Protection of Stratospheric Ozone

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-5219-1]

RIN 2060-AF99

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule restricts or prohibits substitutes for ozone

depleting substances (ODSs) under the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP

implements section 612 of the amended Clean Air Act of 1990 which

requires EPA to evaluate and regulate substitutes for the ODSs to

reduce overall risk to human health and the environment. Through these

evaluations, SNAP generates lists of acceptable and unacceptable

substitutes for each of the major industrial use sectors. The intended

effect of the SNAP program is to expedite movement away from ozone

depleting compounds while avoiding a shift into high-risk substitutes

posing other environmental problems.

In this final rule, EPA is issuing decisions on the acceptability

of certain substitutes proposed by the Agency on September 26, 1994 (59

FR 49108). To arrive at determinations on the acceptability of

substitutes, the Agency completed a cross-media evaluation of risks to

human health and the environment by sector end-use.

Public comments received regarding this rulemaking have been fully

summarized and responded to in the relevant sector sections of this

rule. Therefore, no separate comment response document has been

developed to accompany this rulemaking. Copies of the eleven public

comments received on the NPRM are available in the public docket

supporting this final rule.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on July 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to the rulemaking are contained in Air

Docket A-91-42, Central Docket Section, South Conference Room 4, U.S.

Environmental Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The

docket may be inspected between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays.

Telephone (202) 260-7549. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable

fee may be charged for photocopying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Stratospheric Ozone Information

Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern Time or

Sally Rand at (202) 233-9739 or fax (202) 233-9577, Substitutes

Analysis and Review Branch, Stratospheric Protection Division, 401 M

Street, SW (6205J), Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

II. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

B. Regulatory History

III. Listing of Substitutes

IV. Administrative Requirements

V. Administrative Information

I. Background

On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated a final rulemaking setting forth

its plan for administering the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), and issued

its initial list of decisions on the acceptability and unacceptability

of a number of substitutes. Since the March 1994 rulemaking, EPA has

continued to evaluate and approve substitutes as they are submitted to

the program.

II. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

Section 612 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to develop a

program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA

is referring to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy

(SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are:

Rulemaking--Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate

rules making it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon,

halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and

hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon)

substance with any substitute that the Administrator determines may

present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the

Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the

overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is

currently or potentially available.

Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes--Section

612(c) also requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes

unacceptable for specific uses. EPA must publish a corresponding

list of acceptable alternatives for specific uses.

Petition Process--Section 612(d) grants the right to

any person to petition EPA to add a substitute to or delete a

substitute from the lists published in accordance with section

612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where

the Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the revised lists

within an additional 6 months.

90-day Notification--Section 612(e) requires EPA to

require any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I

substance to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or

existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for

significant new uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The

producer must also provide the Agency with the producer's

unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes.

[[Page 31093]]

Outreach--Section 612(b)(1) states that the

Administrator shall seek to maximize the use of federal research

facilities and resources to assist users of class I and II

substances in identifying and developing alternatives to the use of

such substances in key commercial applications.

Clearinghouse--Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to

set up a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product

substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are

available for products and manufacturing processes which use class I

and II substances.

B. Regulatory History

On March 18, 1994, EPA published the Final Rulemaking (FRM) (59 FR

13044) which described the process for administering the SNAP program

and issued EPA's first acceptability lists for substitutes in the major

industrial use sectors. These sectors include: refrigeration and air

conditioning; foam blowing; solvent cleaning; fire suppression and

explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and

inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal

industrial sectors that historically consume large volumes of ozone-

depleting compounds.

The Agency defines a ``substitute'' as any chemical, product,

substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or

new, that could replace a class I or class II substance. Anyone who

produces a substitute must provide the Agency with health and safety

studies on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into

interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. This

requirement applies to chemical manufacturers, but may include

importers, formulators or end-users when they are responsible for

introducing a substitute into commerce.

III. Listing of Substitutes

To develop the lists of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes,

EPA conducts screens of health and environmental risks posed by various

substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds in each use sector. The

outcome of these risks screens can be found in the public docket, as

described above in the Addresses portion of this FRM.

Under section 612, the Agency has considerable discretion in the

risk management decisions it can make in SNAP. The Agency has

identified five possible decision categories: acceptable, acceptable

subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits;

unacceptable; and pending. Acceptable substitutes can be used with no

limits for all applications within the relevant sector end-use.

Conversely, it is illegal to replace an ODS with a substitute listed by

SNAP as unacceptable. A pending listing includes substitutes for which

the Agency has not received complete data or has not completed its

review of the data.

After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may determine that a

substitute is acceptable only if conditions of use are met to minimize

risks to human health and the environment. Use of such substitutes in

ways that are inconsistent with such use conditions renders these

substitutes unacceptable.

Even though the Agency can restrict the use of a substitute based

on the potential for adverse effects, it may be necessary to permit a

narrowed range of use within a sector end-use because of the lack of

alternatives for specialized applications. Users intending to adopt a

substitute acceptable with narrowed use limits must ascertain that

other acceptable alternatives are not technically feasible. Companies

must document the results of their evaluation, and retain the results

on file for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. This documentation

shall include descriptions of substitutes examined and rejected,

processes or products in which the substitute is needed, reason for

rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety

standards, and the anticipated date other substitutes will be available

and projected time for switching to other available substitutes. Use of

such substitutes in applications and end-uses which are not specified

as acceptable in the narrowed use limit renders these substitutes

unacceptable.

As described in the final rule for the SNAP program (59 FR 13044),

EPA believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking is required to place

any alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a

substitute as acceptable only under certain use conditions or narrowed

use limits, or to remove an alternative from either the list of

prohibited or acceptable substitutes.

EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are required to

list alternatives as acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do

not impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior license to use a

substitute. Consequently, EPA adds substitutes to the list of

acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new

listings. Updates to the acceptable and pending lists are published as

separate notices in the Federal Register.

Parts A. through C. below present a detailed discussion of the

substitute listing determinations by major use sector. Tables

summarizing listing decisions in this final rule are in the Appendix A.

The comments contained in the Appendix A provide additional information

on a substitute. Since comments are not part of the regulatory

decision, they are not mandatory for use of a substitute. Nor should

the comments be considered comprehensive with respect to other legal

obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute. However, EPA

encourages users of acceptable substitutes to apply all comments in

their use of these substitutes. In many instances, the comments simply

describe sound operating practices that have already been identified in

existing industry and/or building-code standards. Thus, many of the

comments, if adopted, would not require significant changes in existing

operating practices for the affected industry.

A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

1. Overview

The refrigeration and air conditioning sector includes all uses of

class I and class II substances to produce cooling, including

mechanical refrigeration, air conditioning, and heat transfer. Please

refer to the final SNAP rule (59 FR 13044) for a more detailed

description of this sector.

The refrigeration and air conditioning sector is divided into the

following end-uses:

Commercial comfort air conditioning;

Industrial process refrigeration systems;

Industrial process air conditioning;

Ice skating rinks;

Uranium isotope separation processing;

Cold storage warehouses;

Refrigerated transport;

Retail food refrigeration;

Vending machines;

Water coolers;

Commercial ice machines;

Household refrigerators;

Household freezers;

Residential dehumidifiers;

Motor vehicle air conditioning;

Residential air conditioning and heat pumps;

Heat transfer;

and

Very low temperature refrigeration.

In addition, each end-use is divided into retrofit and new

equipment applications. EPA has not necessarily reviewed substitutes in

every end-use for this FRM.

EPA has modified the list of end-uses for this sector for this SNAP

update. EPA added a new end-use, very low temperature refrigeration.

Substitutes [[Page 31094]] for this end-use had been reviewed since the

final rule, and therefore were added to the August 26, 1994 Notice.

Please refer to the final SNAP rule (59 FR 13044) for a detailed

description of end-uses other than these. EPA may continue to add other

end-uses in future SNAP updates.

a. Heat Transfer

As discussed above, this end-use includes all cooling systems that

rely on a fluid to remove heat from a heat source to a cooler area,

rather than relying on mechanical refrigeration to move heat from a

cool area to a warm one. Generally, there are two types of systems:

systems with fluid pumps, referred to as recirculating coolers, and

those that rely on natural convection currents, known as thermosyphons.

b. Very Low Temperature Refrigeration

Medical freezers, freeze-dryers, and other small appliances require

extremely reliable refrigeration cycles. These systems must meet

stringent technical standards that do not normally apply to

refrigeration systems. They usually have very small charges. Because

they operate at very high vapor pressures, and because performance is

critically affected by any charge loss, standard maintenance for these

systems tends to reduce leakage to a level considerably below that for

other types of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment.

c. CFC-13, R-13B1, and R-503 Industrial Process Refrigeration

This end-use differs from other types of industrial refrigeration

only in that extremely low temperature regimes are required. Although

some substitutes may work in both these extremely low temperatures and

in systems designed to use R-502, they may be acceptable only for this

end-use because of global warming and atmospheric lifetime concerns.

These concerns are discussed more fully below.

2. Response to Comments

a. Use conditions for automotive refrigerants. Two commenters

requested changes in the information proposed for labels to be placed

on automobiles retrofitted to use alternative refrigerants. They

explained that label space is constrained and requested that the

statements related to the ozone-depleting nature of automotive

refrigerants be deleted. EPA agrees that the proposed statements were

too cumbersome. This FRM shortens the relevant phrase for ozone-

depleting refrigerants and eliminates the phrase for non-ozone-

depleting refrigerants.

One commenter stated that EPA does not have the authority to

require unique fittings and labels for automotive retrofits. In fact,

EPA believes its broad mandate under SNAP does provide the authority.

