Protection of Stratospheric Ozone

Federal RegisterOct 2, 1995

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-5306-4]

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes restrictions or prohibitions on

substitutes for ozone depleting substances (ODSs) under the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Significant New Alternatives

Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP implements section 612 of the amended Clean

Air Act of 1990 which requires EPA to evaluate and regulate substitutes

for the ODSs to reduce overall risk to human health and the

environment. Through these evaluations, SNAP generates lists of

acceptable and unacceptable substitutes for each of the major

industrial use sectors. The intended effect of the SNAP program is to

expedite movement away from ozone depleting compounds while avoiding a

shift into high-risk substitutes posing other environmental problems.

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

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

decisions on the acceptability and unacceptability of a number

substitutes. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is

issuing its preliminary decisions on the acceptability of certain

substitutes not previously reviewed by the Agency. To arrive at

determinations on the acceptability of substitutes, the Agency

completed a cross-media evaluation of risks to human health and the

environment by sector end-use.

DATES: Written comments or data provided in response to this document

must be submitted by November 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and data should be sent to Docket A-91-42,

Central Docket Section, South Conference Room 4, U.S. Environmental

Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. The docket may be

inspected between 8 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays. Telephone (202)

260-7549; fax (202) 260-4400. As provided in 40 CFC part 2, a

reasonable fee may be charged for photocopying. To expedite review, a

second copy of the comments should be sent to Sally Rand, Stratospheric

Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S. EPA, 401 M

Street, S.W., 6205-J, Washington, D.C. 20460. Information designated as

Confidential Business Information (CBI) under 40 CFR, part 2 subpart B

must be sent directly to the contact person for this notice. However,

the Agency is requesting that all respondents submit a non-confidential

version of their comments to the docket as well.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Rand at (202) 233-9739 or fax

(202) 233-9577, Substitutes Analysis and Review Branch, Stratospheric

Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and

Radiation, Washington, D.C. 20460

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview of This Action

This action is divided into five sections, including this overview:

I. Overview of This Action

II. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

B. Regulatory History

III. Proposed Listing of Substitutes

IV. Administrative Requirements

V. Additional Information

Appendix A: Summary of Proposed Listing Decisions

II. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

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

program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA

is referring to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy

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

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

it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon

tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and

hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance

with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present

adverse effects to human health or the environment where the

Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the

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

or potentially available.

Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes--Section 612(c) also

requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes unacceptable for

specific uses. EPA must publish a corresponding list of acceptable

alternatives for specific uses.

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

petition EPA to add a substitute to or delete a substitute from the

lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90

days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition,

EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional six months.

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

person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to

notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing

chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new

uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also

provide the Agency with the producer's unpublished health and safety

studies on such substitutes.

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

seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources

to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying and

developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial

applications.

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

public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and

alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and

manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.

B. Regulatory History

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

13044) which described the process for administering the SNAP program

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

industrial use sectors. These sectors include: refrigeration and air

conditioning; foam blowing; solvent cleaning; fire suppression and

explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and

inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal

industrial sectors that historically consume large volumes of ozone-

depleting compounds.

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

substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or

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

produces a substitute must provide the Agency with health and safety

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

interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. This

requirement applies to chemical manufacturers, but may include

importers, formulators or

[[Page 51384]]

end-users when they are responsible for introducing a substitute into

commerce.

III. Proposed Listing of Substitutes

To develop the lists of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes,

EPA conducts screens of health and environmental risks posed by various

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

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

described above in the Addresses portion of this notice.

Under section 612, the Agency has considerable discretion in the

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

identified five possible decision categories: acceptable, acceptable

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

unacceptable; and pending. Acceptable substitutes can be used for all

applications within the relevant sector end-use. Conversely, it is

illegal to replace an ODS with a substitute listed by SNAP as

unacceptable. A pending listing represents substitutes for which the

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

of the data.

After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may make a determination

that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions of use are

met to minimize risks to human health and the environment. Use of such

substitutes in ways that are inconsistent with such use conditions

renders these substitutes unacceptable.

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

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

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

alternatives for specialized applications. Users intending to adopt a

substitute acceptable with narrowed use limits must ascertain that

other acceptable alternatives are not technically feasible. Companies

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

on file for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. This documentation

shall include descriptions of substitutes examined and rejected,

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

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

standards, and the anticipated date other substitutes will be available

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

such substitutes in application and end-uses which are not specified as

acceptable in the narrowed use limit renders these substitutes

unacceptable.

