Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Manufacture of Halon Blends,
Intentional Release of Halon, Technician Training and Disposal of Halon
and Halon-Containing Equipment
Related Material
[Federal Register: March 5, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 43)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11083-11097]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05mr98-16]
[[Page 11083]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 82
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Manufacture of Halon Blends,
Intentional Release of Halon, Technician Training and Disposal of Halon
and Halon-Containing Equipment; Final Rule
[[Page 11084]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-5974-1]
RIN 2060-AH44
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Manufacture of Halon Blends,
Intentional Release of Halon, Technician Training and Disposal of Halon
and Halon-Containing Equipment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule bans the manufacture of halon blends;
prohibits the intentional release of halons during training of
technicians and during testing, repair, and disposal of halon-
containing equipment; requires appropriate training of technicians
regarding emissions reduction; and requires proper disposal of halon
and of halon-containing equipment. Release of halons to the environment
contributes significantly to the depletion of the stratospheric ozone
layer which, in turn, can lead to increased incidences of skin cancer
and other ill effects. EPA proposed these requirements in response to a
lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club. EPA understands that the
manufacturers which have in recent years been engaged in the
manufacture of halon blends will be minimally impacted by the ban, or
may meet criteria for exemption from this ban. Furthermore, EPA
understands that that entities using halons, driven in part by the
economic value of halons, currently widely practice the kinds of
precautions codified in this rule. This rule will more fully extend
these practices throughout the industry and will ensure their continued
implementation in the event of changes in halon market conditions.
Thus, this rule will assure continued significant environmental
benefits, while placing only minimal burdens on industry.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials supporting this rulemaking are
contained in Public Docket No. A-98-02 at: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. The Public
Docket is located in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (Ground Floor).
Dockets may be inspected from 8 a.m. until 12 noon, and from 1:30 p.m.
until 3 p.m., Monday through Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged
for copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Chang, Program Implementation
Branch, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric
Programs, Office of Air and Radiation, Mail Code 6205J, 401 M Street
SW, Washington, D.C. 20460, 202/564-9742.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of today's preamble are listed
in the following outline:
I. Regulated Entities
II. Background
a. Stratospheric Protection
b. Section 608(a) of the Clean Air Act
c. Sierra Club Suit
d. Halons
e. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Today's Action
a. Summary of Major Public Comments
b. Responses to Public Comments
1. Banning the Manufacture of Halon Blends
(i) Support for the ban on the new manufacture of halon blends
(ii) Change from a ban on the sale to a ban on the manufacture
of halon blends
(iii) Clarification of terms ``Halon'', ``Halon product'', and
``Halon blend''
(iv) Exemptions from ban on manufacture of halon blends
2. Intentional Release of Halons
(i) Clarification of meaning of ``intentional releases''
(ii) Clarification of meaning of ``de minimis releases''
(iii) Exemptions from ban on intentional releases during testing
(iv) Exemption for R&D
(v) Questioning of aviation exemption from ban on intentional
releases during testing
(vi) Owner responsibility regarding emissions due to equipment
disrepair and venting of halon
3. Technician Training
(i) Increased time to institute training requirement
(ii) Clarification of training requirements
(iii) Clarification of persons considered technicians
4. Disposal of Halons and Halon-Containing Equipment
(i) Clarification of meaning of equipment disposal
(ii) Clarification of meaning of halon-containing equipment
(iii) Clarification of meaning of halon disposal
(iv) Clarification of ``recycler'' and compliance with NFPA
guidance
(v) Request for clarification of the term ``fire equipment
dealer''
5. Other Comments
(i) Importations of used halons from Article 5 countries
(ii) Criticism of rule basis
(iii) Coordination of federal policy on aviation halon use
(iv) Support for rulemaking
(v) Certification of halon recycling and recovery equipment
(vi) Long-term halon policy
(vii) Discussion of ``essential use'' concept
(viii) Simulant agents
(ix) Savannah River Halon Repository
(x) Clarification of applicability of rule
(xi) Lack of necessity for several major provisions of the rule
6. References
IV. Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule
V. Administrative Requirements
a. Executive Order 12866
b. Regulatory Flexibility
c. Unfunded Mandates Act
d. Paperwork Reduction Act
e. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
f. Executive Order 12875
g. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action are those that
manufacture halon blends, owners of halon-containing equipment, and
persons who test, repair, or dispose of total flooding systems or hand-
held fire extinguishers or who employ technicians to service such
equipment. Other entities potentially impacted by the prohibition of
the intentional release of halons during technician training and during
testing, repair, and disposal of equipment are U.S. military
institutions. Regulated categories and entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................. Manufacturers of halon
blends; owners of halon-
containing equipment;
persons who test, maintain,
service, repair, or dispose
of halon-containing
equipment, who employ
technicians to perform such
services, or who use such
equipment for technician
training.
Military.................................. Military entities that
dispose of halon-containing
equipment, that employ
technicians who service
halon-containing equipment,
or that release halons
during technician training
or during testing, repair,
or disposal of equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be affected. To
[[Page 11085]]
determine whether your company is regulated by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability criteria discussed below. If you
have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
II. Background
a. Stratospheric Protection
The stratospheric ozone layer protects the Earth from penetration
of harmful ultraviolet (UV-B) radiation. National and international
consensus exists that releases of certain man-made halocarbons,
including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride,
methyl chloroform, and methyl bromide contribute to the depletion of
the stratospheric ozone layer and should be controlled. Ozone depletion
harms human health and the environment through increased incidence of
certain skin cancers and cataracts, suppression of the immune system,
damage to plants including crops and aquatic organisms, increased
formation of ground-level ozone and increased weathering of outdoor
plastics. Ozone-depleting substances have been designated as either
class I or class II substances (see 40 CFR part 82, appendices A and B
to subpart A). Class I substances include chlorofluorocarbons, halons,
carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide and
hydrobromofluorocarbons; class II substances include
hydrochlorofluorocarbons. Halon is commonly used in fire suppression.