One important goal of the SNAP program is to ease the transition away

from ozone-depleting substances. As the number of acceptable

alternatives increases, the likelihood of contaminating the supply of

recycled CFC-12 increases. EPA believes the fitting and label

requirements will help protect consumers and the environment by

preserving the purity of recycled CFC-12. The requirements will also

help ensure that clear information exists about the contents of motor

vehicle air conditioning systems. In addition, EPA has received a

petition requesting a requirement for fittings and labels. Several

commenters strongly supported EPA's efforts to reduce the risks of

cross-contamination of various alternatives. Therefore, this FRM

retains the fitting and label provisions from the NPRM.

Several commenters expressed concern that listing a refrigerant

acceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions implies that it is

effective in all systems, that it is compatible with existing

equipment, and that it will not affect system life. EPA believes the

purpose of the SNAP program is to review the human health and

environmental implications of alternatives and not to ensure the

effectiveness of new refrigerants or the long-term viability of

equipment. Certainly the SNAP lists should serve as a useful reference

to the user community. However, one of the guiding principles of the

SNAP program is to let the market decide whether there exists a

``best'' alternative.

Several commenters asked EPA to require a label for flammable non-

automotive refrigerants. EPA will consider this idea when reviewing

future submissions.

b. HCFC Blend Beta and R-401C. Several commenters expressed concern

that these blends contain flammable substances. As discussed in the

NPRM, testing has shown that HCFC Blend Beta and R-401C are not

flammable and do not become flammable through fractionation. Several

other acceptable refrigerants contain hydrocarbons and other flammable

components, which can add to a blend's effectiveness. If these

components are present in small enough amounts, the blends are

nonflammable.

Several commenters raised the issue of selective absorption of

flammable components by the lubricant. They are concerned that over

time, the oil will concentrate the flammable hydrocarbon, possibly

yielding a flammable mixture in the system. EPA is not aware of any

data validating this claim. However, should information become

available, EPA invites a petition to review its decision on HCFC Blend

Beta.

Several commenters expressed concern that HCFC Blend Beta and

R-401C contain class II compounds, HCFC-22 and HCFC-124, respectively.

While these compounds do contribute to ozone depletion, EPA controls

their production under the accelerated phaseout. As in the stationary

end-uses, EPA believes the HCFCs have a role as transitional

refrigerants. Until the end of production, HCFCs can help ease the

switch away from the CFCs by providing additional alternatives.

Several commenters suggest that using blend refrigerants will not

reduce the cost of retrofitting existing cars to use HFC-134a. Using

other refrigerants may help reduce these costs for some range of

models. However, even if it were possible to devise a reliable measure

of cost reductions for individual cars, EPA's primary interest is the

human health and environmental issues associated with a refrigerant.

The market will determine any substitute's success based on cost.

c. R-403B and R-405A. Several commenters requested that EPA

consider other factors besides global warming potential (GWP) and

lifetime and approve R-403B and R-405A, which contain high

concentrations of perfluorocarbons (PFCs), as substitutes for R-502 and

CFC-12, respectively. EPA considers energy savings, flammability, and

toxicity, in addition to ozone depletion potential and global warming

potential, in its SNAP review. The PFCs as a class have extremely long

lifetimes and very high GWPs. In addition to potential global warming

caused by PFCs, their lifetimes mean that any unanticipated effects

would be irreversible. These factors are significantly higher than

those of any other class of refrigerants. Although the average GWP of a

blend may be lower than that of the individual components, when

released to the atmosphere the components act independently. Thus, the

PFCs' high GWP and long lifetime will have the same impact as if they

had been released as pure substances. In accordance with the SNAP

guiding principles, EPA does not intend to make fine distinctions.

However, the lifetime and GWP of PFCs pose higher overall risk than the

other available substitutes.

Several commenters point out that because R-403B contains HCFC-22,

intentional venting is already prohibited under section 608, and

therefore [[Page 31095]] emissions would be minimal. This claim ignores

the substantial leakage emissions from nearly all refrigeration

equipment, and especially retail food and industrial refrigeration

systems.

One commenter expressed concern that EPA was forcing industry to

use

R-402A, another refrigerant deemed acceptable under SNAP. EPA

disagrees, as it has already listed several other alternatives for R-

502, including

R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-408A, and R-507. The commenter also stated

that using refrigerants other than R-403B would result in the

production of an untenable amount of contaminated oil requiring special

handling under RCRA. Exemptions exist for CFC-contaminated oil, and the

volumes involved would be absorbed easily into the existing used oil

infrastructure.

One commenter stated that EPA had departed from its usual listing

of PFCs as acceptable subject to narrowed use limits, and requested

that EPA include R-403B in the same category. However, EPA has only

found PFCs acceptable where no other alternative is feasible from a

technical or safety perspective. A large number of other acceptable

substitutes exist for R-502 that contain substances with much lower

GWPs and shorter lifetimes. Thus, this FRM promulgates the

unacceptability determinations for R-403B and R-405A.

However, two commenters requested that EPA consider grandfathering

existing uses of R-403B. In two specific cases, EPA determined that

grandfathering is appropriate: Industrial process refrigeration and

refrigerated transport. These cases are explained in detail in the

section discussing R-403B.

d. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs). One commenter requests that EPA not

impose a narrowed use limit on PFCs used in heat transfer applications.

The commenter further suggests that this designation is inconsistent

with previous narrowed use limits imposed in other sectors. The

commenter also indicated that EPA has already received ample proof of

several applications where PFCs are the only viable alternatives.

EPA believes the PFCs may be the only viable substitutes for

specific types of existing heat transfer equipment. For example, as

listed in the SNAP FRM, uranium enrichment plants are already an

acceptable use for PFCs. This user has already demonstrated that no

other substitute would work. EPA agrees with the commenter that for

existing equipment, sufficient evidence exists that no substitutes

other than PFCs exist. Thus, EPA is allowing the use of PFCs in

retrofit and existing system designs only.

For new equipment designs, however, EPA believes other alternatives

may well exist. Therefore, for new equipment designs, users must

conduct a study to determine that no other alternative is feasible.

Note that users need only retain the analysis for their own records; no

submission of information to EPA is required.

If EPA were to grant unconditional acceptability, there would be no

requirement for users to examine other substitutes before adopting

PFCs. EPA has articulated the view that, because of their high GWPs and

very long lifetimes, PFCs must remain alternatives of last resort; in

other words, their use should be limited to those areas where no other

means exist to replace ODS. While the niche market for PFCs in heat

transfer applications may be small, EPA has a strong interest in

restricting its growth. As discussed above, PFCs have extremely long

lifetimes and high GWPs. EPA strongly encourages manufacturers to

devise other means of replacing the ODS used in heat transfer.

The commenter also objects to EPA's description of PFCs as agents

of last resort. EPA maintains that for new heat transfer equipment,

systems should use PFCs only where no other alternatives will work. For

the reasons described in the paragraph above, this FRM retains the

original language.

However, EPA agrees with the commenter's request to provide

additional guidance about the types of systems that may require PFCs.

EPA has included specific examples in the listing for PFCs.

The commenter also objected to EPA's reference to future

rulemakings under section 608 of the Clean Air Act. EPA agrees and has

removed the reference.

The commenter further believes EPA should grant acceptance to the

use of PFCs in several specific end-uses, rather than issuing a

narrowed use limit determination for heat transfer as a whole. The

commenter cites as an example the listing of PFCs as acceptable for use

in uranium enrichment plants. EPA believes that heat transfer systems

bear enough similarity to be included under one end-use. The

substitutes list should not be complicated by too many subcategories

which would result in significant redundancy. The distinction between

retrofit and new use will allow existing equipment to use non-ODS

substitutes while still restricting the design of new systems that

would use PFCs. For the reasons stated above, EPA believes it is

important to place such a restriction on the design of new systems.

However, even within new use, the narrowed use limit is intended to

allow the use of an otherwise unacceptable substitute in cases where

nothing else is feasible from a safety or technical perspective.

The commenter also expresses a belief that EPA should not include

heat transfer systems within the refrigeration and air conditioning

sector. EPA disagrees and has already issued a final applicability

determination that Vaportran transformers are appliances that fall

under regulations issued under section 608 of the Clean Air Act. While

heat transfer is not refrigeration in the thermodynamic sense of moving

heat from a cool area to a warm one, it is a process aimed at

temperature control.

The commenter further notes that EPA indicated that the

refrigeration and air conditioning sector includes all mechanical and

non-mechanical refrigeration, air conditioning, and heat transfer. The

commenter believes this statement causes confusion by neglecting to

define ``non-mechanical refrigeration.'' EPA's intention was to include

alternative processes that do not use a refrigerant in the strictest

sense, such as evaporative cooling or absorption cycle machinery. The

term ``mechanical'' is intended to refer to compressor-drive vapor

compression cycle systems. However, EPA agrees that the statement in

the NPRM was confusing and has removed the reference to non-mechanical

refrigeration in this FRM.

e. Hydrocarbon Blend B. One commenter requested that EPA find

Hydrocarbon Blend B acceptable based on several reports. EPA had

previously reviewed the bulk of these reports and found them

insufficient to demonstrate the safety of this substitute. In addition,

the statement that Hydrocarbon Blend B has a high ignition point is

misleading. This blend readily ignites at room temperature in the

presence of a spark or a flame. No report has supported the notion that

this blend must be heated to very high temperatures before it will

propagate a flame. As stated in the SNAP FRM on March 18, 1994, EPA

requires a comprehensive, scientifically valid risk assessment if a

refrigerant is flammable, and no such study has been performed. EPA

therefore maintains its position that Hydrocarbon Blend B is

unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in automobiles and several

other end-uses.

3. Substitutes for Refrigerants

Substitutes fall into eight broad categories. Seven of these

categories are chemical substitutes used in the same vapor compression

cycle as the ozone-depleting substances being replaced. They include

hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),

[[Page 31096]] hydrocarbons, refrigerant blends, ammonia,

perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and chlorine systems. The eighth category

includes alternative technologies that generally do not rely on vapor

compression cycles. Please refer to the final SNAP rule (59 FR 13044)

for more discussion of these broad categories.