In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is issuing its

preliminary decision on the acceptability of certain substitutes not

previously reviewed by the Agency. As described in the final rule for

the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), EPA believes that notice-and-comment

rulemaking is required to place any alternative on the list of

prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute as acceptable only under

certain use conditions or narrowed use limits, or to remove an

alternative from either the list of prohibited or acceptable

substitutes.

EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are required to

list alternatives as acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do

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

substitute. Consequently, EPA is adding substitutes to the list of

acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new

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

separate Notices of Acceptability in the Federal Register.

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

proposed substitute listing determinations by major use sector. Tables

summarizing listing decisions in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are

in Appendix A. The comments contained in Appendix A provide additional

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

regulatory decision, they are not mandatory for use of a substitute.

Nor should the comments be considered comprehensive with respect to

other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute.

However, EPA encourages users of acceptable substitutes to apply all

comments in their application of these substitutes. In many instances,

the comments simply allude to sound operating practices that have

already been identified in existing industry and/or building-code

standards. Thus, many of the comments, if adopted, would not require

significant changes in existing operating practices for the affected

industry.

A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions

a. CFC-12 Automobile and Non-automobile Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners,

Retrofit and New

EPA is concerned that the existence of several substitutes in this

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

contamination and potential failure of both air conditioning systems

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

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

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

preserve the purity of recycled refrigerants, EPA is proposing several

conditions on the use of all motor vehicle air conditioning

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

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

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

conditioning system using a new refrigerant. Please note that EPA only

reviews refrigerants based on environmental and health factors.

In particular, when retrofitting a CFC-12 system to use any

substitute refrigerant, the following conditions must be met:

Each refrigerant may only be used with a set of fittings

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

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

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

air conditioning system service ports. These fittings must be designed

to mechanically prevent cross-charging with another refrigerant. A

refrigerant may only be used with the fittings and can taps

specifically intended for that refrigerant. Using an adapter or

deliberately modifying a fitting to use a different refrigerant will be

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

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

standards and recommended practices:

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

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

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

that permanently prevents the assembly from being removed.

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

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

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

are specific to HFC-134a.

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

systems shall have a device to limit compressor operation before the

pressure relief device will vent refrigerant. This requirement is

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

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

assemblies or shall be rendered permanently

[[Page 51385]]

incompatible for use with CFC-12 related service equipment by fitting

with a device attached with a thread lock adhesive and/or a separate

mechanical latching mechanism in a manner that prevents the device from

being removed.

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

follows:

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

conditioning system in the engine compartment that contains the

following information:

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

the retrofit

*the date of the retrofit

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

refrigerant numerical designation of the refrigerant

*the type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used

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

the phrase ``ozone depleter''

*if the refrigerant displays flammability limits as 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.

No substitute refrigerant may be used to ``top-off'' a

system that uses another refrigerant. The original refrigerant must be

recovered in accordance with regulations issued under section 609 of

the CAA prior to charging with a substitute.

Since these use conditions necessitate unique fittings and labels,

it will be necessary for developers of automotive refrigerants to

consult with EPA about the existence of other alternatives. Such

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

No determination guarantees satisfactory performance from a

refrigerant. Consult the original equipment manufacturer or service

personnel for further information on using a refrigerant in a

particular system.

(a) HCFC Blend Delta

HCFC Blend Delta is proposed acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12

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

use conditions applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described

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

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

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

12. Regulations regarding recycling and reclamation issued under

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

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

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

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

blend never becomes flammable.

(b) Blend Zeta

Blend Zeta is proposed acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in

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

conditions applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described

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

the manufacturer. This blend does not contribute to ozone depletion.

The GWPs of the components are moderate to low. This blend is

nonflammable, and leak testing has demonstrated that the blend never

becomes flammable.

B. Solvents

1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions

a. Metals Cleaning

(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides

Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are proposed acceptable

subject to use conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in metals

cleaning. These two classes of chemicals are being sold as blends for a

variety of cleaning applications. Of all the structures of commercial

interest, the only chemical with an Occupational Health and Safety

Administration (OSHA) standard is orthochlorotoluene, one of the

monochlorotoluenes. This substance has an OSHA Permissible Exposure

Level (PEL) of 50 ppm. Using this standard as a proxy, the Agency is

proposing to set a workplace standard of 50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes

as a group. None of the benzotrifluorides has a PEL. Based on a

toxicological study recently completed by the company interested in

commercialization of these chemicals, the Agency is proposing to set a

workplace standard of 25 ppm for benzotrifluorides. Companies intending

to use monochlorotoluene/benzotrifluoride mixtures should take the

inherent hazard of these chemicals into account in implementing

applications.

