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