
assure that no this agent would not be
unprotected suitable for use in
employees enter the normally occupied
area during agent areas.
discharge. EPA is awaiting results
of ODP calculations.
See additional comments
1, 2, 3, 4.
Gelled Halocarbon/ Acceptable in EPA requires that The manufacturer's SNAP
Dry Chemical normally unoccupied any employee who application requested
Suspension. areas. could possibly be listing for use in
in the area must be unoccupied areas only.
able to escape See additional comment
within 30 seconds. 2.
The employer shall
assure that no
unprotected
employees enter the
area during agent
discharge.
Inert Gas/Powdered Acceptable as a In areas where The manufacturer's SNAP
Aerosol Blend. Halon 1301 personnel could application requested
substitute in possibly be listing for use in
normally unoccupied present, as in a unoccupied areas only.
areas. cargo area, EPA See additional comment
requires that the 2.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 31107]]
4--The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and
recycled for later use or destroyed.
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits: Total Flooding Agents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301, Total C3F8................ Acceptable where Until OSHA The comparative design
Flooding Agents. other alternatives establishes concentration based on
are not technically applicable cup burner values is
feasible due to workplace approximately 8.8%.
performance or requirements:. Users must observe the
safety For occupied areas limitations on PFC
requirements:. from which acceptability by making
a. due to their personnel cannot be reasonable efforts to
physical or evacuated in one undertake the following
chemical minute, use is measures:
properties, or. permitted only up (i) conduct an
b. where human to concentrations evaluation of
exposure to the not exceeding the foreseeable conditions
extinguishing cardiotoxicity of end use;
agents may approach NOAEL of 30%. (ii) determine that
cardiosensitization Although no LOAEL human exposure to the
levels or result in has been other alternative
other unacceptable established for extinguishing agents
health effects this product, may approach or result
under normal standard OSHA in cardiosensitization
operating requirements apply, or other unacceptable
conditions. i.e. for occupied toxicity effects under
areas from which normal operating
personnel can be conditions; and
evacuated or egress (iii) determine that the
can occur between physical or chemical
30 and 60 seconds, properties or other
use is permitted up technical constraints
to a concentration of the other available
not exceeding the agents preclude their
LOAEL. use;
All personnel must Documentation of such
be evacuated before measures must be
concentration of available for review
C3F8 exceeds 30%. upon request.
Design concentration The principal
must result in environmental
oxygen levels of at characteristic of
least 16%. concern for PFCs is
that they have high
GWPs and long
atmospheric lifetimes.
Actual contributions to
global warming 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).
Sulfurhexa-fluoride Acceptable as a .................... This agent has an
(SF6). discharge test atmospheric lifetime
agent in military greater than 1,000
uses and in years, with an
civilian aircraft estimated 100-year, 500-
uses only. 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Unacceptable Substitutes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301 Total HFC-32......... Unacceptable... Data indicate that
Flooding Agents. HFC-32 is flammable
and therefore is
not suitable as a
halon substitute.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 95-14337 Filed 6-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