These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety

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

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

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

defined in P.L. 91-596.

b. Electronics Cleaning

(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides

Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are proposed acceptable

subject to use conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in

electronics cleaning. For the reasons described in the section on

metals cleaning, the Agency is proposing to set a workplace standard of

50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes and 25 ppm for benzotrifluorides.

These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety

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

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

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

defined in P.L. 91-596.

c. Precision Cleaning

(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides

Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are proposed acceptable

subject to use conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in

precision cleaning. For the reasons described in the section on metals

cleaning, the Agency is proposing to set a workplace standard of 50 ppm

for monochlorotoluenes and 25 ppm for benzotrifluorides.

These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety

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

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

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

defined in Pub. L. 91-596.

C. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection

As was discussed in the March 18, 1994 SNAP rulemaking, EPA in some

cases finds acceptable the use of an agent only under certain

conditions. In implementing its use of conditions, the Agency has

sought to avoid overlap

[[Page 51386]]

with other existing regulatory authorities. EPA believes that section

612 clearly authorizes imposition of use conditions to ensure safe use

of replacement agents. EPA's mandate is to list agents that ``reduce

the overall risk to human health and the environment'' for ``specific

uses.'' In light of this authorization, EPA is only intending to set

conditions for the safe use of halon substitutes in the workplace until

OSHA incorporates specific language addressing gaseous agents into OSHA

regulation. Under OSHA Public Law 91-596, section 4(b)(1), OSHA is

precluded from regulating an area currently being regulated by another

federal agency. EPA is specifically deferring to OSHA, and has no

intention to assume responsibility for regulating workplace safety

especially with respect to fire protection. EPA's workplace use

conditions will not bar OSHA from regulating under its Pub. L. 91-596

authority.

1. Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions

a. Total Flooding Agents

(1) IG-55 (Formerly [Inert Gas Blend] B)

IG-55 is proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute for total

flooding applications. IG-55, which is comprised of 50% nitrogen and

50% argon, is designed to lower the oxygen level in a protected area to

a level that does not support combustion, and, unlike pure carbon

dioxide systems, sufficient oxygen remains to maintain life support.

The toxicological issues of concern with inert gas systems differ

from those of halocarbon agents, in that the end-point for hypoxic (low

oxygen) atmospheres is asphyxiation while the end-point for halocarbons

is cardiosensitization leading to cardiac arrhythmias. Thus, EPA

requested the manufacturers of the newly proposed inert gas systems to

conduct a peer review by a panel of medical specialists to consider

specific questions concerning exposing the typical working population

to this agent. A similar review was conducted at EPA's request by the

manufacturer of IG-541, which simultaneously lowers oxygen and raises

CO2 levels.

The results of the peer review and discussions with other medical

specialists further convinces us that the SNAP conditions previously

listed for IG-541 are appropriate for IG-55 and IG-01 as well.

Specifically, while the terms No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL)

and Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) refer to cardiotoxic

effect levels which are not appropriate when discussing hypoxic

atmospheres, EPA intends to propose a `no effect level' for inert gas

systems at 12% oxygen, and a `lowest effect level' at 10% oxygen.

Thus, consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) conditions used by EPA for all total flooding

agents, EPA proposes that an IG-55 system could be designed to an

oxygen level of 10% if employees can egress the area within one minute,

but may be designed only to the 12% level if it takes longer than one

minute to egress the area. If the possibility exists for the oxygen to

drop below 10%, employees must be evacuated prior to such oxygen

depletion. A design concentration of less than 10% oxygen may only be

used in normally unoccupied areas, as long as any employee who could

possibly be exposed can egress within 30 seconds.

EPA stresses that, even though the medical specialists concur that

it is probably safe to expose the typical worker to 10% or 12% oxygen

for up to five minutes, EPA does not encourage any employee to

intentionally remain in the area, even in the event of accidental

discharge. In addition, the system must include alarms and warning

mechanisms as specified by OSHA.