Halon blends consisting of halon 1211 and halon 1301 were once widely
manufactured for use in hand-held portable extinguishers and aerosol
containers. However, since January 1, 1994, in accordance with the
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal
Protocol), halon production in, and importation of virgin halon into
the U.S. has been prohibited (40 CFR 82.4(b), 82.7; 58 FR 65018). There
are limited exceptions to this ban for production for export to
countries covered under Article V of the Montreal Protocol (Section
82.9(a)(1)); production/import for essential uses (Section 82.4(r));
and production using destruction/transformation credits under Section
82.9(f) (for persons nominated for essential use exemptions only).
b. Section 608(a) of the Clean Air Act
Section 608 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (``the Act'' or
``CAA'') requires EPA to establish a comprehensive program to limit
emissions of ozone-depleting substances during their use and disposal.
Section 608(a) requires EPA to promulgate regulations
``establishing standards and requirements regarding the use and
disposal'' of both class I and class II substances. The regulations are
to ``reduce the use and emission of such substances to the lowest
achievable level'' and to ``maximize the recapture and recycling of
such substances.''
On May 14, 1993, EPA promulgated regulations under section 608(a)
of the Act, establishing standards and requirements for the use and
disposal of class I and II substances during the servicing, repair and
disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment (58 FR 28660).
Statutory authority for today's proposal is found in section 608(a)(2)
of the Act, which directs EPA to establish standards and requirements
regarding use and disposal of class I and II substances other than
refrigerants. Section 608(a)(2) requires EPA to promulgate additional
regulations that establish standards and requirements regarding the use
and disposal of both class I and class II substances not covered by the
initial set of regulations, i.e., non-refrigerant uses of class I and
class II substances.
The goal of subsection 608(a) is to reduce the use and emission of
ozone-depleting substances to the lowest achievable level and maximize
the recapture and recycling of such substances. Today's requirements
regarding disposal of halon-containing equipment and technician
training, together with the bans on the manufacture of halon blends and
the intentional release of halon during repair, testing, and disposal
of equipment, and during technician training, are designed to meet the
intent of section 608(a) by reducing potential emissions of halon, a
significant ozone depleter.
c. Sierra Club Suit
On March 31, 1995, the Sierra Club filed a complaint against EPA,
claiming that EPA had not met the requirements of section 608(a)(2) of
the Act by taking regulatory steps to minimize use and emissions of
ozone-depleting substances other than refrigerants. This action
resulted in negotiations between EPA and the Sierra Club that led to a
consent decree of which notice was published on September 17, 1996, in
the Federal Register (61 FR 48950). In the consent decree, EPA agreed
to take the following actions with regard to halons: (1) To issue a
proposed rule regarding a ban of the sale of all halon blends and to
take final action on the proposal; (2) to issue a proposed rule or
rules regarding the intentional release of halons during repair and
testing of equipment containing halons; training concerning the use of
such equipment; disposal of halons; and removal or disposal of
equipment containing halons at the end of the life of such equipment;
and to take final action on the proposal; and (3) to issue either a
proposed rule requiring the certification of recycling and recovery
equipment for halons and allowing the removal of halons only through
use of certified equipment or a direct final determination that no such
rule is necessary or appropriate; and to take final action if a
proposal is issued or if adverse comment is received on the direct
final determination. EPA will address the third of these commitments in
a separate action from today's.
d. Halons
Halons are gaseous or easily vaporized halocarbons used primarily
for putting out fires, but also for explosion protection. The two
halons most widely used in the United States are Halon 1211 and Halon
1301. Halon 1211 is used primarily in streaming applications and Halon
1301 is typically used in total flooding applications. Some limited use
of Halon 2402 also exists in the United States, but only as an
extinguishant in engine nacelles (the streamlined enclosure surrounding
the engine) on older aircraft and in the guidance system of Minuteman
missiles. Today's action is not expected to affect the supply of
unblended halons for these important uses.
Halons are used in a wide range of fire protection applications
because they combine four characteristics. First, they are highly
effective against solid, liquid/gaseous, and electrical fires (referred
to as Class A, B, and C fires, respectively). Second, they dissipate
rapidly, leaving no residue, and thereby avoid secondary damage to the
property they are protecting. Third, halons do not conduct electricity
and can be used in areas containing live electrical equipment where
they can penetrate to and around physical objects to extinguish fires
in otherwise inaccessible areas. Finally, halons are generally safe for
limited human exposure when used with proper exposure controls.
Despite these advantages, halons are among the most ozone-depleting
chemicals in use today. With 0.2 ozone-depleting potential (ODP)
representing the threshold for classification as a class I substance,
Halon 1301 has an estimated ODP of 10; Halon 1211 has an estimated ODP
of 3. Thus, while total halon production (measured in metric tons)
comprised just 2 percent of the
[[Page 11086]]
total production of class I substances in 1986, halons represented 23
percent of the total estimated ozone depletion attributable to class I
substances produced during that year.
Prior to the early 1990's, the greatest releases of halon into the
atmosphere occurred not in extinguishing fires, but during testing and
training, service and repair, and accidental discharges. Data generated
as part of the Montreal Protocol's technology assessment indicated that
only 15 percent of annual Halon 1211 emissions and 18 percent of annual
Halon 1301 emissions occur as a result of use to extinguish actual
fires. These figures indicated that significant gains could be made in
protecting the ozone layer by revising testing and training procedures
and by limiting unnecessary discharges through better detection and
dispensing systems for halon and halon alternatives. The fire
protection community began to conserve halon reserves in response to
the impending ban of the production and import of halons 1211, 1301,
and 2402 that occurred January 1, 1994. Through standards, research,
and field practice, the fire protection community eliminated most
discharge testing with halons and minimized use of halon for testing
and training. Additionally, fire equipment distributors began to
service and maintain fire suppression equipment regularly to avoid
leaks, false discharges, and other unnecessary emissions.
e. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On July 7, 1997, EPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
proposing several actions relative to the sale and emission of halon as
mandated by the Sierra Club consent decree (62 FR 36428). First, EPA
proposed to ban the sale of halon blends. The proposed ban did not
affect the sale of unblended halons.
