Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Ozone-Depleting Substances

Federal RegisterMay 22, 1996

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-5467-1]

RIN 2060-AG12

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for

Ozone-Depleting Substances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes 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 Final Rulemaking (FRM), 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: Effective date June 21, 1996.

The information collection requirements contained in Appendix C of

subpart G of part 82 have not been approved by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) and are not effective until OMB has approved them. EPA

will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB

approval.

ADDRESSES: Public Docket: Public comments and data specific to this

final rule are in Docket A-91-42, Central Docket Section, South

Conference Room 4, U.S. Environmental Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. The docket may be inspected between 8 a.m. and 4

p.m. on weekdays. Telephone (202) 260-7549; fax (202) 260-4400. As

provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for

photocopying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Smagin at (202) 233-9126 or fax

(202) 233-9577, Stratospheric Protection Division, USEPA, Mail Code

6205J, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 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. Listing of Substitutes

IV. Administrative Requirements

V. Additional Information

Appendix: Summary of 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

[[Page 25586]]

produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to notify the

Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals are

introduced into interstate commerce for significant new uses as

substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also provide the

Agency with the producer's unpublished health and safety studies on

such substitutes.

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

seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources

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

developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial

applications.

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

public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and

alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and

manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.

B. Regulatory History

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

13044) which described the process for administering the SNAP program

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

industrial use sectors. These sectors include: refrigeration and air

conditioning; foam blowing; solvent cleaning; fire suppression and

explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and

inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal

industrial sectors that historically consume large volumes of ozone-

depleting compounds.

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

substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or

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

produces a substitute must provide the Agency with health and safety

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

interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. This

requirement applies to chemical manufacturers, but may include

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

introducing a substitute into commerce.

III. 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 Final Rulemaking (FRM), EPA is issuing decisions on the

acceptability of certain substitutes not previously reviewed by the

Agency. The proposed rulemaking for these decisions was published on

October 2, 1995 (60 FR 51383). As described in the proposed rule, 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 Rulemaking are in Appendix

below. The comments contained in the Appendix 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

Response to Comment

EPA received one comment supporting the requirement to use unique

fittings when retrofitting motor vehicle air conditioning systems

(MVACS). The commenter, however, requested EPA reduce the information

required on the label. EPA based the labeling requirements very closely

on SAE J1660 and a petition by the Mobile Air Conditioning Society

(MACS), and believes all of the information proposed in the NPRM is

necessary, as clarified below. The commenter requested that EPA remove

each of the following pieces of information from the label.

Technician name and address.

EPA requires this information to ensure that both the consumer and

various agencies know exactly who worked on the vehicle. In addition,

this information allows the consumer to check that the technician is

certified to work on MVACS.

ASHRAE designation.

[[Page 25587]]

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-

Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) assigns unique numbers to new

refrigerants. Refrigerant properties depend very strongly on both the

components and the individual percentages within a blend. The

composition of all ASHRAE-designated refrigerants is public, and EPA

believes it is important for consumers and technicians to be aware of

such information if it is available.

Lubricant Manufacturer.

Given the large number of new refrigerants and lubricants, EPA

believes the consumer is best served by having this information. This

information is particularly important since it is extremely difficult

to test every possible refrigerant/lubricant combination in every

vehicle.

``Ozone depleter'' phrase.

The commenter reasoned that SNAP acceptability was the only

relevant criterion to protect the ozone layer. Until November 15, 1995,

however, only ozone-depleting substances were required to be recovered

from MVACS, and since the composition of certain blends was

confidential, EPA believed it was important to alert technicians of the

necessity of recovering the refrigerant during servicing and disposal.

EPA still believes that this statement does not add significantly to

the label size and provides useful information to the consumer.

Flammability phrase.

The commenter requested that this phrase be shortened from ``This

refrigerant is FLAMMABLE. Take appropriate precautions.'' to

``FLAMMABLE''. However, because flammable refrigerants are not

currently in use, EPA believes it is extremely important to draw

attention to a flammable substitute. Technicians and consumers need to

be aware of the potential hazards posed by flammable refrigerants, and

the entire phrase serves that purpose better than a single word.

In addition to the above rationale, the labeling requirements

cannot be changed each time EPA lists a new refrigerant as acceptable

for use in MVACS subject to use conditions. The labeling requirements

were finalized on June 13, 1995 (60 FR 51383) for HCFC Blend Beta, R-

401C, and HFC-134a. It is not reasonable to require vendors of those

refrigerants to modify their labels or to meet standards not imposed on

subsequent refrigerants. EPA believes the labeling requirements are

necessary and appropriate to help the MVAC industry in its transition

away from CFC-12 in as smooth and safe a manner as possible.

2. 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 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. Please note that EPA only

reviews refrigerants based on environmental and health factors.

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 not retrofitted with conversion assemblies

shall be rendered permanently incompatible for use with CFC-12 related

service equipment by fitting with a device attached with a thread lock

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

that prevents the device from being removed.

