[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 185 (Monday, September 26, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-23678]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: September 26, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Parts 9 and 82
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Proposed Rule
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 82
[FRL-5078-4]
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes restrictions or prohibitions on
substitutes for ozone depleting substances (ODSs) under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP implements section 612 of the amended Clean
Air Act of 1990 which requires EPA to evaluate and regulate substitutes
for the ODSs to reduce overall risk to human health and the
environment. Through these evaluations, SNAP generates lists of
acceptable and unacceptable substitutes for each of the major
industrial use sectors. The intended effect of the SNAP program is to
expedite movement away from ozone depleting compounds while avoiding a
shift into high-risk substitutes posing other environmental problems.
On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated a final rulemaking setting forth
its plan for administering the SNAP program, and issued decisions on
the acceptability and unacceptability of a number substitutes. In this
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is issuing its preliminary
decisions on the acceptability of certain substitutes not previously
reviewed by the Agency. To arrive at determinations on the
acceptability of substitutes, the Agency completed a cross-media
evaluation of risks to human health and the environment by sector end-
use.
Today's action proposes new additions to the list of controlled or
prohibited substitutes. As described in the final rule for the SNAP
program, EPA does believe that notice-and-comment rulemaking is
required to place any alternative on the list of prohibited
substitutes, to list an alternative as acceptable only under certain
use conditions or certain narrow end-use applications.
EPA does not, however, believe that rulemaking procedures are
required to list alternatives as acceptable with no limitations. Such
listings do not impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior
license to use a substitute. Consequently, EPA is adding substitutes to
the list of acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on
new listings. Updates to the acceptable lists are published as separate
notices in the Federal Register. A comprehensive compilation of all
listings will be published annually.
DATES: Written comments or data provided in response to this document
must be submitted by November 10, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and data should be sent to Docket A-91-42,
Central Docket Section, South Conference Room 4, U.S. Environmental
Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. The docket may be
inspected between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. on weekdays. Telephone (202) 260-
7549. As provided in 40 CFC part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for
photocopying. To expedite review, a second copy of the comments should
be sent to Sally Rand, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of
Atmospheric Programs, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW., 6205-J, Washington,
DC 20460. Information designated as Confidential Business Information
(CBI) under 40 CFR, part 2 subpart B must be sent directly to the
contact person for this notice. However, the Agency is requesting that
all respondents submit a non-confidential version of their comments to
the docket as well.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Rand at (202) 233-9739 or fax
(202) 233-9577, Substitutes Analysis and Review Branch, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and
Radiation, Washington, DC.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview of This Action
This action is divided into five sections, including this overview:
I. Overview of This Action
II. Section 612 Program
A. Statutory Requirements
B. Regulatory History
III. Proposed Listing of Substitutes
IV. Administrative Requirements
V. Additional Information
Appendix A: Summary of Proposed Listing Decisions
II. Section 612 Program
A. Statutory Requirements
Section 612 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to develop a
program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA
is referring to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are:
Rulemaking--Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making
it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and
hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance
with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present
adverse effects to human health or the environment where the
Administrator has identified an alternative that: (1) Reduces the
overall risk to human health and the environment; and (2) is currently
or potentially available.
Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes--Section 612(c) also
requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes unacceptable for
specific uses. EPA must publish a corresponding list of acceptable
alternatives for specific uses.
Petition Process--Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to
petition EPA to add a substitute to or delete a substitute from the
lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90
days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition,
EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional 6 months.
90-day Notification--Section 612(e) requires EPA to require any
person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to
notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing
chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new
uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also
provide the Agency with the producer's unpublished health and safety
studies on such substitutes.
Outreach--Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall
seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources
to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying and
developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial
applications.
Clearinghouse--Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a
public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and
alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and
manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.
B. Regulatory History
On March 18, 1994, EPA published the Final Rulemaking (FRM) (59 FR
13044) which described the process for administering the SNAP program
and issued EPA's first acceptability lists for substitutes in the major
industrial use sectors. These sectors include: refrigeration and air
conditioning; foam blowing; solvent cleaning; fire suppression and
explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and
inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal
industrial sectors that historically consume large volumes of 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. Proposed Listing of Substitutes
To develop the lists of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes,
EPA conducts screens of health and environmental risks posed by various
substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds in each use sector. The
outcome of these risks screens can be found in the public docket, as
described above in the ADDRESSES portion of this notice.
Under section 612, the Agency has considerable discretion in the
risk management decisions it can make in SNAP. The Agency has
identified five possible decision categories: acceptable, acceptable
subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits;
unacceptable; and pending. Acceptable substitutes can be used with no
limits for all applications within the relevant sector end-use.
Conversely, it is illegal to replace an ODS with a substitute listed by
SNAP as unacceptable. A pending listing represents substitutes for
which the Agency has not received complete data or has not completed
its review of the data.
After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may make a determination
that a substitute is acceptable only if conditions of use are met to
minimize risks to human health and the environment. Use of such
substitutes in ways that are inconsistent with such use conditions
renders these substitutes unacceptable.