4. Listing Decisions

a. Acceptable. CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, CFC-115 Heat

Transfer, Retrofit and Existing Equipment Designs.

(a) Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons are acceptable as

substitutes for CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and CFC-115 in

retrofitted heat transfer systems and in existing designs. Although EPA

normally discusses acceptable substitutes in its Notices, this decision

is the result of comments received on the proposal. PFCs covered by

this determination are C3F8, C4F10,

C5F12, C5F11NO, C6F14, C6F13NO,

C7F16, C7F15NO, C8F18, C8F16O,

and C9F21N. PFCs offer high dielectric resistance,

noncorrosivity, thermal stability, materials compatibility, chemical

inertness, low toxicity, and nonflammability. In addition, they do not

contribute to ground-level ozone formation or stratospheric ozone

depletion. The principal characteristic of concern for PFCs is that

they have long atmospheric lifetimes and have the potential to

contribute to global climate change. For instance, C5F12 has

a lifetime of 4,100 years and a 100-year GWP of 5,600. PFCs are also

included in the Climate Change Action Plan, which broadly instructs EPA

to use section 612 of the CAA, as well as voluntary programs, to

control emissions. Despite these concerns, EPA is listing PFCs as

acceptable in heat transfer applications because they may be the only

substitutes that can satisfy safety or performance requirements. For

example, a transformer may require very high dielectric strength, or a

heat transfer system for a chlorine manufacturing process could require

compatibility with the process stream.

In cases where users must adopt PFCs, they should make every effort

to:

Recover and recycle these fluids during servicing;

Adopt maintenance practices that reduce leakage as much as

is technically feasible;

Recover these fluids after the end of the equipment's

useful life and either recycle them or destroy them; and

Continue to search for other long-term alternatives.

Users of PFCs should note that if other alternatives become

available, EPA could be petitioned to list PFCs as unacceptable due to

the availability of other suitable substitutes. If such a petition were

granted, EPA may grandfather existing uses upon consideration of cost

and timing of testing and implementation of new substitutes. EPA urges

industry to develop new alternatives for this end-use that do not

contain substances with such high GWPs and long lifetimes.

b. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions. (1) CFC-12 Automobile and

Non-automobile Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners, Retrofit and New.

EPA is concerned that the existence of several substitutes in this

end-use may increase the likelihood of significant refrigerant cross-

contamination and potential failure of both air conditioning systems

and recovery/recycling equipment. In addition, a smooth transition to

the use of substitutes strongly depends on the continued purity of the

recycled CFC-12 supply. In order to prevent cross-contamination and

preserve the purity of recycled refrigerants, EPA is imposing several

conditions on the use of all motor vehicle air conditioning

refrigerants. For the purposes of this rule, no distinction is made

between ``retrofit'' and ``drop-in'' refrigerants; retrofitting a car

to use a new refrigerant includes all procedures that result in the air

conditioning system using a new refrigerant. It should be noted that

EPA primarily reviews refrigerants based on environmental and health

factors. Issues related to performance and durability fall outside the

scope of SNAP review.

To meet the requirements under section 612, when retrofitting a

CFC-12 system to use any substitute refrigerant, the following

conditions must be met:

Each refrigerant may only be used with a set of fittings

that is unique to that refrigerant. These fittings (male or female, as

appropriate) must be used with all containers of the refrigerant, on

can taps, on recovery, recycling, and charging equipment, and on all

air conditioning system service ports. These fittings must be designed

to mechanically prevent cross-charging with another refrigerant. A

refrigerant may only be used with the fittings and can taps

specifically intended for that refrigerant. Using an adapter or

deliberately modifying a fitting to use a different refrigerant will be

a violation of this use condition. In addition, fittings shall meet the

following criteria, derived from Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)

standards and recommended practices:

--When existing CFC-12 service ports are to be retrofitted, conversion

assemblies shall attach to the CFC-12 fitting with a thread lock

adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism in a manner

that permanently prevents the assembly from being removed.

--All conversion assemblies and new service ports must satisfy the

vibration testing requirements of sections 3.2.1 or 3.2.2 of SAE J1660,

as applicable, excluding references to SAE J639 and SAE J2064, which

are specific to HFC-134a.

--In order to prevent discharge of refrigerant to the atmosphere,

systems shall have a device to limit compressor operation before the

pressure relief device will vent refrigerant. This requirement is

waived for systems that do not feature such a pressure relief device.

--All CFC-12 service ports shall be retrofitted with conversion

assemblies or shall be rendered permanently incompatible for use with

CFC-12 related service equipment by fitting with a device attached with

a thread lock adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism

in a manner that prevents the device from being removed.

When a retrofit is performed, a label must be used as

follows:

--The person conducting the retrofit must apply a label to the air

conditioning system in the engine compartment that contains the

following information:

* The name and address of the technician and the company performing the

retrofit;

* The date of the retrofit;

* The trade name, charge amount, and, when applicable, the ASHRAE

numerical designation of the refrigerant;

* The type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used;

* If the refrigerant is or contains an ozone-depleting substance, the

phrase ``ozone depleter''; and

* If the refrigerant displays flammability limits as blended, measured

according to ASTM E681, the statement ``This refrigerant is FLAMMABLE.

Take appropriate precautions.''

--This label must be large enough to be easily read and must be

permanent.

--The background color must be unique to the refrigerant.

--The label must be affixed to the system over information related to

the previous refrigerant, in a location not normally replaced during

vehicle repair.

--Information on the previous refrigerant that cannot be covered by the

new label must be permanently rendered unreadable.

[[Page 31097]] No substitute refrigerant may be used to

``top-off'' a system that uses another refrigerant. The original

refrigerant must be recovered in accordance with regulations issued

under section 609 of the CAA prior to charging with a substitute.

Since these use conditions necessitate unique fittings and labels,

it will be necessary for developers of automotive refrigerants to

consult with EPA about the existence of other alternatives. Such

discussions will lower the risk of duplicating fittings already in use.

No SNAP determination guarantees satisfactory performance from a

refrigerant. Consult the original equipment manufacturer or service

personnel for further information on using a refrigerant in a

particular system.

(a) HFC-134a. HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in

retrofitted and new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject to the use

conditions applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described

above. HFC-134a does not contribute to ozone depletion. HFC-134a's GWP

and atmospheric lifetime are close to those of other alternatives which

have been determined to be acceptable for this end-use. However, HFC-

134a's contribution to global warming could be significant in leaky

end-uses such as motor vehicle air conditioning systems (MVACS). EPA

has determined that the use of HFC-134a in these applications is

acceptable because industry continues to develop technology to limit

emissions. In addition, the number of substitutes available for use in

MVACS is currently limited. HFC-134a is not flammable and its toxicity

is low. While HFC-134a is compatible with most existing refrigeration

and air conditioning equipment parts, it is not compatible with the

mineral oils currently used in such systems. An appropriate ester-

based, polyalkylene glycol-based, or other type of lubricant should be

used. Consult the original equipment manufacturer or the retrofit kit

manufacturer for further information.

(b) R-401C.

R-401C, which consists of HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, is

acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in retrofitted and new motor

vehicle air conditioners, subject to the use conditions applicable to

motor vehicle air conditioning described above. HCFC-22 and HCFC-124

contribute to ozone depletion, but to a much lesser degree than CFC-12.

The production of HCFC-22 will be phased out according to the

accelerated phaseout schedule (published 12/10/93, 58 FR 65018). The

GWP of HCFC-22 is somewhat higher than other alternatives for this end-

use. Experimental data indicate that HCFC-22 may leak through flexible

hosing in mobile air conditioners at a high rate. In order to preserve

the blend's composition and to reduce its contribution to global

warming, EPA strongly recommends using barrier hoses when hose

assemblies need to be replaced during a retrofit procedure. The GWPs of

the other components are low. Although this blend does contain one

flammable constituent, the blend itself is not flammable. Leak testing

demonstrated that the blend never becomes flammable.

(c) HCFC Blend Beta. HCFC Blend Beta, which consists of HCFC-124,

HFC-134a, and isobutane, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in

retrofitted and new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject to the use

conditions applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described

above. The composition of this blend has been claimed confidential by

the manufacturer. This blend contains at least one HCFC, and therefore

contributes to ozone depletion, but to a much lesser degree than CFC-

12. Regulations regarding recycling and reclamation issued under

section 609 of the Clean Air Act apply to this blend. Its production

will be phased out according to the accelerated schedule (published 12/

10/93, 58 FR 65018). The GWPs of the components are moderate to low.

This blend is nonflammable, and leak testing has demonstrated that the

blend never becomes flammable.

c. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits

(1) CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, CFC-115 Heat Transfer, New.

(a) Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons are acceptable as substitutes

for CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and CFC-115 in heat transfer

systems only where no other alternatives are technically feasible due

to safety or performance requirements. PFCs covered by this

determination are C3F8, C4F10, C5F12,

C5F11NO, C6F14, C6F13NO, C7F16,

C7F15NO, C8F18, C8F16O, and

C9F21N. The principal characteristic of concern for PFCs is

that they have very long atmospheric lifetimes and have the potential

to contribute to global climate change. For instance, C5F12

has a lifetime of 4,100 years and a 100-year GWP of 5,600.

Despite concerns about high global warming potential, EPA is

listing PFCs as acceptable in certain limited applications because a

PFC may be the only substitute that can satisfy safety or performance

requirements. These requirements might include very high dielectric

strength, noncorrosivity, thermal stability, materials compatibility,

and chemical inertness. In addition, PFCs do not contribute to

stratospheric ozone depletion. Examples of applications where PFCs may

represent the only alternative to ODS include uranium isotope

separation, chemical processing, electrical inverters, ozone generation

for water purification, space simulators, air purification, and

integrated chip manufacturing.