Second, EPA proposed a ban on the intentional release of halons
during repair, testing, and disposal of equipment that contains halon
and during technician training. For safety reasons, EPA proposed to
grant an exemption from this ban for halon release used as part of the
test of fire extinguishing systems in class C and class D compartments
aboard aircraft when such a test is required by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) under its Airworthiness Standards.
Third, EPA proposed to require halon equipment service companies,
halon recyclers, halon equipment manufacturers, and other organizations
that employ technicians who service halon-containing equipment to
provide training regarding halon emission reduction during the
servicing of halon-containing equipment.
Finally, EPA proposed to require owners of equipment containing
halon to dispose of this equipment by returning the halon-containing
equipment to the manufacturer, a fire equipment distributor or halon
recycler for halon recovery. EPA also proposed to require persons
disposing of halon to send it to a halon recycler.
The proposed action was consistent with the provisions in the
consent decree agreed to by EPA and the Sierra Club, which obligate EPA
to take certain actions in regard to the requirements contained in
section 608(a)(2) of the CAA. EPA developed the provisions of the
proposal with input from representatives of the halon industry, fire
protection community, environmental groups and affected trade
associations. Since the halon industry has successfully been making
significant strides towards reducing halon emission through the use of
technician training and efficient halon removal and disposal practices
for halon-containing equipment, EPA believed that the proposal
generally reflected existing industry standards and practices. EPA had
also understood that only one manufacturer of halon blends existed and
that entity claimed it would be willing to end its minimal production
of halon blends. As a result, EPA also believed that the proposal would
not significantly impact members of the fire protection community.
III. Today's Action
a. Summary of Major Public Comments
EPA received a total of 25 written comments on the proposed rule
during the 30-day public comment period. These comments are contained
in Docket A-98-02. EPA also received supplementary materials from some
commenters clarifying or elaborating on issues raised in their
comments. These materials are also contained in Docket A-98-02. Several
commenters requested exemptions from two of the chief provisions of the
proposed rule (the ban on the sale of halon blends, and the ban on
intentional releases of halons during testing). Many commenters
requested important clarifications of terms used in the proposed rule
or clarifications of the intended scope of certain provisions. Numerous
requests for minor clarifications were received. Comments were also
received to the effect that some of the major provisions of the rule
were unnecessary as the practices they required had already been
instituted. In addition, numerous commenters from industries using
halons in fire extinguishing systems, from the halon recycling
industry, and from other parties, expressed support and commendation
for the purpose and intent of the rule.
b. Responses to Public Comments
1. Banning the Manufacture of Halon Blends
The proposed ban on the sale of halon blends was expected to reduce
the use of such blends in accordance with section 608(a)(3) of the Act
by preventing newly manufactured blends from being introduced into the
marketplace.
Halon blends are extremely effective fire suppression agents
primarily used in portable fire extinguishers and also in some total
flooding fire extinguisher systems. Although the market for these
blends is small, the inability to recycle and reuse halon blends
economically represents a significant environmental risk. Recycled
halon is necessary to bridge the gap between the end of halon
production in 1994 and the commercial availability of replacements, and
to provide for critical uses for which satisfactory substitutes or
alternative fire protection measures cannot be found. Prior to the 1994
ban on the production of halons, the Halon Alternatives Research
Corporation (HARC) helped to sponsor a study on issues related to halon
recycling and the establishment of a national recycling program. This
program included the creation of a national halon bank. Currently, this
halon bank brokers transfers of halon between users and may eventually
arrange for storage facilities to accommodate fluctuations in supply
and demand of halon. Halon blends can be recycled adequately, but only
at significant cost. Therefore, halon blends are not commonly recycled
or forwarded to a halon bank for critical uses.
Portable halon fire extinguishers are sold, distributed, installed,
and maintained by fire equipment dealers and distributors; accidental
release and leakage can be reduced through regular maintenance by the
distributor. Fire extinguishers that contain halon blends can be
returned to equipment dealers or recyclers for halon recovery but
generally not for halon recycling. The proposed ban on the sale of
halon blends was designed to prevent the development of a widely
distributed pool of complex halon mixtures which could not readily be
recycled. As stated earlier, such a pool represents a significant
environmental risk because the costs of recycling are very high.
Members of the halon recycling
[[Page 11087]]
industry, contacted during EPA research for the drafting of the
proposed and final rule stated that, while technically feasible, halon
blend recycling capacity does not currently exist as a conventional,
commercially available option for halon product users. EPA has learned
of a single exception where the manufacturer of fire extinguishing
equipment which employs a halon blend extinguishing agent recovers
halon blends both from portable fire extinguishers as well as its own
decommissioned units and purportedly separates the individual halons
solely for reuse in its units. However, the overwhelming majority of
the estimated hundreds to thousands of entities engaged in halon
recycling have not invested in the fractional distillation technology
necessary to separate and reclaim halon blends because the halon blend
market has been deemed so small that recycling halon blends has been
held to be unprofitable. Thus, the ability to recycle halon blends is
generally not commercially available.
It could be argued that if the market value for unblended halons
declines, unblended halons as well may be widely distributed, with
little economic incentive for their recovery and recycling. However, a
critical difference between the halon blend and unblended halon
situations is that with respect to unblended halons, an extensively
developed recovery and recycling infrastructure exists, with a history
of proven effectiveness in coordinating environmentally responsible
halon management. No such community or history has been established
with respect to halon blends.