Even though the Agency can restrict the use of a substitute based
on the potential for adverse effects, it may be necessary to permit a
narrowed range of use within a sector end-use because of the lack of
alternatives for specialized applications. Users intending to adopt a
substitute acceptable with narrowed use limits must ascertain that
other acceptable alternatives are not technically feasible. Companies
must document the results of their evaluation, and retain the results
on file for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. This documentation
shall include descriptions of substitutes examined and rejected,
processes or products in which the substitute is needed, reason for
rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety
standards, and the anticipated date other substitutes will be available
and projected time for switching to other available substitutes. Use of
such substitutes in application and end-uses which are not specified as
acceptable in the narrowed use limit renders these substitutes
unacceptable.
In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is issuing its
preliminary decision on the acceptability of certain substitutes not
previously reviewed by the Agency. As described in the final rule for
the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), EPA believes that notice-and-comment
rulemaking is required to place any alternative on the list of
prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute as acceptable only under
certain use conditions or narrowed use limits, or to remove an
alternative from either the list of prohibited or acceptable
substitutes.
EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are required to
list alternatives as acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do
not impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior license to use a
substitute. Consequently, EPA is adding substitutes to the list of
acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new
listings. Updates to the acceptable and pending lists are published as
separate notices in the Federal Register.
Parts A. through E. below present a detailed discussion of the
substitute listing determinations by major use sector. Tables
summarizing listing decisions in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are
in Appendix A. The comments contained in Appendix A provide additional
information on a substitute. Since comments are not part of the
regulatory decision, they are not mandatory for use of a substitute.
Nor should the comments be considered comprehensive with respect to
other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute.
However, EPA encourages users of acceptable substitutes to apply all
comments in their use of these substitutes. In many instances, the
comments simply allude to sound operating practices that have already
been identified in existing industry and/or building-code standards.
Thus, many of the comments, if adopted, would not require significant
changes in existing operating practices for the affected industry.
A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
1. Overview
The refrigeration and air conditioning sector includes all uses of
class I and class II substances to produce cooling, including
mechanical and non-mechanical refrigeration, air conditioning, and heat
transfer. Please refer to the final SNAP rule (59 FR 13044) for a more
detailed description of this sector.
The refrigeration and air conditioning sector is divided into the
following end-uses:
commercial comfort air conditioning;
industrial process refrigeration system;
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;
non-mechanical 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 NPRM.
EPA has modified the list of end-uses for this sector for this SNAP
update. First, EPA has changed the name of the heat transfer end-use to
non-mechanical heat transfer. This change is intended to avoid
confusion between systems that move heat from a cool area to a warm one
(mechanical refrigeration) and systems that simply aid the movement of
heat away from warm areas (non-mechanical heat transfer). The second
change is that EPA added a new end-use, very low temperature
refrigeration. Substitutes for this end-use have been reviewed since
the final rule, and therefore have been added for this SNAP update.
Finally, EPA has also reviewed substitutes for CFC-13, R-13B1, and R-
503 industrial process refrigeration. Please refer to the final SNAP
rule (59 FR 13044) for a detailed description of end-uses other than
these three. EPA may continue to add other end-uses in future SNAP
updates.
a. Non-mechanical Heat Transfer. As discussed above, this end-use
includes all cooling systems that rely on a fluid to remove heat from a
heat source to a cooler area, rather than relying on mechanical
refrigeration to move heat from a cool area to a warm one. Generally,
there are two types of systems: systems with fluid pumps, referred to
as recirculating coolers, and those that rely on natural convection
currents, known as thermosyphons.
b. Very Low Temperature Refrigeration. Medical freezers, 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
the extremely low temperature regimes that are required. Although some
substitutes may work in both these extremely low temperatures and in
systems designed to use R-502, they are acceptable only for this end-
use because of global warming and atmospheric lifetime concerns. These
concerns are discussed more fully below.
2. Substitutes for Refrigerants
Substitutes fall into eight broad categories. Seven of these
categories are chemical substitutes used in the same vapor compression
cycle as the ozone-depleting substances being replaced. They include
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
hydrocarbons, refrigerant blends, ammonia, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and
chlorine systems. The eighth category includes alternative technologies
that generally do not rely on vapor compression cycles. Please refer to
the final SNAP rule (59 FR 13044) for more discussion of these broad
categories.
a. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions. (1) CFC-12 Automobile and
Non-automobile Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners, Retrofit and New. EPA is
concerned that the existence of several substitutes in this end-use may
increase the likelihood of significant refrigerant cross-contamination
and potential failure of both air conditioning systems and recovery/
recycling equipment. In addition, a smooth transition to the use of
substitutes strongly depends on the continued purity of the recycled
CFC-12 supply. In order to prevent cross-contamination and preserve the
purity of recycled refrigerants, EPA is proposing several conditions on
the use of all motor vehicle air conditioning refrigerants. For the
purposes of this rule, no distinction is made between ``retrofit'' and
``drop-in'' refrigerants; retrofitting a car to use a new refrigerant
includes all procedures that result in the air conditioning system
using a new refrigerant.
In particular, when retrofitting a CFC-12 system to use any
substitute refrigerant, the following conditions must be met:
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
refrigerant numerical designation of the refrigerant
*--the type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used
*--if the refrigerant is or contains an ozone-depleting substance,
the statement ``This refrigerant contains an ozone-depleting substance
and it is therefore subject to the venting prohibition, recycling, and
other provisions of regulations issued under section 609 of the Clean
Air Act.''
*--if the refrigerant is not or does not contain any ozone-
depleting substances, the statement ``This refrigerant does not deplete
stratospheric ozone, and as of November 15, 1995, at the latest, it is
subject to the venting prohibition, recycling, and other provisions of
regulations issued under section 609 of the Clean Air Act.''