Users should note, however, that use of a PFC should be an ODS

substitute of last resort. As the determination states, PFCs should be

used ``only where no other alternatives are technically feasible due to

safety or performance requirements.'' Potential users are required to

conduct a thorough review of other more environmentally acceptable

substitutes. Although EPA does not require users to submit the results

of their substitute evaluation, companies must keep the results on file

for future reference.

In cases where users must adopt PFCs, they should make every effort

to:

Recover and recycle these fluids during servicing;

Adopt maintenance practices that reduce leakage as much as

is technically feasible;

Recover these fluids after the end of the equipment's

useful life and either recycle them or destroy them; and

Continue to search for other long-term alternatives.

Users of PFCs should note that if other alternatives become

available, EPA could be petitioned to list PFCs as unacceptable due to

the availability of other suitable substitutes. If such a petition were

granted, EPA would determine whether to grandfather existing uses based

upon consideration of cost and timing of testing and implementation of

new substitutes.

d. Unacceptable Substitutes. (1) R-403B. R-403B, which consists of

HCFC-22, R-218, and propane, is unacceptable as a substitute for R-502

in the following new and retrofitted end-uses:

Industrial process refrigeration;

Cold storage warehouses;

Refrigerated transport;

Retail food refrigeration;

Commercial ice machines; and

Household freezers.

R-218, perfluoropropane, has an extremely high GWP and lifetime,

which pose additional risk beyond that of other acceptable substitutes

for these end-uses. In particular, the lifetime of R-218 is over 2000

years, which means that global warming effects would be essentially

irreversible. While other substitutes may have high GWPs, they do not

exhibit such long lifetimes. [[Page 31098]]

In addition to direct global warming effects, EPA considers

indirect impacts associated with changes in energy efficiency. Many

manufacturers, including that of R-403B, claim energy efficiency gains

associated with their products. Such gains are highly dependent on

equipment type, ambient conditions, optimization of the system, and

other factors. No data demonstrate, however, that R-403B would produce

such large indirect benefits as to overcome the direct impact of its

use as compared to the use of other already acceptable substitutes.

Thus, EPA performed no detailed analysis of the indirect global warming

impacts of R-403B.

As discussed in the SNAP FRM, the Agency is authorized to

grandfather existing uses from a prohibition where appropriate under

the four-part test established in Sierra Club v. EPA, 719 F.2d 436

(D.C. Cir. 1983). As requested by two commenters, the Agency has

conducted the four analyses required under this test, and has concluded

that the balance of equities favors the grandfathering of two current

uses of R-403B. Within industrial process refrigeration, use of R-403B

is permitted until supplies purchased prior to September 26, 1994, the

date EPA proposed to list R-403B as unacceptable, are exhausted. Within

refrigerated transport, R-403B may be used in systems converted to its

use as of September 26, 1994 for the lifetime of that particular

equipment. No use outside these two specific cases is allowed.

Under the first prong of the Sierra Club analysis, the prohibition

set forth in this action clearly represents a departure from previously

established practice, as use of this substitute was not previously

restricted. However, through the proposed action on September 26, 1994

EPA provided notice that it was considering a change to this previous

practice. Therefore, existing users of R-403B who, prior to September

26, 1994, switched from class I substances and invested in this

substitute on the assumption that it would be a sufficient improvement

over the class I used, relied on the fact that use of R-403B was

unrestricted. Prohibiting their use of the substitute immediately would

impose a severe economic burden on these users. Although there is a

substantial interest in applying this requirement immediately, this

interest is balanced by the fact that the restriction will apply

immediately to new equipment using R-403B. Therefore, the requirement

will apply immediately to a substantial number of systems and there

will be no incentive for future investment in R-403B equipment. These

factors taken together outweigh any statutory interest in applying the

new rule immediately to existing users who had invested in R-403 prior

to September 26, 1994.

(2) R-405A. R-405A, which is composed of HCFC-22, HFC-152a, HCFC-

142b, and R-c318, is unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-12, R-500,

and R-502 in the following new and retrofitted end-uses:

Commercial comfort air conditioning;

Industrial process refrigeration;

Ice skating rinks;

Cold storage warehouses;

Refrigerated transport;

Retail food refrigeration;

Vending machines;

Water coolers;

Commercial ice machines;

Household refrigerators;

Household freezers;

Residential dehumidifiers; and

Motor vehicle air conditioning.

R-405A was listed as HCFC/HFC/fluoroalkane Blend A in previous

notices. R-405A contains a high proportion of R-c318,

cycloperfluorobutane, which has an extremely high GWP and lifetime. In

particular, the lifetime of R-c318 is over 3000 years, which means that

global warming effects would be essentially irreversible. While other

substitutes may have high GWPs, they do not exhibit such long

lifetimes.

In addition to direct global warming effects, EPA considers

indirect impacts associated with changes in energy efficiency. Many

refrigerant manufacturers claim energy efficiency gains associated with

their products. Such gains are highly dependent on equipment type,

ambient conditions, optimization of the system, and other factors. No

data demonstrate, however, that R-405A would produce such large

indirect benefits as to overcome the direct impact of its use as

compared to the use of other already acceptable substitutes. Thus, EPA

performed no detailed analysis of the indirect global warming impacts

of R-405A.

(3) Hydrocarbon Blend B.--Hydrocarbon Blend B is unacceptable as a

substitute for CFC-12 in the following new and retrofitted end-uses:

Commercial comfort air conditioning;

Ice skating rinks;

Cold storage warehouses;

Refrigerated transport;

Retail food refrigeration;

Vending machines;

Water coolers;

Commercial ice machines;

Household refrigerators;

Household freezers;

Residential dehumidifiers; and

Motor vehicle air conditioning.

Flammability is the primary concern. Use of this substitute in very

leaky end-uses like motor vehicle air conditioning may pose a high risk

of fire. EPA requires that a risk assessment be conducted to

demonstrate this blend may be safely used in any CFC-12 end-uses. The

manufacturer of this blend has not submitted such a risk assessment,

and EPA therefore finds it unacceptable.

(4) Flammable Substitutes.--Flammable substitutes, defined as

having flammability limits as measured according to ASTM E-681 with

modifications included in Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended

Practice J1657, including blends which become flammable during

fractionation, are unacceptable as substitutes for CFC-12 in

retrofitted motor vehicle air conditioning systems.

Flammable refrigerants differ from traditional substances in

several ways: Potential gains in energy efficiency, reductions in

direct contribution to global warming, and additional risks from fire.

Flammable refrigerants may be good substitutes in systems designed with

fire risks in mind. In addition, in certain circumstances, they may

serve well as substitutes in retrofit uses. EPA encourages research

into the use of flammable refrigerants, but remains concerned about the

dangers. Because of these concerns, EPA has established the requirement

that manufacturers of flammable refrigerants conduct detailed risk

assessments in all end-uses. The risks from flammability are extremely

sensitive to the end-use and charge size.

In motor vehicle air conditioning systems (MVACS), flammable

refrigerants pose risks not found in stationary equipment, including

the potential for explosions in collisions, potential punctures of the

condenser because of its placement directly behind the grille,

potential punctures of flexible hoses, the hazard to technicians who

are not expecting to handle flammable fluids, the danger to passengers

from evaporator leaks, and the dangers to personnel involved in

disposal of old automobiles. Due to the length of SNAP review, certain

substitutes have been marketed which may pose risk to users. The intent

of the 90-day review process was not to allow manufacturers to market

risky substitutes, but rather to ensure a thorough review. Because of

potential risks to users and service personnel, EPA finds it necessary

to find all flammable substitutes unacceptable in retrofitted

automotive air conditioning to prevent hazardous

[[Page 31099]] substitutes from being sold without a thorough risk

assessment.

EPA continues to encourage investigation of all substitute

refrigerants, including flammable substances. This unacceptable

determination only applies to retrofitted MVACS. If a manufacturer

wishes an acceptable determination for a flammable substitute in MVACS,

this risk assessment must be conducted in a scientifically valid

manner. EPA will consider such a risk assessment in any determination

on the substitute.

B. Solvents

1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions

a. Electronics Cleaning. (1) HCFC-225 ca/cb. HCFC-225 is an

acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in electronics cleaning

subject to a 25 ppm occupational exposure level for the ca-isomer. The

use condition is based on the toxicity of this chemical. The Agency's

analysis of this substitute found that the exposure limit indicated is

sufficient to protect worker health and that this limit can be met with

exposure controls. The exposure limit of the HCFC-225 cb isomer is 250

ppm. The new limit for the ca-isomer should be readily achievable since

HCFC-225 is only sold commercially as a (45%/55%) blend of ca- and cb-

isomers. In addition, the cleaning equipment where HCFC-225 is used is

characterized by low emissions, and the manufacturer of HCFC-225 is

currently conducting personal monitoring to corroborate the projected

emission levels.

These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety

until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its

own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in

no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as

defined in P.L. 91-596.

b. Precision Cleaning. (1) HCFC-225 ca/cb. HCFC-225 is an

acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in precision cleaning subject

to a 25 ppm occupational exposure level for the ca-isomer. The reasons

for this decision are described in the preceding section.

2. Unacceptable Substitutes

a. Metals Cleaning. (1) Dibromomethane. Dibromomethane (DBM) is an

unacceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in metals cleaning.

Dibromomethane has a comparatively high ODP (.17), and EPA's analysis

of use of this chemical in cleaning processes revealed correspondingly

high ozone depletion effects. In the case of DBM, the Agency's concern

for high ODP is compounded by the fact that DBM can in some cases be

used as a drop-in replacement, which could result in greater

probability of uncontrolled venting to the atmosphere. Since other

alternatives with lower overall environmental impacts exist for the

cleaning processes in question, EPA elected to ban use of DBM as a

cleaning substitute.

b. Electronics Cleaning. (2) Dibromomethane. Dibromomethane is an

unacceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in electronics cleaning.