Furthermore, EPA believes that there is only one other U.S.
manufacturer currently producing halon blends. EPA had contacted this
manufacturer to determine the impact, if any, a ban of the sale of all
halon blends may have on this manufacturer. This manufacturer claimed
that halon blends represent less than 2% of its business and that a ban
on the sale of halon blends would minimally impact this organization's
profitability. Furthermore, this manufacturer stated that because the
fire protection community has made considerable progress in identifying
and using alternatives or unblended halons that use nitrogen as a
propellant, consumer demand for halon blend extinguishers and aerosol
containers has already been significantly reduced. Thus, EPA believes
that a ban on the manufacture of halon blends is necessary to avert the
environmental risk associated with the lack of availability of halon
blend recycling capability, described above, and will generally have
minimal impact on manufacturers, distributors or consumers.
(i) Support for the ban on the new manufacture of halon blends. A
major association of halon users, recyclers, equipment manufacturers,
and distributors expressed support for the intent of the ban on the
sale of halon blends, stating that ``the blending of halons makes them
difficult to separate, removes them from normal recycling channels, and
decreases the supply of recycled halon available to meet critical fire/
explosion protection needs. The responsible management of the existing
halon supply (bank) is critical to achieving a successful transition
from halons to alternative agents''.
(ii) Change from a ban on the sale to a ban on the manufacture of
halon blends. Comments received regarding this prohibition have led EPA
to change the language of the prohibition from a ban on the sale to a
ban on the manufacture of halon blends. EPA believes this change
clarifies the scope of the prohibition, and is more strictly consistent
with the intent of the prohibition, as discussed more fully below.
Two commenters inquired whether the ban on the sale of halon blends
applied to pre-existing stores of halon blends, and requested that this
be clarified in the rule. Pre-existing stores might include halon
blends contained in previously manufactured portable fire
extinguishers.
The intent of the ban, as stated in the previous section, was to
prevent newly manufactured blends from being introduced into the
marketplace, and was not intended to affect pre-existing stocks of
blends. EPA concurs with the need, indicated by the above comments, to
clarify the scope of the ban, and believes that modifying the ban to
apply to the new manufacture of halon blends clarifies that the ban
does not prohibit transactions involving existing stores of blends.
This modification does not diminish the environmental benefit of the
ban, as releases of existing halon blends would have equal
environmental impacts, regardless of the ownership of the blends.
(iii) Clarification of terms ``Halon,'' ``Halon product,'' and
``Halon blend.'' Several commenters requested that the terms ``halon,''
``halon product,'' and ``halon blend'' be clarified. A chief complaint
was that although in the Preamble, it was stated that the term
``halon'' referred only to the three common Halons (Halon 1211, 1301,
and 2402), this was nowhere made explicit in the rule; as a result,
``halon'' could be taken to mean any halogenated hydrocarbon.
Furthermore, it was pointed out that although ``halon blend'' was
defined in the Preamble as a blend of two or more ``halon products,''
the latter term was also not explicitly defined in the rule itself.
With respect to the first point, EPA recognizes that the term
``halon'' can have a much broader scope.1 Today's rule,
however, is issued under the authority of Section 608 of the CAA, which
concerns Class I and Class II substances. Halons 1211, 1301, and 2402
and their isomers are the only halons listed as ODSs in the CAA or in
EPA's implementing regulations (see CAA section 602(a) and 40 CFR Part
82, Subpart A, App. A). Therefore, this rule applies only to Halons
1211, 1301, and 2402. The term ``halon product'' refers to any mixture
or combination of substances which contains only one halon; e.g., the
common fire extinguishing mixture of Halon 1301 plus dinitrogen
(N2) gas. Definitions of the terms ``halon'', ``halon
product'', and ``halon blend'' have been added to the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Halon'' is an abbreviation for ``halogenated hydrocarbon''
coined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Halon nomenclature
follows the following rule: if a hydrocarbon compound contains the
elements
CaFbClcBrdIe,
it is designated as Halon abcde (terminal zeros are dropped). Thus,
Halon 1211 is chlorobromodifluoromethane, etc. (Gann, 1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) Exemptions from ban on manufacture of halon blends. Two
commenters requested an exemption from the ban on the sale (now the ban
on manufacture) of halon blends for a specific product--a patented fire
extinguishing agent containing, among other substances, both Halon 1211
and Halon 1301. One of these commenters is the sole licensee of the
product, the other is the sole distributor. The principal basis for
their request for an exemption revolves around two points. The
companies propose that their product is more ``environmentally
friendly'' relative to other halon-containing fire extinguishing
products; for example, they assert that the fire extinguishing capacity
of their halon product is equivalent to approximately four times as
much of other commercially available, unblended halon products used in
comparable fire extinguishing equipment. As a result, they assert, (a)
smaller quantities of halons are employed in fire extinguishing, thus
releasing less halon to the atmosphere, and (b) their fire
extinguishing systems are relatively lightweight, making them highly
attractive to the aviation industry. Second, the companies assert that
their
[[Page 11088]]
fire extinguishing agent can be adequately recycled.
In evaluating this request for exemption, EPA held discussions with
the companies requesting the exemption; with the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), as well as members of the aviation industry; with
technical experts listed as references by the companies requesting the
exemption; and with other halon recycling industry and government
technical experts.
Because the industry as a whole is not ready to accommodate halon
blend recycling, as discussed in detail in a previous section, EPA
cannot abandon the proposed ban on the manufacture of halon blends.
However, in consideration of the possible safety, health, and
environmental advantages that this product may bring to the aviation
community, as suggested in supporting material provided by the
commenters to EPA, and as expressed to EPA by members, including
federal authorities, within the aviation community; and in
consideration of evidence received by EPA suggesting the manufacturer's
technical ability to adequately recycle this specific product, EPA is
creating an exemption to the ban on the manufacture of halon blends
solely for aviation applications provided that (1) the manufacturer or
its designee is capable of recycling the blend to the relevant industry
standards for the chemical purity of each individual halon, (2) the
manufacturer includes in all sales contracts for blends produced by it
on or after April 6, 1998 the provision that the blend must be returned
to it or its designee for recycling, and (3) the manufacturer or its
designee in fact recycles blends produced by the manufacturer on or
after April 6, 1998 and returned to it for recycling to the relevant
industry standards for the chemical purity of each individual halon.