*--if the refrigerant displays flammability limits as measured
according to ASTM E681, the statement ``This refrigerant is FLAMMABLE.
Take appropriate precautions.''
--This label must be large enough to be easily read and must be
permanent.
--The background color must be unique to the refrigerant.
--The label must be affixed to the system over information related to
the previous refrigerant, in a location not normally replaced during
vehicle repair.
--Information on the previous refrigerant that cannot be covered by the
new label must be permanently rendered unreadable.
No substitute refrigerant may be used to ``top-off'' a
system that uses another refrigerant. The original refrigerant must be
recovered in accordance with regulations issued under section 609 of
the CAA prior to charging with a substitute.
Since these use conditions necessitate unique fittings and labels,
it will be necessary for developers of automotive refrigerants to
consult with EPA about the existence of other alternatives. Such
discussions will lower the risk of duplicating fittings already in use.
No determination guarantees satisfactory performance from a
refrigerant. Consult the original equipment manufacturer or service
personnel for further information on using a refrigerant in a
particular system.
(a) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in
retrofitted and new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject to the use
conditions applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described
above. HFC-134a does not contribute to ozone depletion. HFC-134a's GWP
and atmospheric lifetime are close to those of other alternatives which
have been determined to be acceptable for this end-use. However, HFC-
134a's contribution to global warming could be significant in leaky
end-uses such as motor vehicle air conditioning systems (MVACS). EPA
has determined that the use of HFC-134a in these applications is
acceptable because industry continues to develop technology to limit
emissions. In addition, the number of available substitutes for use in
MVACS is currently limited. HFC-134a is not flammable and its toxicity
is low. While HFC-134a is compatible with most existing refrigeration
and air conditioning equipment parts, it is not compatible with the
mineral oils currently used in such systems. An appropriate 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 is acceptable as a substitute
for CFC-12 in retrofitted and new motor vehicle air conditioners,
subject to the use conditions applicable to motor vehicle air
conditioning described above. The composition of this blend has been
claimed confidential by the manufacturer. This blend contains at least
one HCFC, and therefore contributes to ozone depletion, but to a much
lesser degree than CFC-12. Regulations regarding recycling and
reclamation issued under section 609 of the Clean Air Act apply to this
blend. Its production will be phased out according to the accelerated
schedule (published 12/10/93, 58 FR 65018). The GWPs of the components
are moderate to low. This blend is nonflammable, and leak testing has
demonstrated that the blend never becomes flammable.
b. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits. (1) Non-mechanical
Heat Transfer, New and Retrofit.
(a) Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons are proposed acceptable as
substitutes for CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and CFC-115 in new
and retrofitted thermosyphons and recirculating coolers only where no
other alternatives are technically feasible due to safety or
performance requirements. PFCs covered by this determination are
C3F8, C4F10, C5F12, C5F11NO,
C6F14, C6F13NO, C7F16, C7F15NO,
C8F18, C8F16O, AND C9F21N. PFCs offer
high dielectric resistance and they are low in toxicity and
nonflammable. The principal characteristic of concern for PFCs is that
they have long atmospheric lifetimes and have the potential to
contribute to global climate change. For instance, 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 proposing to list
PFCs as acceptable in certain small applications because they may be
the only substitutes that can satisfy safety or performance
requirements. For example, a transformer may require very high
dielectric strength, or a heat transfer system for a chlorine
manufacturing process could require compatibility with the process
stream.
Users should note, however, that use of a PFC should be a last
resort. As the proposed determination states, PFCs should be used
``only where no other alternatives are technically feasible due to
safety or performance requirements.'' This statement requires users to
conduct a thorough search for other substitutes. Although EPA does not
require users to submit information on such a search, companies must
keep the results on file for future reference.
In cases where users must adopt PFCs, they should make every effort
to:
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
Continue to search for other long-term alternatives
Users of PFCs should note that if other alternatives become
available, EPA could be petitioned to list PFCs as unacceptable due to
the availability of other suitable substitutes. If such a petition were
granted, EPA may grandfather existing uses but only upon consideration
of cost and timing of testing and implementation of new substitutes. In
addition, while this listing allows for use of PFCs in some new
systems, a petition indicating widespread design of systems using PFCs
where other alternatives exist could adversely impact any
grandfathering decisions.
EPA believes these end-uses are covered under section 608 of the
CAA and encourages voluntary compliance with the recycling and leak
repair provisions of that rule until new rulemakings specifically
address non-ozone-depleting refrigerants.
c. Unacceptable Substitutes.
(1) R-403B
R-403B, which consists of HCFC-22, R-218, and propane, is proposed
unacceptable as a substitute for R-502 in the following new and
retrofitted end-uses:
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.
Although this substitute may offer energy efficiency gains, its
lifetime and direct GWP pose additional risk beyond that of other
substitutes for these end-uses. In particular, the lifetime of R-218 is
over 2000 years, which means that global warming and other effects
would be essentially irreversible. EPA believes that while other
substitutes may have high GWPs, they do not exhibit such long
lifetimes.
(2) R-405A
R-405A, which is composed of HCFC-22, HFC-152a, HCFC-142b, and R-
c318, is proposed 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.
Although this substitute may offer energy efficiency gains, its
lifetime and direct GWP pose additional risk beyond that of other
substitutes for these end-uses. In particular, the lifetime of R-c318
is over 3000 years, which means that global warming and other effects
would be essentially irreversible. EPA believes that while other
substitutes may have high GWPs, they do not exhibit such long
lifetimes.