Reasons for this decision are described in the preceding section.

c. Precision Cleaning. (3) Dibromomethane. Dibromomethane is an

unacceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in precision cleaning.

Reasons for this decision are described in the preceding section.

c. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection

1. Response to Comments

One commenter believes that CF3I should not be acceptable for

use in any fire protection applications until two-year chronic testing

is done, and should be treated as a suspect carcinogen as defined by

OSHA regulations, along with appropriate warnings for handlers.

The commenter bases his belief on two points. First, the commenter

suggests that the cardiosensitization test resulting in death of a test

animal is not like the results from Halon 1211, CFC-11 or HCFC-123,

which resulted in heart arrhythmias followed by recovery when the test

animal was removed from exposure.

Second, the commenter states that the results of the genotoxicity

tests give positive indications that CF3I is potentially a

carcinogen. The commenter states that the structural relationship of

CF3I to CH3I, which the commenter states is a known skin

carcinogen, increases the likelihood that CF3I is a carcinogen.

The cardiosensitization protocol incorporates simulation of a

worse-case response by injecting the test animal with epinephrine prior

to administering the test agent. The standard protocol interpretation

requires observation of at least five life-threatening ventricular

arrhythmias in order to conclude that the LOAEL has been attained. This

response is a precursor to the imminent death of the animal.

In addition, the response of an animal to a cardiosensitizing agent

is somewhat random. Whereas one animal may experience heart

arrhythmias, another animal might experience immediate death by the

same dose. Thus, the observations of ventricular arrhythmias are

considered to be the same as observations of death and both are

considered valid indicators of the LOAEL value.

Regarding the commenters' concern that CF3I is a carcinogen,

EPA conducts a risk assessment of an agent by initially asking

qualitative questions such as: ``Is the structure of the compound

likely to be carcinogenic, and does the agent test positive in a

mutagenesis assay? If so, how potent is the reaction, in other words,

what dosage level gives a positive reaction?''

CF3I is not a known carcinogen, although it tested positive in

a mutagenicity screening assay to determine which are potential

candidates for further testing. The Ames mutagenicity test used as a

predictor of carcinogenicity is accurate as a predictor approximately

50 per cent of the time. The ability of this assay to predict for

carcinogenicity, even given the positive finding, is questionable in

the case of halogenated compounds.

Even should it be determined in a two-year carcinogenicity bioassay

that the agent is a carcinogen, its use under the particular conditions

representative of fire suppression applications in which could be

expected only one or a few exposures in a life time, is likely not to

constitute a cancer risk. A cancer risk usually requires long term

exposure to the agent.

If the agent is a very good fire agent, on balance, the risk to

protect lives overrides the remote concern of carcinogenicity from the

agent. In such a case, for those situations where a manufacturing or

service worker or fire fighter would be repeatedly exposed, appropriate

precautions would be taken. A firefighter is not training in an

environment where he is not already protected. And in industrial

settings, the acceptable exposure limits are set using the subchronic

and chronic data that is available and due precautions are taken, as in

any other industrial chemical use.

One commenter requested that the use restrictions on SF6 be

altered to allow its use as a discharge test agent for all civilian as

well as military aircraft fire suppression systems. The commenter

reported that research efforts by private companies, the U.S. Navy, and

the National Institute for Standards and Technology have identified

SF6 as the preferred test agent for simulating halon 1301 in

aircraft fire suppression systems. The commenter indicated that the

amount of SF6 released in developing and certifying new commercial

aircraft will be approximately 1,000 pounds per year or less.

[[Page 31100]]

EPA concurs with the commenter's request. EPA is aware that the

airline industry is conducting a strategic research effort to identify

new agents for use in new aircraft. Meanwhile, airlines and aircraft

manufacturers are maintaining banks of recycled halon to service

existing aircraft as well as new aircraft being built before the new

systems and aircraft design can be developed and implemented. To

preserve the stock of recycled halon for critical onboard use, and to

minimize emission of halon during testing, EPA is broadening the

language in this final rulemaking to allow the use of SF6 as a

discharge test agent in commercial as well as military aircraft fire

suppression systems.

One commenter took issue with the use of the EPA's statement that

PFCs are agents of ``last resort'' and that ``in most total flooding

applications, the Agency believes that alternatives to C3F8

exist.'' The commenter cited cases where confusion resulted in no

action being taken by the user to move into an alternative. The

commenter took no issue with the use conditions or the narrowed use

limits imposed on PFCs in previous SNAP rulemakings. The commenter

requested that EPA issue guidance on the `narrowed use limits'

evaluation.

EPA's use of the term `agent of last resort' is intended to further

explain, in simple terms, EPA's intention to the end-user. Further, EPA

cannot agree to eliminate the statement ``in most total flooding

applications, the Agency believes that alternatives to C3F8

exist.'' This same language was used in the original SNAP rulemaking

(59 FR 13109, 13110), and conveys to the user that most applications

can be served by non-PFC technology and should be evaluated as such.

The narrowed use restriction imposed on PFCs was developed with the

input of users and industry. EPA was requested to leave the technical

evaluations to end-users and fire protection engineers, as each use

scenario presented its own challenges and requirements. It was felt

that specific guidance by EPA would limit the ability of the fire

protection community to select and design the most appropriate system

for each application. Thus, EPA requires that end-users conduct an

evaluation of the alternatives, and maintain documentation in the event

a PFC is selected. EPA regrets there is some confusion in the market

concerning the determination that other alternatives are not

technically feasible, but to be more specific may inadvertently limit a

user's choices. EPA is expressly leaving technical evaluations to the

user community.

2. Listing Decisions

a. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions

(1) Total Flooding Agents. (a) C3F8. C3F8 is

acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute where other alternatives are not

technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements: (a) Due

to their physical or chemical properties or (b) where human exposure to

the agents may approach cardiosensitization levels or result in other

unacceptable health effects under normal operating conditions. This

agent is subject to the same use conditions stipulated for all total

flooding agents, that is:

Where egress from an area cannot be accomplished within

one minute, the employer shall not use this agent in concentrations

exceeding its NOAEL.

Where egress takes longer than 30 seconds but less than

one minute, the employer shall not use the agent in a concentration

greater than its LOAEL.

Agent concentrations greater than the LOAEL are only

permitted in areas not normally occupied by employees provided that any

employee in the area can escape within 30 seconds. The employer shall

assure that no unprotected employees enter the area during agent

discharge.

Cup burner tests in heptane indicate that C3F8 can

extinguish fires in a total flood application at concentrations of 7.30

per cent and therefore has a design concentration of 8.8 per cent. The

cardiotoxic NOAEL of 30 per cent for this agent is well above its

extinguishment concentration and therefore this agent is safe for use

in occupied areas. This agent can replace Halon 1301 by a ratio of 2 to

1 by weight.

Using agents in high concentrations poses a risk of asphyxiation by

displacing oxygen. With an ambient oxygen level of 21 per cent, a

design concentration of 22.6 per cent may reduce oxygen levels to

approximately 16 per cent, the minimum level considered to be required

to prevent impaired judgement or other physiological effects. Thus, the

oxygen level resulting from discharge of this agent must be at least 16

per cent.

C3F8 has no ozone depletion potential, and is

nonflammable, essentially non-toxic, and is not a VOC. However, this

agent has an atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years and a 100-year GWP of

6100. Due to the long atmospheric lifetime of C3F8, the

Agency is finding this chemical acceptable only in those limited

instances where no other alternative is technically feasible due to

performance or safety requirements. In most total flooding

applications, the Agency believes that alternatives to C3F8

exist. EPA intends that users select C3F8 out of need and

that this agent be used as the agent of last resort. Thus, a user must

determine that the requirements of the specific end-use preclude use of

other available alternatives.

Users must observe the limitations on C3F8 acceptability

by undertaking the following measures: (i) Conduct an evaluation of

foreseeable conditions of end use; (ii) determine that human exposure

to the other alternative extinguishing agents may approach or result in

cardiosensitization or other unacceptable toxicity effects under normal

operating conditions; and (iii) determine that the physical or chemical

properties or other technical constraints of the other available agents

preclude their use.

EPA recommends that users minimize unnecessary emissions of this

agent by limiting testing of C3F8 to that which is essential

to meet safety or performance requirements; recovering C3F8

from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or

servicing; and destroying or recycling C3F8 for later use.

EPA encourages manufacturers to develop aggressive product stewardship

programs to help users avoid such unnecessary emissions.

(b) CF3I CF3I is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute in

normally unoccupied areas. Any employee that could possibly be in the

area must be able to escape within 30 seconds. The employer shall

assure that no unprotected employees enter the area during agent

discharge.

CF3I (Halon 13001) is a fluoroiodocarbon with an atmospheric

lifetime of only 1.15 days due to its rapid photolysis in the presence

of light. The resulting GWP of this agent is less than one, and its ODP

when released at ground level is likely to be extremely low, with

current conservative estimates ranging from .008 to .01. Complete

analysis of the ozone depleting potential of this agent will be

available in the near future.

Anticipating EPA's concern about releases of CF3I from

aircraft, and the associated likelihood of increased ozone-depleting

effectiveness when released at higher altitudes, the military has

conducted an analysis of historical releases of Halon 1301 from both

military and commercial aircraft. Initial assessment indicates that

emissions from U.S. military aircraft appear to have averaged about 56

pounds annually, of which 2 pounds were emitted above 30,000 feet.

Commercial [[Page 31101]] aircraft worldwide released an estimated

average of 933 pounds of Halon 1301 annually, of which 158 pounds was

released above 30,000 feet. While EPA is awaiting the results of the

ODP calculations of CF3I, it is unlikely that such low emissions

at high altitude will pose a significant threat to the ozone layer.