Section 82.270(a) has been modified to reflect this exemption.
2. Intentional Release of Halons
EPA proposed banning the intentional release of halons (including
halon blends) during technician training and during testing, repair and
disposal of halon-containing equipment, and requiring technician
training regarding halon emission reduction. Historically, the greatest
release of halon into the atmosphere used to occur during testing and
training, service and repair, and accidental discharges. However,
emissions from Halon 1211 and Halon 1301 applications have decreased
substantially over the last five years due to a change in industry
practices concerning the release of halon as outlined in the National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Technical Standards (NFPA 12A) and
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 1058. These standards require proper
leak testing and prohibit the release of halon during system testing.
(i) Clarification of meaning of ``intentional releases''. One
commenter stated that the ban on releases during testing, maintaining,
servicing, repairing, or disposing of halon-containing equipment, or
during the use of such equipment for technician training, could be
taken to mean that releases for the purposes of extinguishing fires and
inerting and suppressing explosions are also prohibited.
EPA recognizes that halons are still used in many fire
extinguishing and explosion inerting/suppressing applications; halons'
value in these applications supports the current active market for
recycled halons. It is not EPA's intent to affect halon usage for these
purposes. Section 82.270(b)(6) has been added to make this
clarification.
(ii) Clarification of meaning of ``de minimis releases''. One major
federal agency commenter requested clarification of the ``de minimis''
provision in section 82.270(b) of the proposed rule. As proposed, a de
minimis release (i.e., a very small or trifling release) associated
with a good faith attempt to recycle or recover halon is exempt from
the prohibition on intentional halon releases during testing,
maintenance, servicing, repair, or disposal of halon-containing
equipment and during technician training.
There are several types of halon-containing equipment: (1) total
flooding fire extinguishing systems, and (2) other types of halon-
containing equipment, including halon-containing gas cylinders and
portable fire extinguishers. Total flooding systems are generally
designed to fully discharge their contents upon being activated. These
systems are therefore either full or empty (unless their content is
altered due to a leak). After discharge of a total flooding system, the
content of the halon container is generally reduced to atmospheric
pressure, and a negligibly small amount of halon vapor, compared to the
initial mass, remains. A fully discharged total flooding system
therefore can reasonably be considered to be empty, and release of the
residual halon vapor contained within can be considered a de minimis
release. Section 82.270(b)(2) has been added to establish this type of
de minimis release.
Other types of halon-containing equipment, however, such as
portable fire extinguishers and compressed gas cylinders can be
partially discharged. A determination of a de minimis release for these
other types of equipment must be made on a case-by-case basis. At the
present time, however, industry standard recycling equipment generally
meets or exceeds a minimum recovery efficiency of 98%. Therefore a
release from halon-containing equipment which contains less than 2% of
its original installed charge could be currently considered a de
minimis release of halon.
(iii) Exemptions from ban on intentional releases during testing.
EPA initially proposed granting an exemption from the intentional
release ban for halon used to test fire suppression systems in class C
and class D compartments aboard airplanes. That exemption was based on
FAA requirements relating to aircraft safety. Current Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Airworthiness Standards for transport category
airplanes include a number of classifications for cargo or baggage
compartments. Class C cargo or baggage compartments must contain
approved built-in fire-extinguishing systems (14 CFR 25.857(c)(2)). The
compartments must be designed so that hazardous quantities of
extinguishing agent (as well as smoke or flames) can be excluded from
areas occupied by the crew or passengers (14 CFR 25.857(c)(3)). In
addition, ventilation and drafts must not interfere with the ability of
the fire extinguishing agent to control any fire that starts within the
compartment (14 CFR 25.857(c)(4)). Flight tests of the fire-
extinguishing systems must be conducted to show compliance with these
requirements (14 CFR 25.855(h)(2),(3)). These systems typically contain
halons as the fire-extinguishing agent. Thus, a ban on intentional
release of halons during testing would conflict with these vital safety
requirements if no exemption were permitted.
Class D compartments are defined in part as aircraft cargo or
baggage compartments not exceeding 1,000 cubic feet that use
restriction of available oxygen, as opposed to a fire-extinguishing
agent, to control fires (14 CFR 25.857(d)). In light of recent
tragedies involving fires that originated in the cargo or baggage
compartments of aircraft, EPA believes that class D compartments, in
addition to class C compartments, should be exempted from the ban on
intentional release of halon during testing of halon-containing
systems. As alternative fire suppression
[[Page 11089]]
systems for class D compartments are explored to improve aircraft
safety, FAA is considering halon systems as an interim viable option.
EPA believes that fires aboard aircraft pose such a great risk to
human safety that an exemption from the ban on the intentional release
of halons in accordance with FAA's Airworthiness Standards is necessary
and appropriate.
Several commenters brought forward additional examples of
intentional releases of halons which, they believe, also merit
exemption from the proposed ban on intentional releases during testing.
For example, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) cited the need
to release halons during testing of not only class C and D cargo
compartment fire extinguishing systems, but also systems in compartment
classes yet to be defined, as well as systems protecting engine and
auxiliary power units. It was argued that Halon 1301 is currently the
best available agent in these areas, that system performance can be
ensured only through testing by release of agent, and that simulant
agents for use in testing purposes are not yet operationally available.