(3) Hydrocarbon Blend B
Hydrocarbon Blend B is proposed unacceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 in the following new and retrofitted end-uses:
commercial comfort air conditioning;
ice skating rinks;
cold storage warehouses;
refrigerated transport;
retail food refrigeration;
vending machines;
water coolers;
commercial ice machines;
household refrigerators;
household freezers;
residential dehumidifiers; and
motor vehicle air conditioning.
Flammability is the primary concern. EPA believes the use of this
substitute in very leaky uses like motor vehicle air conditioning may
pose a high risk of fire. EPA requires a risk assessment be conducted
to demonstrate this blend may be safely used in any CFC-12 end-uses.
The manufacturer of this blend has not submitted such a risk
assessment, and EPA therefore finds it unacceptable.
(4) Flammable Substitutes
Flammable substitutes, defined as having flammability limits as
measured according to ASTM E-681 with modifications included in Society
of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J1657, including blends
which become flammable during fractionation, are proposed unacceptable
as substitutes for CFC-12 in retrofitted motor vehicle air conditioning
systems.
Flammable refrigerants differ from traditional substances in
several ways: potential gains in energy efficiency, reductions in
direct contribution to global warming, and additional risks from fire.
Flammable refrigerants may be good substitutes in systems designed with
fire risks in mind. In addition, in certain circumstances, they may
serve well as substitutes in retrofit uses. EPA encourages research
efforts into the use of flammable refrigerants, but remains concerned
about the dangers. Because of these concerns, EPA has established the
requirement that manufacturers of flammable refrigerants conduct
detailed risk assessments in all end-uses. The risks from flammability
are extremely sensitive to the size of charge and end-use.
In MVACS, flammable refrigerants pose risks not found in stationary
equipment, including the potential for collisions, the placement of the
condenser directly behind the grille, flexible hoses which could be
punctured, the hazard to technicians who are expecting to handle
flammable fluids, the danger to passengers from evaporator leaks, and
the dangers to personnel involved in disposal of old automobiles. Due
to the length of SNAP review, certain substitutes have been marketed
which EPA believes may pose substantial risk to users. The intent of
the 90-day review process was not to allow manufacturers to market
risky substitutes, but rather to ensure a thorough review. Because of
potential risks to users and service personnel, EPA finds it necessary
to find all flammable substitutes unacceptable in retrofitted
automotive air conditioning to prevent hazardous substitutes from being
marketed prior to a thorough risk assessment.
EPA continues to encourage investigation of all substitute
refrigerants, including flammable substances. This unacceptable
determination only applies to retrofitted MVACS. If a manufacturer
wishes an acceptable determination for a flammable substitute in MVACS,
this risk assessment must be conducted in a scientifically valid
manner. EPA will consider such a risk assessment in any determination
on the substitute.
B. Solvents
1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. Electronics Cleaning. (1) HCFC-225 ca/cb. HCFC-225 is proposed
acceptable subject to use conditions as a substitute for CFC-113 and
MCF in electronics cleaning. The HCFC-225 ca isomer has a company-set
exposure limit of 25 ppm. The company set exposure limit of the HCFC-
225 cb isomer is 250 ppm. These limits should be readily achievable
since HCFC-225 is only sold commercially as a (45%/50%) blend of -ca
and -cb isomers. In addition, the vapor degreasing and cold cleaning
equipment where HCFC-225 is used, typically has very low emissions.
b. Precision Cleaning. (1) HCFC-225 ca/cb. HCFC-225 is proposed
acceptable subject to use conditions as a substitute for CFC-113 and
MCF in precision cleaning. The HCFC-225 ca isomer has a company-set
exposure limit of 25 ppm. The company set exposure limit of the HCFC-
225 cb isomer is 250 ppm. These limits should be readily achievable
since HCFC-225 is only sold commercially as a (45%/50%) blend of -ca
and -cb isomers. In addition, the vapor degreasing and cold cleaning
equipment where HCFC-225 is used, typically has very low emissions.
2. Unacceptable Substitutes
a. Metals Cleaning. (1) Dibromomethane. Dibromomethane is proposed
as an unacceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in metals cleaning.
Dibromomethane has a comparatively high ODP and other alternatives
exist which do not pose comparable risk.
b. Electronics Cleaning. (2) Dibromomethane. Dibromomethane is
proposed as an unacceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in
electronics cleaning. Dibromomethane has a comparatively high ODP and
other alternatives exist.
c. Precision Cleaning. (3) Dibromomethane. Dibromomethane is
proposed as an unacceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in precision
cleaning. Dibromomethane has a comparatively high ODP and other
alternatives exist.
C. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
1. Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. Total Flooding Agents. (1) C3F8. C3F8 is
proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute where other alternatives
are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements:
(a) Due to their physical or chemical properties or (b) where human
exposure to the agents may approach cardiosensitization levels or
result in other unacceptable health effects under normal operating
conditions. This proposed agent is subject to the same use conditions
stipulated for all total flooding agents, that is:
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
cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 30 per cent for this agent is well above its
extinguishment concentration and therefore is safe for use in occupied
areas. This agent can replace Halon 1301 by a ratio of 2 to 1 by
weight.