Interest in this agent is very high because it may constitute a

drop-in replacement to Halon 1301 on a weight and volume basis. Initial

tests have shown its weight equivalence for fire extinguishment to be

1.36, and its volume equivalence to be 1.0, while for explosion

inertion it is 1.42 and 1.04 respectively. The research community is

continuing to qualify the properties of this agent, including its

materials compatibility, its storage stability and its effectiveness.

While the manufacturer's SNAP submission only requests listing in

normally unoccupied areas, preliminary cardiosensitization data

received by the Agency indicate that CF3I has a NOAEL of 0.2 per

cent and a LOAEL of 0.4 per cent, and thus this agent would not be

suited for use in normally occupied areas.

(c) Gelled Halocarbon/Dry Chemical Suspension. Gelled Halocarbon/

Dry Chemical Suspension is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute in

normally unoccupied areas. Any employee who could possibly be in the

area must be able to escape within 30 seconds. The employer shall

assure that no unprotected employees enter the area during agent

discharge.

The manufacturer is proposing to blend either of two halocarbons

(HFC-125 or HFC-134a) with either ammonium polyphosphate (which is not

corrosive) or monoammonium phosphate (which is corrosive on hard

surfaces). An initial assessment of inhalation toxicology of fine

particulates indicates that some risk exists of inhalation exposure

when the particles are below a certain size compared to the mass per

cubic meter in air. Particle sizes less than 10 to 15 microns and a

mass above the ACGIH nuisance dust levels raise concerns which need to

be further studied. In a total flooding application, the exposure

levels may be of concern. In addition, because the discharge of powders

obscures vision, evacuation could be impeded. EPA is asking

manufacturers of total flooding systems using powdered aerosols to

submit to the Agency a review of the medical implications of inhaling

atmospheres flooded with fine powder particulates. While the

manufacturer requested a SNAP listing for unoccupied areas only, EPA

would not consider its use in occupied areas until the requested peer

review is complete. Meanwhile, EPA is finding this technology

acceptable for use in normally unoccupied areas.

For further discussion of this agent, including a review of

particle size distributions, see the listing under ``Streaming Agents--

Acceptable.''

(d) Inert Gas/Powdered Aerosol Blend. Inert Gas/Powdered Aerosol

Blend is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute in normally unoccupied

areas. In areas where personnel could possibly be present, as in a

cargo area, the employer shall provide a pre-discharge employee alarm

capable of being perceived above ambient light or noise levels for

alerting employees before system discharge. The pre-discharge alarm

shall provide employees time to safely exit the discharge area prior to

system discharge.

This alternative agent is formulated from a mixture of dry powders

pressed together into pill form. Upon exposure to heat from a fire, a

pyrotechnic charge initiates a series of exothermic, gas-producing

reactions composed mainly of a mixture of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and

water vapor, with small amounts of carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide,

nitrogen dioxide, and solid residues. The oxygen level in the room is

largely depleted, thus extinguishing the fire.

The manufacturer has proposed this technology for use in normally

unoccupied areas only, such as engine nacelles and engine compartments,

aircraft dry bay areas and unoccupied cargo areas. Comparing agents

alone, deployment of 2.0 pounds of this agent at 400 deg.F has an

equivalent fire suppression effectiveness to 1.0 pound of Halon 1301 at

70 deg.F.

This agent has no ODP. The carbon dioxide generated in the

combustion of this agent has a GWP of 1.

b. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits

(1) Total Flooding Agents. (a) C3F8. C3F8 is

acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute where other alternatives are not

technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements: a) due

to their physical or chemical properties or b) where human exposure to

the agents may approach cardiosensitization levels or result in other

unacceptable health effects under normal operating conditions. This

agent is subject to the use conditions stipulated for all total

flooding agents, that is:

Where egress from an area cannot be accomplished within

one minute, the employer shall not use this agent in concentrations

exceeding its NOAEL.

Where egress takes longer than 30 seconds but less than

one minute, the employer shall not use the agent in a concentration

greater than its LOAEL.

Agent concentrations greater than the LOAEL are only

permitted in areas not normally occupied by employees provided that any

employee in the area can escape within 30 seconds. The employer shall

assure that no unprotected employees enter the area during agent

discharge.

Cup burner tests in heptane indicate that C3F8 can

extinguish fires in a total flood application at concentrations of 7.30

per cent and therefore has a design concentration of 8.8 per cent. The

cardiotoxic NOAEL of 30 per cent for this agent is well above its

extinguishment concentration; therefore, it is safe for use in occupied

areas. This agent has a weight equivalence of two-to-one by weight

compared to Halon 1301.

Using agents in high concentrations poses a risk of asphyxiation by

displacing oxygen. With an ambient oxygen level of 21 per cent, a

design concentration of 22.6 per cent may reduce oxygen levels to

approximately 16 per cent, the minimum level considered to be required

to prevent impaired judgment or other physiological effects. Thus, the

oxygen level resulting from discharge of this agent must be at least 16

per cent.

This agent has an atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years and a 100-

year GWP of 6,100. Due to the long atmospheric lifetime of

C3F8, the Agency is finding this chemical acceptable only in

those limited instances where no other alternative is technically

feasible due to performance or safety requirements. In most total

flooding applications, the Agency believes that alternatives to

C3F8 exist. EPA intends that users select C3F8 out

of need and that this agent be used as the agent of last resort. Thus,

a user must determine that the requirements of the specific end-use

preclude use of other available alternatives.

Users must observe the limitations on C3F8 acceptability

by undertaking the following measures: (i) Conduct an evaluation of

foreseeable conditions of end use; (ii) determine that human exposure

to the other alternative extinguishing agents may approach or result in

cardiosensitization or other unacceptable toxicity effects under normal

operating conditions; and (iii) determine that the physical or chemical

properties or other technical constraints of the other available agents

preclude their use.

EPA recommends that users minimize unnecessary emissions of this

agent by [[Page 31102]] limiting testing of C3F8 to that

which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements;

recovering C3F8 from the fire protection system in

conjunction with testing or servicing; and destroying or recycling

C3F8 for later use. EPA encourages manufacturers to develop

aggressive product stewardship programs to help users avoid such

unnecessary emissions.

(b) Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6). SF6 is acceptable for use

as a discharge test agent in military uses and civilian aircraft uses

only. Sulfur Hexafluoride is a nonflammable, nontoxic gas which is

colorless and odorless. With a density of approximately five times that

of air, it is one of the heaviest known gases. SF6 is relatively

inert, and has an atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years, with a 100-year,

500-year, and 1,000-year GWP of 16,500, 24,900 and 36,500 respectively.

This agent has been developed by the U.S. Navy as a test gas

simulant in place of halon in new halon total flooding systems on ships

which have been under construction prior to identification and

qualification of substitute agents. Halon systems are no longer

included in designs for new ships. The Navy estimates its annual usage

to be less than 10,000 pounds annually, decreasing over time.

Similarly, the airline industry has an interest in using SF6 as a

discharge test agent simulating Halon 1301 in aircraft system

certification testing to ensure aircraft inflight fire safety. During

the period of development, FAA certification, and implementation of

suitable substitutes for aircraft, the airlines will continue to build

new aircraft with halon systems. The amount of SF6 released in

developing and certifying these critical systems for commercial

aircraft will be approximately 1,000 pounds per year or less. EPA

believes that the quantities involved in these two use sectors are

moderate, and avoiding the discharge of halon to test new halon systems

is an immediate priority.

While SF6 is not currently used in other commercial sector

testing regimes, EPA is imposing a narrowed use limit to ensure that

emissions of this agent remain minimal. The NFPA 12a and NFPA 2001

standards recommend that halon or other total flooding gases not be

used in discharge testing, but that alternative methods of ensuring

enclosure and piping integrity and system functioning be used.

Alternative methods can often be used, such as the ``door fan'' test

for enclosure integrity, UL 1058 testing to ensure system functioning,

pneumatic test of installed piping, and a ``puff'' test to ensure

against internal blockages in the piping network. These stringent

design and testing requirements have largely obviated the need to

perform a discharge test for total flood systems containing either

Halon 1301 or a substitute agent.

c. Unacceptable

(1) Total Flooding. (a) HFC-32. HFC-32 is unacceptable as a total

flooding agent. HFC-32 has been determined to be flammable, with a

large flammability range, and is therefore inappropriate as a halon

substitute when used as a pure agent. This agent was proposed

acceptable in the first SNAP proposed rulemaking (58 FR 28093, May 12,

1993) but public comment received indicated agreement about the

flammability characteristics of this agent. EPA is not aware of any

interest in commercializing this agent as a fire suppression agent.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993) the

Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''

and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the

Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as

one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual

effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a

material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,

local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious

inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by

another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy

issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or

the principles set forth in the ``Executive Order.''

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB notified EPA

that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within the

meaning of the Executive Order and EPA submitted this action to OMB for

review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations

have been documented in the public record.

B. Unfunded Mandates Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires

EPA to prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule

that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by

state, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private

sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 203 requires

the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing

any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely affected by

the rule. Section 205 requires that regulatory alternatives be

considered before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact

statement is prepared. The Agency must select the least costly, most

cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the

rule's objectives, unless there is an explanation why this alternative

is not selected or this alternative is inconsistent with law.

Because this final rule is estimated to result in the expenditure

by State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of less

than $100 million in any one year, the Agency has not prepared a

budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the selection of

the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative.

Because small governments will not be significantly or uniquely

affected by this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a plan

with regard to small governments. However, the rule has the net effect

of reducing burden from part 82, Stratospheric Protection regulations,

on regulated entities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 604(a), applies to any

rulemaking that is subject to public notice and comment requirements.