Similarly, the Department of Defense (DoD) stated that DoD aircraft,
which are not subject to FAA Airworthiness Standards and thus would not
be exempt from the intentional release ban if the rule were to be
promulgated as proposed, likewise require an exemption for the reasons
presented above. Moreover, DoD brought forth the case of fire and
explosion protection systems on new military weapon systems and major
modifications to existing systems which are required by law (Title 10
U.S.C. Sec. 2366) to undergo live fire lethality testing and
evaluation. Live fire lethality testing involves subjecting military
equipment to live fire conditions and subsequent possible release of
fire extinguishing agent in order to extinguish fires, should they
occur. Suitable simulants and alternate agents are not currently
available for these applications. Furthermore, the Department of Energy
(DOE) raised the issue of potential necessary releases of halons for
fire and explosion protection systems testing purposes at unique sites
critical to national security such as the National Ignition Facility
and hazardous waste management sites associated with DOE's Radiological
Waste Remediation effort. No acceptable alternative agents are
available, from a human safety and environmental perspective, and halon
releases during testing of these systems may be required. These cases
present examples in which, systems using alternative fire extinguishing
agents are currently unavailable; release of agent is currently
necessary during system testing; failure of the system would pose great
risk to human safety or the environment; and there are no suitable
simulant agents available to be used as testing substitutes at this
time.
Based on these examples, EPA recognizes that when certain
conditions exist, intentional releases of halon during testing will be
necessary to verify system performance, which is essential to prevent
loss of life and environmental damage. Therefore, today's action
exempts from the ban on intentional releases halon applications meeting
the following four criteria: (1) Systems or equipment employing
suitable alternative fire extinguishing agents are not available, (2)
system or equipment testing requiring release of extinguishing agent is
essential to demonstrate the functionality of the system, (3) failure
of the system or equipment would pose great risk to human safety or the
environment, and (4) a simulant agent cannot be used in place of the
halon during system or equipment testing for technical reasons. Should
conditions change such that an application currently meeting these
criteria no longer met these criteria, then that application would no
longer be exempt from the ban on intentional releases of halons during
testing. It should also be noted that many applications will not be
covered under this exemption. For example, numerous industry fire
suppression systems for electronics rooms and computer rooms no longer
require field/install testing. Testing has been adequately performed
through computer simulation, with supplemental in-lab halon system
testing to verify computer simulations.
(iv) Exemption for R&D. A number of commenters argued for the need
to exempt halon released during testing for research and development
(R&D) efforts. Several types of R&D-related halon release were
identified. Some halon is released in research to identify and test
substances under development as alternatives to halons. Such releases
from halon-containing equipment are necessary to establish performance
benchmarks for halon alternatives. In addition, releases of small
quantities of halon from halon-containing equipment such as storage
cylinders is routinely performed by halon recyclers in order to obtain
samples which will be chemically analyzed to establish the identity and
degree of contamination of the equipment contents. This testing is an
essential step in the responsible management of halon stocks.
EPA recognizes that the use of small quantities of halon to test
sample purity and to conduct research and development on halon
alternatives are indispensable to maintaining the quality of existing
supplies as well as for finding alternatives with comparable
performance characteristics. Therefore, EPA concurs in today's action
that there is a legitimate need to exempt from the ban on intentional
releases during testing the above-mentioned R&D releases, and
Secs. 82.270(b)(4) has been added to respond to this need.
In addition, an industry commenter engaged in developing fire
extinguishing systems for aviation and defense applications noted that
qualification and development testing involving release of halons is
necessary during the fire extinguishing systems product development
process, and requested an exemption from the ban on the intentional
release of halons during testing for this purpose.
EPA recognizes that in the design and development stages of fire
and explosion suppression and inertion equipment and systems, releases
of agent may be necessary to determine, for example, whether critical
design criteria are met. However, EPA is aware that it may be possible
in many cases to employ a halon simulant agent (discussed in Preamble
Sec. 5(viii)) for such testing purposes. Moreover, EPA is aware that in
some testing situations, release of agent may not be necessary to
demonstrate system or equipment functionality. Therefore, because
product design and development may legitimately require releases of
agent during product qualification and development testing, as the
commenter attests, but because such releases may in many other cases be
avoidable as described above, EPA is providing an exemption from the
ban on intentional releases of halons during testing for the design and
development of fire and explosion protection and inertion systems and
equipment only when (a) system or equipment testing requiring release
of agent is essential to demonstrate system or equipment functionality,
and (b) when a suitable simulant agent cannot be used in place of the
halon. Section 82.270(b)(5) has been added to reflect this exemption.
(v) Questioning of aviation exemption from ban on intentional
releases during testing. A major fire protection industry association
questioned the consequences of an exemption from the ban on intentional
releases for FAA Airworthiness Standards testing. The commenter
suggested that the exemption would be tantamount to ``proposing a new
application for [Halon 1301] which would require extensive testing
(i.e., release of halon into the atmosphere * * *) [and] seems ill-
[[Page 11090]]
advised.'' It must be noted that this rule does not introduce any new
halon applications. The rule bans intentional releases during testing
of existing and potential halon applications, but provides limited
exceptions to this ban, as described elsewhere in this Preamble. These
exceptions do not introduce new sources of halon releases to the
atmosphere; rather, the ban reduces many sources of releases, while it
provides for a narrowly-defined set of excepted releases.
(vi) Owner responsibility regarding emissions due to equipment
disrepair and venting of halon. A commenter suggested that EPA provide
an explicit statement regarding the responsibility of owners of halon-
containing equipment to the effect that halon emissions caused by
faulty (e.g., leaking or malfunctioning) halon-containing equipment are
banned by this rule. For safety reasons, the fire protection community
already observes standards and practices to ensure the maintenance of
fire protection systems in properly functioning conditions. It might
therefore be argued that current practices within the fire protection
community, in theory, would prevent halon emissions due to equipment
allowed to fall into a state of disrepair. EPA, however, concurs with
the need to codify this aspect of owner responsibility, and has added
Sec. 82.270(f) to address this issue explicitly.