Using agents in high concentrations poses a risk of asphyxiation by
displacing oxygen. With an ambient oxygen level of 21 per cent, a
design concentration of 22.6 per cent may reduce oxygen levels to
approximately 16 per cent, the minimum level considered to be required
to prevent impaired judgement or other physiological effects. Thus, the
oxygen level resulting from discharge of this agent must be at least 16
per cent.
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.
(2) CF3I. CF3I is proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301
substitute in normally unoccupied areas. Any employee that could
possibly be in the area must be able to escape within 30 seconds. The
employer shall assure that no unprotected employees enter the area
during agent discharge.
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 a higher ODP value when
released at altitude, the military has conducted an analysis of
historical releases of Halon 1301 from both military and commercial
aircraft. Initial assessment indicate that emissions from U.S. military
aircraft appear to have averaged about 56 pounds annually, of which 2
pounds were emitted above 30,000 feet. Commercial aircraft worldwide
released an estimated average of 933 pounds of Halon 1301 annually, of
which 158 pounds was released above 30,000 feet. While EPA is awaiting
the results of the ODP calculations of 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
suitably be for use in normally occupied areas.
(3) Gelled Halocarbon/Dry Chemical Suspension. Gelled Halocarbon/
Dry Chemical Suspension is proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301
substitute in normally unoccupied areas. Any employee who could
possibly be in the area must be able to escape within 30 seconds. The
employer shall assure that no unprotected employees enter the area
during agent discharge.
The manufacturer is proposing to blend either of two halocarbons
(HFC-125 or HFC-134a) with either ammonium polyphosphate (which is not
corrosive) or monoammonium phosphate (which is corrosive on hard
surfaces). An initial assessment of inhalation toxicology of fine
particulates indicates that some risk exists of inhalation exposure
when the particles are below a certain size compared to the mass per
cubic meter in air. Particle sizes less than 10 to 15 microns and a
mass above the ACGIH nuisance dust levels raise concerns which need to
be further studied. In a total flooding application, the exposure
levels may be of concern. In addition, because the discharge of powders
obscures vision, evacuation could be impeded. EPA is asking
manufacturers of total flooding systems using powdered aerosols to
submit to the Agency a review of the medical implications of inhaling
atmospheres flooded with fine powder particulates. While the
manufacturer requested a SNAP listing for unoccupied areas only, EPA
would not consider its use in occupied areas until the requested peer
review is complete. Meanwhile, EPA is finding this technology
acceptable for use in normally unoccupied areas.
For further discussion of this agent, including a review of
particle size distributions, see the listing under ``Streaming Agents--
Acceptable.''
(4) Inert Gas/Powdered Aerosol Blend. Inert Gas/Powdered Aerosol
Blend is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute in normally unoccupied
areas. In areas where personnel could possibly be present, as in a
cargo area, the employer shall provide a pre-discharge employee alarm
capable of being perceived above ambient light or noise levels for
alerting employees before system discharge. The pre-discharge alarm
shall provide employees time to safely exit the discharge area prior to
system discharge.
This alternative agent is formulated from a mixture of dry powders
pressed together into pill form. Upon exposure to heat from a fire, a
pyrotechnic charge initiates a series of exothermic, gas-producing
reactions composed mainly of a mixture of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and
water vapor, with small amounts of carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide,
nitrogen dioxide, and solid residues. The oxygen level in the room is
largely depleted, thus extinguishing the fire.
The manufacturer has proposed this technology for use in normally
unoccupied areas only, such as engine nacelles and engine compartments,
aircraft dry bay areas and unoccupied cargo areas. Comparing agents
alone, deployment of 2.0 pounds of this agent at 400 deg.F has an
equivalent fire suppression effectiveness to 1.0 pound of Halon 1301 at
70 deg.F.
This agent has no ODP. The carbon dioxide generated in the
combustion of this agent has a GWP of 1.
2. Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
a. Total Flooding Agents. (1) C3F8. C3F8 is
proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute where other alternatives
are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements:
a) due to their physical or chemical properties or b) where human
exposure to the agents may approach cardiosensitization levels or
result in other unacceptable health effects under normal operating
conditions. This agent is subject to the use conditions stipulated for
all total flooding agents, that is:
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 judgement or other physiological effects. Thus, the
oxygen level resulting from discharge of this agent must be at least 16
per cent.
This agent has an atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years and a 100-
year GWP of 6,100. Due to the long atmospheric lifetime of
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.
(2) Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6). SF6 is acceptable for use
as a discharge test agent in military uses only. Sulfur Hexafluoride is
a nonflammable, nontoxic gas which is colorless and odorless. With a
density of approximately five times that of air, it is one of the
heaviest known gases. 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 16,100, 26,110 and 32,803 respectively.
This agent has been developed by the U.S. Navy as a test gas
simulant in place of halon in new halon total flooding systems on ships
which have been under construction prior to identification and
qualification of substitute agents. Halon systems are no longer
included in designs for new ships. The Navy estimates its annual usage
to be less than 10,000 pounds annually, decreasing over time. Thus, the
Agency believes that the quantities involved are not significant.
While SF6 is not currently used in the commercial sector and
new halon systems are rarely installed, EPA is proposing a narrowed use
limit to ensure that emissions of this agent remain minimal. The NFPA
12a and NFPA 2001 standards recommend that halon or other total
flooding gases not be used in discharge testing, but that alternative
methods of ensuring enclosure and piping integrity and system
functioning be used. Alternative methods can often be used, such as the
``door fan'' test for enclosure integrity, UL 1058 testing to ensure
system functioning, pneumatic test of installed piping, and a ``puff''
test to ensure against internal blockages in the piping network. These
stringent design and testing requirements have largely obviated the
need to perform a discharge test for total flood systems containing
either Halon 1301 or a substitute agent.