The Act requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be performed or

the head of the Agency certifies that a rule will not have a

significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities,

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

The Agency believes that this final rule will not have a

significant effect on a substantial number of small entities and has

therefore concluded that a formal RFA is unnecessary. Because costs of

the SNAP requirements as a whole are expected to be minor, the rule is

unlikely to adversely affect businesses, particularly as the rule

exempts small sectors and end-uses from reporting requirements and

formal agency review. In fact, to the extent that information gathering

is more expensive and time-consuming for small companies, this rule may

well provide benefits for small businesses anxious to examine potential

substitutes to any ozone-depleting class I and class II substances they

may be using, by [[Page 31103]] requiring manufacturers to make

information on such substitutes available.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The EPA has determined that this final rule contains no information

requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 44 S.S.C. 3501 et

seq.

V. Additional Information

For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists or additional

information on SNAP contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at 1-

800-296-1996, Monday-Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00

p.m. (EST).

For more information on the Agency's process for administering the

SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the

SNAP final rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18,

1994 (59 FR 13044). Federal Register notices can be ordered from the

Government Printing Office Order Desk (202) 783-3238; the citation is

the date of publication.

Notices and rulemaking under the SNAP program can also be retrieved

electronically from EPA's Protection of Stratospheric Ozone Technology

Transfer Network (TTN), Clean Air Act Amendment Bulletin Board. The

access number for users with a 1200 or 2400 bps modem is (919) 541-

5742. For users with a 9600 bps modem the access number is (919) 541-

1447. For assistance in accessing this service, call (919) 541-5384

during normal business hours (EST).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

Environmental protection, administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 2, 1995.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended

as follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

2. Section 82.180 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(8)(ii) to

read as follows:

Sec. 82.180 Agency review of SNAP submissions.

(a) * * *

(8) * * *

(ii) Communication of Decision to the Public. The Agency will

publish in the Federal Register on a quarterly basis a complete list of

the acceptable and unacceptable alternatives that have been reviewed to

date. In the case of substitutes proposed as acceptable with use

restrictions, proposed as unacceptable or proposed for removal from

either list, a rulemaking process will ensue. Upon completion of such

rulemaking, EPA will publish revised lists of substitutes acceptable

subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits and unacceptable

substitutes to be incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations.

(See Appendices to this subpart.)

* * * * *

4. Subpart G is amended by adding appendix B to read as follows:

Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

* * * * *

Appendix B to Subpart G--Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions and

Unacceptable Substitutes

Listed in the June 13, 1995 final rule, effective July 13, 1995.

Refrigerants--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CFC-12 Automobile HFC-134a, R-401C, Acceptable.......... --must be used with EPA is concerned that

Motor Vehicle Air HCFC Blend Beta. unique fittings. the existence of

Conditioning --must be used with several substitutes in

(Retrofit and New detailed labels. this end-use may

Equipment/NIKS). --all CFC-12 must be increase the likelihood

removed from the of significant

system prior to refrigerant cross-

retrofitting. contamination and

Refer to the text potential failure of

for a full both air conditioning

description. systems and recovery/

recycling equipment.

For the purposes of this

rule, no distinction is

made between

``retrofit'' and ``drop-

in'' refrigerants;

retrofitting a car to

use a new refrigerant

includes all procedures

that result in the air

conditioning system

using a new

refrigerant.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Refrigerants--Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits

------------------------------------------------------------------------

End-use Substitute Decision Comments

------------------------------------------------------------------------

CFC-11, CFC-12, C3F8, C4F10, Acceptable only Users must observe

CFC-113, CFC- C5F12, where no other the limitations on

114, CFC-115 C5F11NO, alternatives PFC acceptability

Non-Mechanical C6F14, are by determining that

Heat Transfer, C6F13NO, technically the physical or

New. C7F16, feasible due chemical properties

C7F15NO, to safety or or other technical

C8F18, C8F16O, performance constraints of the

and C9F21N. requirements. other available

agents preclude

their use.

Documentation of

such measures must

be available for

review upon

request.

The principal

environmental

characteristic of

concern for PFCs is

that they have high

GWPs and long

atmospheric

lifetimes. EPA

strongly recommends

recovery and

recycling of these

substitutes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 31104]]

Refrigerants--Unacceptable Substitutes

------------------------------------------------------------------------

End-use Substitute Decision Comments

------------------------------------------------------------------------

CFC-11, CFC-12, R-405A......... Unacceptable... R-405A contains R-

CFC-113, CFC- c318, a PFC, which

114, R-500 has an extremely

Centrifugal high GWP and

Chillers lifetime. Other

(Retrofit and substitutes exist

New Equipment/ which do not

NIKs). contain PFCs.

Hydrocarbon Unacceptable... Flammability is a

Blend B. serious concern.

Data have not been

submitted to

demonstrate it can

be used safely in

this end-use.

CFC-12 R-405A......... Unacceptable... R-405A contains R-

Reciprocating c318, a PFC, which

Chillers has an extremely

(Retrofit and high GWP and

New Equipment/ lifetime. Other

NIKs). substitutes exist

which do not

contain PFCs.

Hydrocarbon Unacceptable... Flammability is a

Blend B. serious concern.

Data have not been

submitted to

demonstrate it can

be used safely in

this end-use.

CFC-11, CFC-12, R-403B......... Unacceptable... R-403B contains R-

R-502 218, a PFC, which

Industrial has an extremely

Process high GWP and

Refrigeration lifetime. Other

(Retrofit and substitutes exist

New Equipment/ which do not

NIKs). contain PFCs.

R-405A......... Unacceptable... R-405A contains R-

c318, a PFC, which

has an extremely

high GWP and

lifetime. Other

substitutes exist

which do not

contain PFCs.

CFC-12, R-502 R-405A......... Unacceptable... R-405A contains R-

Ice Skating c318, a PFC, which

Rinks (Retrofit has an extremely

and New high GWP and

Equipment/NIKs). lifetime. Other

substitutes exist

which do not

contain PFCs.

Hydrocarbon Unacceptable... Flammability is a

Blend B. serious concern.

Data have not been

submitted to

demonstrate it can

be used safely in

this end-use.

CFC-12, R-502 R-403B......... Unacceptable... R-403B contains R-

Cold Storage 218, a PFC, which

Warehouses has an extremely

(Retrofit and high GWP and

New Equipment/ lifetime. Other

NIKs). substitutes exist

which do not

contain PFCs.

R-405A......... Unacceptable... R-405A contains R-

c318, a PFC, which

has an extremely

high GWP and

lifetime. Other

substitutes exist

which do not

contain PFCs.

Hydrocarbon Unacceptable... Flammability is a

Blend B. serious concern.

Data have not been

submitted to

demonstrate it can

be used safely in

this end-use.

CFC-12, R-500, R- R-403B......... Unacceptable... R-403B contains R-

502 218, a PFC, which

Refrigerated has an extremely

Transport high GWP and

(Retrofit and lifetime. Other

New Equipment/ substitutes exist

NIKs). which do not

contain PFCs.

R-405A......... Unacceptable... R-405A contains R-

c318, a PFC, which

has an extremely

high GWP and

lifetime. Other

substitutes exist

which do not

contain PFCs.

Hydrocarbon Unacceptable... Flammability is a

Blend B. serious concern.

Data have not been

submitted to

demonstrate it can

be used safely in

this end-use.

CFC-12, R-502 R-403B......... Unacceptable... R-403B contains R-

Retail Food 218, a PFC, which

Refrigeration has an extremely

(Retrofit and high GWP and

New Equipment/ lifetime. Other

NIKs). substitutes exist

which do not

contain PFCs.

R-405A......... Unacceptable... R-405A contains R-

c318, a PFC, which

has an extremely

high GWP and

lifetime. Other

substitutes exist

which do not

contain PFCs.

Hydrocarbon Unacceptable... Flammability is a

Blend B. serious concern.

Data have not been

submitted to

demonstrate it can

be used safely in

this end-use.

CFC-12, R-502 R-403B......... Unacceptable... R-403B contains R-

Commercial Ice 218, a PFC, which

Machines has an extremely

(Retrofit and high GWP and

New Equipment/ lifetime. Other

NIKs). substitutes exist

which do not

contain PFCs.

R-405A......... Unacceptable... R-405A contains R-

c318, a PFC, which

has an extremely

high GWP and

lifetime. Other

substitutes exist

which do not

contain PFCs.

Hydrocarbon Unacceptable... Flammability is a

Blend B. serious concern.

Data have not been

submitted to

demonstrate it can

be used safely in

this end-use.

CFC-12 Vending R-405A......... Unacceptable... R-405A contains R-

Machines c318, a PFC, which

(Retrofit and has an extremely

New Equipment/ high GWP and

NIKs). lifetime. Other

substitutes exist

which do not

contain PFCs.

Hydrocarbon Unacceptable... Flammability is a

Blend B. serious concern.

Data have not been

submitted to

demonstrate it can

be used safely in

this end-use.

CFC-12 Water R-405A......... Unacceptable... R-405A contains R-

Coolers c318, a PFC, which

(Retrofit and has an extremely

New Equipment/ high GWP and

NIKs). lifetime. Other

substitutes exist

which do not

contain PFCs.

Hydrocarbon Unacceptable... Flammability is a

Blend B. serious concern.

Data have not been

submitted to

demonstrate it can

be used safely in

this end-use.

[[Page 31105]]

CFC-12 Household R-405A......... Unacceptable... R-405A contains R-

Refrigerators c318, a PFC, which

(Retrofit and has an extremely

New Equipment/ high GWP and

NIKs). lifetime. Other

substitutes exist

which do not

contain PFCs.

Hydrocarbon Unacceptable... Flammability is a

Blend B. serious concern.

Data have not been

submitted to

demonstrate it can

be used safely in

this end-use.