A second issue regarding equipment owner responsibility was raised
in material submitted by another commenter. It was suggested that if
reclamation of halon blends is not economically advantageous, then
halon losses via ``midnight venting'' by equipment owners and recyclers
who have been storing such blends will be encouraged. EPA recognizes
that certain circumstances might encourage ``midnight venting'', as the
commenter suggests; further recognizes that, currently, there are no
prohibitions to such losses; and also notes that the same arguments may
be made for unblended halons as well. Therefore, to discourage the
disposal of halon by venting, the definition of ``halon disposal'' has
been slightly broadened in today's final rule to ensure that it covers
the loss of halon via venting. That is, the definition has been changed
from ``the discarding of halon recovered from halon-containing
equipment'' to ``the process leading to and including the discarding of
halon from halon-containing equipment''.
3. Technician Training
In an effort to reduce unnecessary emissions, distributors and
service companies sponsor technician training programs that are
primarily administered by representatives of equipment manufacturers.
Additionally, distributors and service companies augment this training
through the use of videos and in-house training about the reduction of
emissions through the use of standards and codes. These standards and
codes are developed by organizations such as the NFPA and UL, which
provide minimum requirements for the design, selection, installation,
inspection, and maintenance of halon-containing equipment. This
additional training may also include information regarding applicable
state and local codes and standards. EPA believes that the fire
protection community has responded responsibly to the following
tangible incentives to reduce emissions and provide adequate training.
First, the value of halon has increased dramatically as it has become
less available since the ban on halon production in 1994. Second, in an
effort to be responsive to environmental concerns, the fire protection
community has developed self-imposed service standards and practices to
reduce emissions and increase recycling. Because these positive
incentives directly impact industry profitability, EPA believes that
more stringent requirements for minimizing halon emissions or for
technician training are not necessary and would produce very little
environmental benefit. Today's final rule therefore is based on the
practices the industry has already voluntarily developed and
implemented.
Several commenters urged that the scope and documentation
requirements associated with the technician training provisions be
clarified, and that the proposed time frame (30 days) for
implementation of the training requirement be extended. Specific
suggestions were (a) to allow 180 days, not 30, following promulgation
date, for all technicians to be trained, (b) to allow 90 days for the
training of new technicians, (c) to refer to published industry
standard service practices to provide guidance regarding the nature of
the training expected by EPA under this rule, (d) to state explicitly
that a record of training is required in order to facilitate the
enforceability of this rule.
(i) Increased time to institute training requirement. EPA
recognizes that a training program requires time to develop training
materials and to offer training to all required personnel. EPA concurs
that a period of 180 days instead of 30 days is needed to be able to
provide training for all relevant current employees, and further
concurs with the need to specify the timing of the training requirement
for new personnel (personnel hired after the promulgation date of this
rule). However, once training programs are established, given the
limited complexity of the envisioned training, it should be possible,
and is important to the objective of the rule, to train technicians who
test, maintain, service, repair, or dispose of halon-containing
equipment, within 30 days.
(ii) Clarification of training requirements. EPA agrees with the
usefulness of looking to industry's extensive experience and investment
in responsible halon management, and published industry standards, for
guidance as to training material. Accordingly, EPA inquired within the
halon recycling industry and with other technical experts regarding
suitable guidance documents. During these discussions, the following
list of documents was developed, and is provided below as a suggested
list of suitable materials that may be helpful in developing training
regarding halon emission reduction. These documents describe practices
for handling, testing, servicing, maintaining, and transporting fire
extinguishing systems. These manuals reflect and emphasize the
importance of halon emissions minimization.
Regarding the commenter who urged that EPA explicitly require
training documentation, EPA believes that most facilities instituting
training will maintain training records for their own record-keeping
purposes. Therefore, EPA believes that no such requirement is
necessary.
Another commenter requested that technicians who will have been
trained prior to the promulgation date of the rule should be considered
as having satisfied the training requirement. As written, the final
rule requires that organizations will take appropriate steps to ensure
that technicians hired on or before 30 days following the publication
date of this rule shall be trained regarding emissions reductions by
180 days from the rule publication date. EPA believes that the final
rule language addresses the commenter's suggestion since training
regarding emissions reduction received prior to the promulgation date
of the rule would satisfy the requirement to occur by 180 days from the
rule publication date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry standards
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 10. Standard for Portable
Fire Extinguishers.
NFPA 12A. Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Systems.
[[Page 11091]]
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)-7201-1. Fire
protection--Fire extinguishing media--Halogenated hydrocarbons--Part 1:
Specifications for halon 1211 and halon 1301.
ISO-7201-2. Fire extinguishing media--Halogenated hydrocarbons--Part 2:
Code of practice for safe handling and transfer procedures of halon
1211 and halon 1301.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D5632-94a. Standard
Specification for Halon 1301, Bromotrifluoromethane (CF3Br).
ASTM D5631-94. Standard Practice for Handling Transportation and Storage
of Halon 1301 Bromotrifluoromethane (CF3Br).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Clarification of persons considered technicians. A commenter
requested that the last sentence of the definition of technician in
Sec. 82.260 (``Technician includes but is not limited to installers,
contractor employees, in-house service personnel, and in some cases,
owners'') be deleted, as it might imply that training for these
individuals is required as for other technicians. However, it is indeed
EPA's intent to require training for these individuals, and all others
who perform tasks on halon-containing equipment that might reasonably
be expected to release halons from the equipment into the atmosphere.
The individuals identified in the sentence to which the commenter
refers are simply illustrative examples of the term ``technician''
defined in the two sentences preceding the referenced sentence.
4. Disposal of Halons and Halon-Containing Equipment
The proposed rule required owners of equipment containing halon
(including a halon blend) to dispose of the equipment by sending the
equipment for halon recovery to a fire equipment distributor, a
manufacturer, or a halon recycler operating in accordance with NFPA 10
and 12 A standards. The proposal also required halon (including a halon
blend) to be disposed of by sending it to a halon recycler for
recycling.