3. Proposed Unacceptable
a. Total Flooding. (1) HFC-32. HFC-32 is proposed unacceptable as a
total flooding agent. HFC-32 has been determined to be flammable, with
a large flammability range, and is therefore inappropriate as a halon
substitute when used as a pure agent. This agent was proposed
acceptable in the first SNAP proposed rulemaking (58 FR 28093, May 12,
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.''
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-602, requires that
federal agencies examine the effects of their regulations on small
entities. Under 5 U.S.C. 604(a), whenever an agency is required to
publish a final rule-making, it must prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis (RFA). Such an analysis is not required if the head of the
Agency certifies that a rule will not have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small entities, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
605(b).
The agency believes that this final rule will not have a
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities and has
therefore concluded that a formal RFA is unnecessary. Because costs of
the SNAP requirements as a whole are expected to be minor, the rule is
unlikely to adversely affect businesses, particularly as the rule
exempts small sectors and end-uses from reporting requirements and
formal Agency review. In fact, to the extent that information gathering
is more expensive and time-consuming for small companies, this rule may
well provide benefits for small businesses anxious to examine potential
substitutes to any ozone-depleting class I and class II substances they
may be using, by requiring manufacturers to make information on such
substitues available.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no
information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
V. Additional Information
Contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at 1-800-296-1996,
Monday-Friday, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. (EST).
For more information on the Agency's process for administering the
SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the
SNAP final rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18,
1994 (59 FR 13044). Federal Register notices can be ordered from the
Government Printing Office Order Desk (202) 783-3238; the citation is
the date of publication. Notices and rulemaking under the SNAP program
can also be retrieved electronically from EPA's Technology Transfer
Network (TTN), Clean Air Act Amendment Bulletin Board. The access
number for users with a 1200 or 2400 bps modem is (919) 541-5742. For
users with a 9600 bps modem the access number is (919) 541-1447. For
assistance in accessing this service, call (919) 541-5384 during normal
business hours (EST).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirments.
Dated: September 16, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Appendix A to the Preamble: Summary of Proposed Decisions
Refrigerants--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-Use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-12 Automobile HFC-134a, R-401C, Proposed acceptable EPA is concerned that the existence of
Motor Vehicle Air HCFC Blend Beta. when (1) used with several substitutes in this end-use may
Conditioning unique fittings and increase the likelihood of significant
(Retrofit and New detailed labels and refrigerant cross-contamination and
Equipment/NIKS). (2) all CFC-12 has potential failure of both air conditioning
been removed from systems and recovery/recycling equipment. In
the system prior to addition, a smooth transition to the use of
retrofitting. Refer substitutes strongly depends on the
to the text for a continued purity of the recycled CFC-12
full description.. supply.
For the purposes of this rule, no distinction
is made between ``retrofit'' and ``drop-in''
refrigerants; retrofitting a car to use a
new refrigerant includes all procedures that
result in the air conditioning system using
a new refrigerant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigerants--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-Use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC- C3F8, C4F10, C6F12, Proposed acceptable Users must observe the limitations on PFC
113, CFC-114, CFC- C6F11NO, C6F14, only where no other acceptability by determining that the
115 Non-Mechanical C6F13NO, C7F16, alternatives are physical or chemical properties or other
Heat Transfer C7F15NO, C8F18, technically technical constraints of the other available
(Retrofit and New). C8F16O, AND C9F21N. feasible due to agents preclude their use. Documentation of
safety or such measures must be available for review
performance upon request.
requirements. The principal environmental characteristic of
concern for PFCs is that they have high GWPs
and long atmospheric lifetimes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigerants--Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-Use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC- R-405A.............. Proposed R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an
113, CFC-114, R-500 Unacceptable. extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other
Centrifugal Chillers substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
(Retrofit and New
Equipment/NIKs).
Hydrocarbon Blend Proposed Flammability is a serious concern. Data have
Beta. Unacceptable. not been submitted to demonstrate it can be
used safely in this end-use.
CFC-12 Reciprocating R-405A.............. Proposed R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an
Chillers (Retrofit Unacceptable. extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other
and New Equipment/ substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
NIKs).
Hydrocarbon Blend Proposed Flammability is a serious concern. Data have
Beta. Unacceptable. not been submitted to demonstrate it can be
used safely in this end-use.
CFC-11, CFC-12, R-502 R-403B.............. Proposed R-403B contains R-218, a PFC, which has an
Industrial Process Unacceptable. extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other
Refrigeration substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
(Retrofit and New
Equipment/NIKs).
R-405A.............. Proposed R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an
Unacceptable. extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other
substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
CFC-12, R-502 Ice R-405A.............. Proposed R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an
Skating Rinks Unacceptable. extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other
(Retrofit and New substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
Equipment/NIKs).
Hydrocarbon Blend Proposed Flammability is a serious concern. Data have
Beta. Unacceptable. not been submitted to demonstrate it can be
used safely in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 Cold R-403B.............. Proposed R-403B contains R-218, a PFC, which has an
Storage Warehouses Unacceptable. extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other
(Retroit and New substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
Equipment/NIKs).