The question has been raised concerning the benefits or dangers of

added carbon dioxide in other inert gas systems. The added CO2

induces increased respiration after an exposure of approximately 3 to 5

minutes, which ensures adequate oxygen uptake by the brain. EPA's

review of IG-541 (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994) considered this

parameter, and the Agency believed that the CO2 offered an added

margin of safety. However, questions remain as to the relative `risk

balanced' distinction between an inert gas system with, and one

without, added CO2. Fire scenarios are unpredictable, and

therefore the amount of combustion products are also unpredictable. It

is difficult to evaluate whether deeper breathing due to added CO2

under different fire circumstances may also be bringing in more

combustion products and thus constitute an increased risk. EPA believes

on the basis of the peer review that in the event of an accidental

discharge where there is no fire, the added CO2 in the mixture

will serve as a margin of safety for protected populations. EPA also

recognizes the known physiological benefits of added CO2 to

prevent brain hypoxia in other applications. Therefore, EPA will be

working with other regulatory agencies and the technical community to

further delineate appropriate use conditions for the use of the varying

inert gas systems in the fire protection sector.

EPA intends that all personnel be evacuated from an area prior to,

or quickly after, discharge. An inert gas system may not be designed

with the intention of personnel remaining in the area unless

appropriate protection is provided, such as self-contained breathing

apparatus.

(2) IG-01 (Formerly [Inert Gas Blend] C)

IG-01 is proposed acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute for total

flooding applications. IG-01 is comprised 100% of argon, and as with

IG-55, is designed to lower the oxygen level in a protected area to a

level that does not support combustion, while maintaining sufficient

oxygen for life support.

As with IG-55, EPA proposes that an IG-01 system may be designed to

an oxygen level of 10% if employees can egress the area within one

minute, but may be designed only to the 12% level if it takes longer

than one minute to egress the area. If the possibility exists for the

oxygen to drop below 10%, employees must be evacuated prior to such

oxygen depletion. A design concentration of less than 10% may only be

used in normally unoccupied areas, as long as any employee who could

possibly be exposed can egress within 30 seconds.

EPA stresses that, even though the medical specialists concur that

it is probably safe to expose the typical worker to 10% or 12% oxygen

for up to five minutes, EPA does not encourage any employee to

intentionally remain in the area, even in the event of accidental

discharge. In addition, the system must include alarms and warning

mechanisms as specified by OSHA.

Please refer to the discussion of IG-55 for a fuller description of

inert gas systems.

2. Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits

a. Streaming Agents

(1) CF3I is proposed acceptable as a Halon 1211 substitute in

nonresidential applications. 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. Due to the short

atmospheric lifetime of this chemical and the photolytic decomposition

mechanism, the resulting GWP is essentially equivalent to that of

CO2, which is 1. The ODP when released at ground level is

extremely low, with current conservative estimates ranging from .008 to

.01. Detailed kinetic data and three dimensional modeling efforts are

currently in progress, and are expected to reduce these values

significantly.

[[Page 51387]]

CF3I has a weight and volume equivalence to Halon 1211 of 0.94

and 0.97 respectively. While it is potentially a `drop-in' replacement

for Halon 1211, with some modifications in elastomers or other system

materials, there exists a question as to whether current technical

standards allow the reuse of halon 1211 canisters for other chemicals.

Both the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard and UL

listings should be examined in this context.

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.

Previous studies of exposure to streaming agents indicate that actual

exposure to a trained firefighter in a well-ventilated area will not

exceed these values. However, the manufacturer is required to conduct

personal monitoring tests to verify exposure levels in scenarios

representative of its potential market prior to receiving a final SNAP

acceptability listing. Because of the low cardiosensitization values,

EPA is proposing to prohibit use of this agent in consumer residential

applications where the possibility of incorrect use by untrained users

is high.

D. Aerosols

1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions

a. Solvents

(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides

Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are proposed acceptable

subject to use conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF as aerosol

solvents. These two classes of chemicals are being sold as blends for

aerosol applications. Of all the structures of commercial interest, the

only chemical with an Occupational Health and Safety Administration

(OSHA) standard is orthochlorotoluene, one of the monochlorotoluenes.

This substance has an OSHA Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) of 50 ppm.

Using this standard as a proxy, the Agency is proposing to set a

workplace standard of 50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes as a group. None of

the benzotrifluorides has a PEL. Based on a toxicological study

recently completed by the company interested in commercialization of

these chemicals, the Agency is proposing to set a workplace standard of

25 ppm for benzotrifluorides. Companies intending to use

monochlorotoluene/benzotrifluoride mixtures should take the inherent

hazard of these chemicals into account in implementing applications.

These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety

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

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

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

defined in P.L. 91-596.

E. Adhesives, Coatings and Inks

1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions

a. Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides

Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are proposed acceptable

subject to use conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in

adhesives, coatings, and inks. These two classes of chemicals are being

sold as blends for these applications. Of all the substances of

commercial interest, the only chemical with an Occupational Health and

Safety Administration (OSHA) standard is orthochlorotoluene, one of the