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

follows:

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

conditioning system in the engine compartment that contains the

following information:

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

retrofit

*The date of the retrofit

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

refrigerant numerical designation of the refrigerant

*The type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used

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

phrase ``ozone depleter''

*If the refrigerant displays flammability limits as measured according

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

appropriate precautions.''

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

permanent.

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

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

the previous refrigerant, in a location not normally replaced during

vehicle repair.

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

new label must be permanently rendered unreadable.

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

system that uses another refrigerant. The original refrigerant must be

recovered in accordance with regulations issued under section 609 of

the CAA prior to charging with a substitute.

Since these use conditions necessitate unique fittings and labels,

it will be necessary for developers of automotive refrigerants to

consult with EPA about the existence of other alternatives. Such

[[Page 25588]]

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 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 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. Response to Comment

In response to EPA's proposal, the Agency received public comment

stating that the scope of SNAP did not extend to setting workplace

standards for chemicals. The Agency disagrees with this comment, and it

discussed in the original SNAP rule-making (59 FR 13044, March 18,

1994) how it is using section 612 authority under the Clean Air Act to

set workplace standards as interim measures until OSHA has had an

opportunity to review and decide on the need for standards under OSHA

legislative authorities. The commenter suggested that EPA review with

OSHA its intention of setting these standards. The EPA has already

taken this step, and EPA and OSHA are in agreement about the ability

and the need for the SNAP program to set occupational standards as an

interim regulatory measure until the chemical in question has been

reviewed by OSHA. Further discussion of this issue is included under

the Fire Extinguishing section below.

2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions

a. Metals Cleaning

(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides

Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are 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 Safety and Health 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 setting 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 setting 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.

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 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 setting 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 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 setting 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. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection

1. Response to Comments

Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's regulation of total

flooding agents is within the purview of OSHA, and that EPA should

defer to OSHA rather than create duplicative regulation. Further, the

commenter states that the conditions EPA has stipulated allowing

exposure to oxygen deficient atmospheres of 10% to 12% oxygen is

hazardous and inconsistent with OSHA's requirement for 19.5% oxygen in

confined spaces. The commenter further advised EPA that OSHA published

an update to its Respiratory Protection Standard (November 15, 1994, 59

FR 58906) which includes a chart indicating that oxygen concentrations

below 16% at sea level should require the extra precautions that go

with IDLH atmospheres (immediately dangerous to life and health). The

commenter also pointed out the OSHA regulations requiring predischarge

alarms. In summary, the commenter recommended (1) that EPA revise the

proposed rule to be consistent with current OSHA regulation, (2) that

EPA not establish a 12% ``no effect level'' or a 10% ``lowest effect

level,'' and (3) that EPA leave this regulatory activity to OSHA.

Response: EPA would like to direct the commenter's attention to the

original SNAP rulemaking published March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), as

discussed in the Solvents section above. The Agency responded to many

comments questioning its authority to promulgate workplace safety

[[Page 25589]]

regulations. To quote earlier language from the Comment Response

document:

In imposing conditions of use, EPA does not intend to preempt

other regulatory authorities, such as those exercised by the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or other

government or industrial standard-setting bodies. Rather, EPA hopes

to fill existing regulatory gaps during the interim period of

substitution away from ozone-depleting compounds and provide the

needed margin of protection to human health and the environment

until other regulatory controls or standards are developed under

appropriate authorities.

EPA anticipates applying use conditions only in the rare

instances where clear regulatory gaps exist, and where an

unreasonable risk would exist in the absence of any condition. These

limitations will only remain in place until the appropriate standard

setting agency acts. Once existing gaps are filled, EPA will rescind

any conditions which have become redundant. The mechanism for

informing the public of this change will be the quarterly Federal

For the March 18, 1994 SNAP rulemaking, EPA had conducted an

analysis of existing regulation of low oxygen atmospheres and

determined that none relates to the use of a fixed gaseous system.

(Available from the EPA Air Docket A-91-42, IV-A-4. ``Evaluation of

Federal Regulations and Industry Guidelines Governing Minimum Oxygen

Levels in Work Areas Protected By Gaseous Total Flooding Fire

Protection Systems,'' Memo from ICF Incorporated to Karen Metchis, EPA,

1993.) OSHA had a number of inquiries concerning the definition of

``oxygen deficient atmospheres'', but the definition remained unclear

with OSHA stating that any atmosphere containing less than 19.5 per

cent oxygen falls within the definition of ``oxygen deficient

atmosphere.'' However existing regulations concerned only such things

as entering tanks (Ventilation Standard, 29 CFR 1910.94), confined

spaces not intended for occupancy, etc. In addition, the proposed OSHA

Respiratory Standard cited by the commenter does not apply to fire

protection systems, except in situations where personnel wish to

reenter an area that has experienced a system discharge.

The Agency views discharge of fire extinguishment systems as

emergency situations, whether they be accidental discharges or

discharges in response to a fire. In these cases, personnel are

expected to quickly egress from an area, presumably before discharge

occurs, but potentially very quickly after discharge. To prohibit use

of this technology for fear of emergency situations would be akin to

prohibiting the use of a particular chemical for fear of an accidental

spill. Both cases represent an emergency situation that should be

handled accordingly. Inert gas systems are not to be used while

personnel remain in an area to conduct normal duties.