R-405A.............. Proposed R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an
Unacceptable. extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other
substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
Hydrocarbon Blend Proposed Flammability is a serious concern. Data have
Beta. Unacceptable. not been submitted to demonstrate it can be
used safely in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-500, R-502 R-403B.............. Proposed R-403B contains R-218, a PFC, which has an
Refrigerated Unacceptable. extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other
Transport (Retrofit substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
and New Equipment/
NIKs).
R-405A.............. Proposed R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an
Unacceptable. extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other
substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
Hydrocarbon Blend Proposed Flammability is a serious concern. Data have
Beta. Unacceptable. not been submitted to demonstrate it can be
used safely in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 Retail R-403B.............. Proposed R-403B contains R-218, a PFC, which has an
Food Refrigeration Unacceptable. extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other
(Retrofit and New substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
Equipment/NIKs).
R-405A.............. Proposed R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an
Unacceptable. extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other
substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
Hydrocarbon Blend Proposed Flammability is a serious concern. Data have
Beta. Unacceptable. not been submitted to demonstrate it can be
used safely in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 R-403B.............. Proposed R-403B contains R-218, a PFC, which has an
Commercial Ice Unacceptable. extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other
Machines (Retrofit substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
and New Equipment/
NIKs).
R-405A.............. Proposed R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an
Unacceptable. extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other
substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
Hydrocarbon Blend Proposed Flammability is a serious concern. Data have
Beta. Unacceptable. not been submitted to demonstrate it can be
used safely in this end-use.
CFC-12 Vending R-405A.............. Proposed R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an
Machines (Retrofit Unacceptable. extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other
and New Equipment/ substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
NIKs).
Hydrocarbon Blend Proposed Flammability is a serious concern. Data have
Beta. Unacceptable. not been submitted to demonstrate it can be
used safely in this end-use.
CFC-12 Water Coolers R-405A.............. Proposed R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an
(Retrofit and New Unacceptable. extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other
Equipment/NIKs). substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
Hydrocarbon Blend Proposed Flammability is a serious concern. Data have
Beta. Unacceptable. not been submitted to demonstrate it can be
used safely in this end-use.
CFC-12 Household R-405A.............. Proposed R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an
Refrigerators Unacceptable. extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other
(Retrofit and New substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
Equipment/NIKs).
Hydrocarbon Blend Proposed Flammability is a serious concern. Data have
Beta. Unacceptable. not been submitted to demonstrate it can be
used safely in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-502 R-403B.............. Proposed R-403B contains R-218, a PFC, which has an
Household Freezers Unacceptable. extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other
(Retrofit and New substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
Equipment/NIKs).
R-405A.............. Proposed R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an
Unacceptable. extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other
substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
Hydrocarbon Blend Proposed Flammability is a serious concern. Data have
Beta. Unacceptable. not been submitted to demonstrate it can be
used safely in this end-use.
CFC-12, R-500 R-405A.............. Proposed R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an
Residential Unacceptable. extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other
Dehumidifiers substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
(Retrofit and New
Equipment/NIKs).
Hydrocarbon Blend Proposed Flammability is a serious concern. Data have
Beta. Unacceptable. not been submitted to demonstrate it can be
used safely in this end-use.
CFC-12 Motor Vehicle R-405A.............. Proposed R-405A contains R-c318, a PFC, which has an
Air Conditioners Unacceptable. extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other
(Retrofit and New substitutes exist which do not contain PFCs.
Equipment/NIKs).
Hydrocarbon Blend Proposed Flammability is a serious concern. Data have
Beta. Unacceptable. not been submitted to demonstrate it can be
used safely in this end-use.
Flammable Proposed The risks associated with using flammable
Substitutes. Unacceptable. substitutes in this end-use have not been
addressed by a risk assessment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvent Cleaning Sector--Proposed Acceptable Subject To Use Conditions Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics HCFC-225 ca/cb.... Acceptable........ Subject to the HCFC-225 ca/cb blend is offered
Cleaning w/CFC- company set as a 45%-ca/55%-cb blend. The
113, MCF. exposure limit of company set exposure limit of
25 ppm of the -ca the -ca isomer is 25 ppm. The
isomer. 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 HCFC-225 ca/cb.... Acceptable........ Subject to the HCFC-225 ca/cb blend is offered
w/CFC-113, MCF. company set as a 45%-ca/55%-cb blend. The
exposure limit of company set exposure limit of
25 ppm of the -ca the -ca isomer is 25 ppm. The
isomer. company set exposure limit of
the -cb isomer is 250 ppm. It
is the Agency's opinion that
with the low emission cold
cleaning and vapor degreasing
equipment designed for this
use, the 25 ppm limit of the
HCFC-225 ca isomer can be met.
The company is submitting
further exposure monitoring
data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvent Cleaning Sector--Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals cleaning w/CFC- Dibromomethane...... Unacceptable........ High ODP; other alternatives exist.
113.
Metals cleaning w/MCF Dibromomethane...... Unacceptable........ High ODP; other alternatives exist.
Electronics cleaning Dibromomethane...... Unacceptable........ High ODP; other alternatives exist.
w/CFC-113.
Electronics cleaning Dibromomethane...... Unacceptable........ High ODP; other alternatives exist.
w/MCF.
Precision cleaning w/ Dibromomethane...... Unacceptable........ High ODP; other alternatives exist.