CFC-12, R-502 R-403B......... Unacceptable... R-403B contains R-

Household 218, a PFC, which

Freezers has an extremely

(Retrofit and high GWP and

New Equipment/ lifetime. Other

NIKs). substitutes exist

which do not

contain PFCs.

R-405A......... Unacceptable... R-405A contains R-

c318, a PFC, which

has an extremely

high GWP and

lifetime. Other

substitutes exist

which do not

contain PFCs.

Hydrocarbon Unacceptable... Flammability is a

Blend B. serious concern.

Data have not been

submitted to

demonstrate it can

be used safely in

this end-use.

CFC-12, R-500 R-405A......... Unacceptable... R-405A contains R-

Residential c318, a PFC, which

Dehumidifiers has an extremely

(Retrofit and high GWP and

New Equipment/ lifetime. Other

NIKs). substitutes exist

which do not

contain PFCs.

Hydrocarbon Unacceptable... Flammability is a

Blend B. serious concern.

Data have not been

submitted to

demonstrate it can

be used safely in

this end-use.

CFC-12 Motor R-405A......... Unacceptable... R-405A contains R-

Vehicle Air c318, a PFC, which

Conditioners has an extremely

(Retrofit and high GWP and

New Equipment/ lifetime. Other

NIKs). substitutes exist

which do not

contain PFCs.

Hydrocarbon Unacceptable... Flammability is a

Blend B. serious concern.

Data have not been

submitted to

demonstrate it can

be used safely in

this end-use.

Flammable Unacceptable... The risks associated

Substitutes. with using

flammable

substitutes in this

end-use have not

been addressed by a

risk assessment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Solvent Cleaning Sector--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions Substitutes

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electronics Cleaning HCFC-225 ca/cb...... Acceptable.......... Subject to the HCFC-225 ca/cb blend is

w/CFC-113, MCF. company set offered as a 45%-ca/55%-

exposure limit of cb blend. The company

25 ppm of the -ca set exposure limit of

isomer. the -ca isomer is 25

ppm. The company set

exposure limit of the -

cb isomer is 250 ppm.

It is the Agency's

opinion that with the

low emission cold

cleaning and vapor

degreasing equipment

designed for this use,

the 25 ppm limit of the

HCFC-225 ca isomer can

be met. The company is

submitting further

exposure monitoring

data.

Precision Cleaning w/ HCFC-225 ca/cb...... Acceptable.......... Subject to the HCFC-225 ca/cb blend is

CFC-113, MCF. company set offered as a 45%-ca/55%-

exposure limit of cb blend. The company

25 ppm of the -ca set exposure limit of

isomer. the -ca isomer is 25

ppm. The company set

exposure limit of the -

cb isomer is 250 ppm.

It is the Agency's

opinion that with the

low emission cold

cleaning and vapor

degreasing equipment

designed for this use,

the 25 ppm limit of the

HCFC-225 ca isomer can

be met. The company is

submitting further

exposure monitoring

data.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Solvent Cleaning Sector--Unacceptable Substitutes

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End use Substitute Decision Comments

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Metals cleaning w/CFC-113 Dibromomethane.............. Unacceptable................ High ODP; other

alternatives exist.

Metals cleaning w/MCF... Dibromomethane.............. Unacceptable................ High ODP; other

alternatives exist.

Electronics cleaning w/ Dibromomethane.............. Unacceptable................ High ODP; other

CFC-113. alternatives exist.

Electronics cleaning w/ Dibromomethane.............. Unacceptable................ High ODP; other

MCF. alternatives exist.

[[Page 31106]]

Precision cleaning w/CFC- Dibromomethane.............. Unacceptable................ High ODP; other

113. alternatives exist.

Precision cleaning w/MCF Dibromomethane.............. Unacceptable................ High ODP; other

alternatives exist.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions: Total Flooding Agents

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Halon 1301 Total C3F8................ Acceptable where Until OSHA The comparative design

Flooding Agents. other alternatives establishes concentration based on

are not technically applicable cup burner values is

feasible due to workplace approximately 8.8%.

performance or requirements:. Users must observe the

safety For occupied areas limitations on PFC

requirements:. from which acceptability by making

a. due to their personnel cannot be reasonable efforts to

physical or evacuated in one undertake the following

chemical minute, use is measures:

properties, or. permitted only up (i) conduct an

b. where human to concentrations evaluation of

exposure to the not exceeding the foreseeable conditions

extinguishing cardiotoxicity of end use;

agents may approach NOAEL of 30%. (ii) determine that

cardiosensitization Although no LOAEL human exposure to the

levels or result in has been other alternative

other unacceptable established for extinguishing agents

health effects this product, may approach or result

under normal standard OSHA in cardiosensitization

operating requirements apply, or other unacceptable

conditions. i.e. for occupied toxicity effects under

areas from which normal operating

personnel can be conditions; and

evacuated or egress (iii) determine that the

can occur between physical or chemical

30 and 60 seconds, properties or other

use is permitted up technical constraints

to a concentration of the other available

not exceeding the agents preclude their

LOAEL. use;

All personnel must Documentation of such

be evacuated before measures must be

concentration of available for review

C3F8 exceeds 30%. upon request.

Design concentration The principal

must result in environmental

oxygen levels of at characteristic of

least 16%. concern for PFCs is

that they have high

GWPs and long

atmospheric lifetimes.

Actual contributions to

global warming depend

upon the quantities of

PFCs emitted.

For additional guidance

regarding applications

in which PFCs may be

appropriate, users

should consult the

description of

potential uses which is

included in the March

18, 1994 Rulemaking (59

FR 13043).

See additional comments

1, 2, 3, 4.

CF3I................ Acceptable in EPA requires that Manufacturer has not

normally unoccupied any employee who applied for listing for

areas. could possibly be use in normally

in the area must be occupied areas.

able to escape Preliminary

within 30 seconds. cardiosensitization

The employer shall data indicates that

assure that no this agent would not be

unprotected suitable for use in

employees enter the normally occupied

area during agent areas.

discharge. EPA is awaiting results

of ODP calculations.

See additional comments

1, 2, 3, 4.

Gelled Halocarbon/ Acceptable in EPA requires that The manufacturer's SNAP

Dry Chemical normally unoccupied any employee who application requested

Suspension. areas. could possibly be listing for use in

in the area must be unoccupied areas only.

able to escape See additional comment

within 30 seconds. 2.

The employer shall

assure that no

unprotected

employees enter the

area during agent

discharge.

Inert Gas/Powdered Acceptable as a In areas where The manufacturer's SNAP

Aerosol Blend. Halon 1301 personnel could application requested

substitute in possibly be listing for use in

normally unoccupied present, as in a unoccupied areas only.

areas. cargo area, EPA See additional comment

requires that the 2.

employer shall

provide a pre-

discharge employee

alarm capable of

being perceived

above ambient light

or noise levels for

alerting employees

before system

discharge. The pre-

discharge alarm

shall provide

employees time to

safely exit the

discharge area

prior to system

discharge.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Comments

1--Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart L Section 1910.160 of the U.S. Code.

2--Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) must be available in the event personnel must enter/reenter the

area.

3--Discharge testing should be strictly limited only to that which is essential to meet safety or performance

requirements.

[[Page 31107]]

4--The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and

recycled for later use or destroyed.

Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits: Total Flooding Agents

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Halon 1301, Total C3F8................ Acceptable where Until OSHA The comparative design

Flooding Agents. other alternatives establishes concentration based on

are not technically applicable cup burner values is

feasible due to workplace approximately 8.8%.

performance or requirements:. Users must observe the

safety For occupied areas limitations on PFC

requirements:. from which acceptability by making

a. due to their personnel cannot be reasonable efforts to

physical or evacuated in one undertake the following

chemical minute, use is measures:

properties, or. permitted only up (i) conduct an

b. where human to concentrations evaluation of

exposure to the not exceeding the foreseeable conditions

extinguishing cardiotoxicity of end use;

agents may approach NOAEL of 30%. (ii) determine that

cardiosensitization Although no LOAEL human exposure to the

levels or result in has been other alternative

other unacceptable established for extinguishing agents

health effects this product, may approach or result

under normal standard OSHA in cardiosensitization

operating requirements apply, or other unacceptable

conditions. i.e. for occupied toxicity effects under

areas from which normal operating

personnel can be conditions; and

evacuated or egress (iii) determine that the

can occur between physical or chemical

30 and 60 seconds, properties or other

use is permitted up technical constraints

to a concentration of the other available

not exceeding the agents preclude their

LOAEL. use;

All personnel must Documentation of such

be evacuated before measures must be

concentration of available for review

C3F8 exceeds 30%. upon request.

Design concentration The principal

must result in environmental

oxygen levels of at characteristic of

least 16%. concern for PFCs is

that they have high

GWPs and long

atmospheric lifetimes.

Actual contributions to

global warming depend

upon the quantities of

PFCs emitted.

For additional guidance

regarding applications

in which PFCs may be

appropriate, users

should consult the

description of

potential uses which is

included in the March

18, 1994 Final

Rulemaking (58 FR

13043).

Sulfurhexa-fluoride Acceptable as a .................... This agent has an

(SF6). discharge test atmospheric lifetime

agent in military greater than 1,000

uses and in years, with an

civilian aircraft estimated 100-year, 500-

uses only. year, and 1,000-year

GWP of 16,100, 26,110

and 32,803

respectively. Users

should limit testing

only to that which is

essential to meet

safety or performance

requirements.

This agent is only used

to test new Halon 1301

systems.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Unacceptable Substitutes

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application Substitute Decision Comments

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Halon 1301 Total HFC-32......... Unacceptable... Data indicate that

Flooding Agents. HFC-32 is flammable

and therefore is

not suitable as a

halon substitute.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 95-14337 Filed 6-12-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P