Current OSHA regulations (1910.162) allow use of halon in fixed

extinguishing systems in normally occupied areas in amounts that would

result in an oxygen deficient atmosphere. The same regulation allows

use of carbon dioxide systems in normally occupied areas even though

exposure to discharge of a CO2 system results in immediate death.

Thus, it is not inconsistent with current OSHA regulations to design

fire extinguishing systems that might result in low oxygen atmospheres

provided that certain protections are present.

Comment: The manufacturer of one inert gas system commented that

EPA has erred in determining that inert gases without CO2 can be

used at the same levels and for the same exposure times as inert gases

with added CO2, and referenced a supporting document,

``Physiological Effects of Abrupt Exposure to 10% O2 with 4%

CO2,'' dated February 15, 1995. Further, the commenter explained

why EPA's concern that added CO2 might cause an increased

inspiration of combustion products is not warranted, by elaborating on

three exposure scenarios to a fire agent: no-fire, small-fire, and

large-fire. The commenter pointed out that only in the case of a large

fire will high levels of combustion products exist and in that case the

risk of the fire greatly exceeds any incremental risk from the added

CO2.

Response: While EPA generally agrees with the commenter's

elaboration of the scenarios of exposure, the question of the relative

importance of the effects of inert gases systems with and without added

CO2 in fire protection scenarios is the subject of a current peer

review on hypoxic atmospheres. Pending the outcome of that assessment,

EPA may re-propose use conditions on these agents either to increase

flexibility in the use of these agents and/or to differentiate the use

conditions applicable to systems with or without added CO2.

Comment: One manufacturer of this agent stated that the most

recently published atmospheric information on CF3I indicates that

its atmospheric lifetime is less than one day, the ozone depletion

potential is less than 0.0008 and more likely below 0.0001, and its

global warming potential is less than five.

The commenter further stated that, compared to Halon 1211, its

weight and volume equivalence are 0.94 and 0.83 respectively. Finally,

the commenter requested that CF3I not be referred to as Halon

13001, as this might confuse the public as to why ``halon'' was being

replaced by a ``halon.''

In addition, the manufacturer provided the Agency with the report

entitled ``Exposure Assessment of Firefighters to Triodide during

Streaming Scenarios,'' conducted at Tyndall Air Force Base. The results

of personal monitoring indicated that exposure to this agent during use

indoors does not exceed its cardiotoxic effect levels.

Response: The Agency agrees with the commenter and will use the

most recent information on atmospheric characteristics as well as

weight and volume equivalence, as noted by the commenter. In addition,

CF3I will not be labeled Halon 13001 in order to avoid general

confusion. Finally, the Agency is proceeding to list this agent as

acceptable for use as a streaming agent in nonresidential uses.

2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions

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 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 P.L. 91-596

authority.

a. Total Flooding Agents

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

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

[[Page 25590]]

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 cardiac sensitization leading to cardiac arrhythmias. Thus, EPA

requested the manufacturers of the 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. In

addition, a panel of medical specialists convened by EPA to review all

inert gas systems concluded that the use conditions imposed by EPA are

conservative and adequate.

The results of the peer reviews 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 is establishing 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 is specifying 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.

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 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, 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.

3. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits

(a) Streaming Agents

(1) CF3I

CF3I is acceptable as a Halon 1211 substitute in

nonresidential applications. CF3I is a fluoroiodocarbon with an

atmospheric lifetime of less than one day due to its rapid photolysis

in the presence of light. Due to its short atmospheric lifetime of one

day and its photolytic decomposition mechanism, the resulting GWP of

this agent is less than 5, while its ODP when released at ground level

is 0.0008 and more likely below.

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

and 0.83, 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.

Cardiac sensitization data received by the Agency indicate that

CF3I has a NOAEL of 0.2 per cent and a LOAEL of 0.4 per cent.

Personal monitoring for this agent was conducted using 2\1/2\ to 13

pound extinguishers in various indoor applications. The resulting data

indicate that cardiotoxic levels are not likely to be exceeded when

used as a streaming agent. While the tests were conducted in different

scenarios both with and without ventilation, EPA recommends that this

agent be used in well ventilated areas. Because of the low cardiac

sensitization values, EPA is prohibiting use of this agent in consumer

residential applications where the possibility exists of incorrect use

by untrained users.

D. Aerosols

1. Response to Comment

As discussed in the section on solvent cleaning, EPA received a

comment stating that it did not have authority under SNAP to set

workplace standards. For the reasons described above, the Agency

disagrees with this comment.

2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions

a. Solvents

(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides

Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are 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 Safety and Health 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 setting 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 setting 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

[[Page 25591]]

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. Response to Comment

As discussed in the section on solvent cleaning, EPA received a

comment stating that it did not have authority under SNAP to set

workplace standards. For the reasons described above, the Agency

disagrees with this comment.

2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions

a. Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides

Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are 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 Safety and Health Administration