CFC-113.
Precision cleaning w/ Dibromomethane...... Unacceptable........ High ODP; other alternatives exist.
MCF.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions: Total Flooding Agents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301........ C3F8.............. Proposed Until OSHA The comparative design
Total flooding acceptable where establishes concentration based on cup
agents other applicable burner values is approximately
alternatives are workplace 8.8%.
not technically requirements, EPA Users must observe the
feasible due to proposes: For limitations on PFC
performance or occupied areas acceptability by making
safety from which reasonable efforts to undertake
requirements: personnel cannot the following measures:
a. due to their be evacuated in (i) conduct an evaluation of
physical or one minute, use foreseeable conditions of end
chemical is permitted only use;
properties, or up to (ii) determine that human
b. where human concentrations exposure to the other
exposure to the not exceeding the alternative extinguishing
extinguishing cardiotoxicity agents may approach or result
agents may NOAEL of 30. in cardiosensitization or other
approach Although no LOAEL unacceptable toxicity effects
cardiosensitizati has been under normal operating
on levels or established for conditions; and
result in other this product, (iii) determine that the
unacceptable standard OSHA physical or chemical properties
health effects requirements or other technical constraints
under normal apply, i.e. for of the other available agents
operating occupied areas preclude their use;
conditions. from which Documentation of such measures
personnel can be must be available for review
evacuated or upon request.
egress can occur The principal environmental
between 30 and 60 characteristic of concern for
seconds, use is PFCs is that they have high
permitted up to a GWPs and long atmospheric
concentration not lifetimes. Actual contributions
exceeding the to global warming depend upon
LOAEL. the quantities of PFCs emitted.
All personnel must For additional guidance
be evacuated regarding applications in which
before PFCs may be appropriate, users
concentration of should consult the description
C3F8 exceeds 30%. of potential uses which is
Design included in the March 18, 1994
concentration Rulemaking (59 FR 13043).
must result in See additional comments 1, 2, 3,
oxygen levels of 4.
at least 16%.
CF3I.............. Proposed EPA proposes that Manufacturer has not applied for
acceptable in any employee who listing for use in normally
normally could possibly be occupied areas. Preliminary
unoccupied areas. in the area must cardiosensitization data
be able to escape indicates that this agent would
within 30 not be suitable for use in
seconds. The normally occupied areas.
employer shall EPA is awaiting results of ODP
assure that no calculations.
unprotected See additional comments 1, 2, 3,
employees enter 4.
the area during
agent discharge.
Gelled halocarbon/ Proposed EPA proposes that The manufacturer's SNAP
dry chemical acceptable in any employee who application requested listing
suspension. normally could possibly be for use in unoccupied areas
unoccupied areas. in the area must only.
be able to escape See additional comment 2.
within 30
seconds. The
employer shall
assure that no
unprotected
employees enter
the area during
agent discharge.
Inert gas/powdered Proposed In areas where The manufacturer's SNAP
aerosol blend. acceptable as a personnel could application requested listing
Halon 1301 possibly be for use in unoccupied areas
substitute in present, as in a only.
normally cargo area, EPA See additional comment 2.
unoccupied areas. proposes that 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits: Total Flooding
Agents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301........ C3F8.............. Proposed Until OSHA The comparative design
Total flooding acceptable where establishes concentration based on cup
agents. other applicable burner values is approximately
alternatives are workplace 8.8%.
not technically requirements: Users must observe the
feasible due to For occupied areas limitations on PFC
performance or from which acceptability by making
safety personnel cannot reasonable efforts to undertake
requirements: be evacuated in the following measures:
a. due to their one minute, use (i) conduct an evaluation of
physical or is permitted only foreseeable conditions of end
chemical up to use;
properties, or concentrations (ii) determine that human
b. where human not exceeding the exposure to the other
exposure to the cardiotoxicity alternative extinguishing
extinguishing NOAEL of 30%. agents may approach or result
agents may Although no LOAEL in cardiosensitization or other
approach has been unacceptable toxicity effects
cardiosensitizati established for under normal operating
on levels or this product, conditions; and
result in other standard OSHA (iii) determine that the
unacceptable requirements physical or chemical properties
health effects apply, i.e. for or other technical constraints
under normal occupied areas of the other available agents
operating from which preclude their use;
conditions. personnel can be Documentation of such measures
evacuated or must be available for review
egress can occur upon request.
between 30 and 60 The principal environmental
seconds, use is characteristic of concern for
permitted up to a PFCs is that they have high
concentration not GWPs and long atmospheric
exceeding the lifetimes. Actual contributions
LOAEL. to global warming depend upon
All personnel must the quantities of PFCs emitted.
be evacuated For additional guidance
before regarding applications in which
concentration of PFCs may be appropriate, users
C3F8 exceeds 30%. should consult the description
Design of potential uses which is
concentration included in the March 18, 1994
must result in Final Rulemaking (58 FR 13043).
oxygen levels of
at least 16%..
Sulfurhexafluoride Proposed .................. This agent has an atmospheric
(SF6). acceptable as a lifetime greater than 1,000
discharge test years, with an estimated 100-
agent in military year, 500-year, and 1,000-year
uses only. 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--Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301........... HFC-32.............. Proposed Data indicate that HFC-32 is flammable and
Total flooding unacceptable. therefore is not suitable as a halon
agents. substitute.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 94-23678 Filed 9-23-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