Due to industry outreach efforts, owners of halon-containing
equipment and those disposing of halon are already aware of the
importance of halon recycling and banking. Industry trade organizations
have already been encouraging owners of halon-containing equipment and
those disposing of halon to contact manufacturers, halon fire equipment
distributors or halon recyclers to ensure that halon is safely removed
and recovered for future use. Therefore, today's final action is
consistent with current industry practices and would not create an
additional burden for equipment owners. Most halon systems and
extinguishers in use today are purchased, installed, and serviced by
fire equipment distributors. Because of the efficiency of these
established distribution channels, industry representatives indicate
that the simplest way to assure proper recycling of halon is simply to
require equipment owners to return halon-containing equipment to
distributors. In many cases owners may receive a payment for the halon
contained in the equipment because of the current market value of
halon. The market value of halon has provided an incentive to industry
to consistently recover and recycle halons. These regulations will
ensure proper handling at such point that halon supply exceeds the
demand.
(i) Clarification of meaning of equipment disposal. EPA's objective
in Section 82.270(d) is to ensure that any halons currently deployed in
equipment or storage are, at the end of the equipment's useful life,
properly recovered and made available for recycling (or safely stored
for eventual destruction, e.g. when economic incentive no longer exists
to use recycled halons), and not simply released to the atmosphere.
However, EPA received numerous comments regarding these disposal
requirements indicating that the proposed scope of the requirements was
unclear. Several commenters stated that Sec. 82.270(d) could be
interpreted to require the disposal of the equipment itself, together
with the halon it contains. Other commenters stated that Sec. 82.270(d)
could be taken as a complete recall of all currently deployed halon-
containing equipment within 30 days following promulgation of the rule
and not, as stated in the Preamble to the proposed rule, only ``at the
end of [the] useful life'' of such equipment. Two fire protection
industry commenters further suggested that the ``useful life'' concept
itself involves a number of factors (e.g., manufacturer's warranty,
extinguisher usage, the number of times the extinguisher has been
recharged, repair parts used, and cylinder condition) and requires more
precise definition.
With respect to the first comment, EPA in the rule as proposed
provided for both the situations in which (a) halon-containing
equipment, together with the halon it contains, is to be disposed, and
(b) only the halon that has been contained in equipment, but not the
equipment itself, is to be disposed. Therefore, the disposal
requirement as proposed clearly does not unconditionally require the
disposal of the halon-containing equipment itself.
The second and third comments raise a question of precisely when
(e.g., within 30 days; at the end of the equipment's useful life)
equipment disposal is required by the rule. It is not the intent of the
rule, however, to establish requirements regarding the point at which
the disposal of halon-containing equipment occurs. Rather, EPA's intent
is to establish requirements regarding the proper recovery of halon
from halon-containing equipment at such time as the equipment disposal
would normally occur. To clarify this intent, the regulatory language
has been changed from ``Effective 30 days following promulgation,
owners of halon-containing equipment shall dispose of that equipment by
forwarding it for halon recovery * * *'' to ``Effective 30 days
(following publication), no person shall dispose of halon-containing
equipment except by sending it for halon recovery * * *''.
One additional commenter noted that the definition of ``disposal of
halon-containing equipment'' did not appear to include the sale, for
reuse in its entirety, of halon-containing equipment, and thus the rule
does not restrict sales, for reuse in its entirety, of halon-containing
equipment. The commenter's observation is consistent with the intended
meaning of the rule. The definition of ``disposal of halon-containing
equipment'' does not in fact include the sale, for reuse in its
entirety, of such equipment.
Finally, one commenter urged that EPA clarify that empty equipment
which formerly contained halon, but which has been fully discharged, is
not affected by the requirement that no person shall dispose of halon-
containing equipment except by sending it for halon recovery to
appropriate facilities. EPA concurs with the comment that little or no
environmental benefit would be gained from requiring halon recovery
from empty equipment or equipment containing only de minimis quantities
of halon. As described in Preamble Sec. 2(ii), EPA has clarified the
meaning of de minimis quantities of halon. EPA in today's final action
has exempted equipment containing de minimis quantities of halon from
the equipment disposal provision and has specified that that provision
does not apply to fully discharged total flooding systems. These
changes are reflected in Sec. 82.270(d) of the regulatory text.
(ii) Clarification of meaning of halon-containing equipment. EPA
received several comments indicating that the term, ``halon-containing
equipment'' requires more detailed definition in the
[[Page 11092]]
regulatory text. One commenter stated that it is necessary to define
the precise equipment covered under this provision, suggesting the
language, ``cylinders or containers and materials or parts thereof,
which are necessary for servicing the safe and secure containment of
the halon within the cylinder or container''. The commenter, a member
of the fire protection system industry, further explained that
equipment manufacturers, fire suppression system distributors and halon
recycling services do not typically dispose of the entire system
associated with halon containment (such as electrical detection control
components), but deal more strictly with the proper handling and
disposal of parts and materials associated with safe and secure halon
containment. Other commenters proposed language for defining ``halon-
containing equipment'' in Sec. 82.260, which defines terms used in the
rule.
In the context of the halon-containing equipment disposal
provision, EPA believes that the term ``halon-containing equipment''
both implicitly has the intended meaning suggested in the commenter's
language and also implicitly excludes fire protection or suppression
system components which are ancillary to halon containment. Had the
intent been to include such ancillary system components, a term such as
``entire system associated with halon-containing equipment,'' or ``fire
protection system utilizing halon'', would have been used.
However, in order to ensure the clarity of the intended scope of
the halon-containing equipment disposal provision, and the meaning of
halon-containing equipment throughout the rule, a general definition of
halon-containing equipment (``equipment used to store, transfer, and/or
disperse halon'') has been added to the definitions section of the
final rule. This definition does not include small scale laboratory
equipment used solely for scientific research; an example of such
research equipment is a gas chromatograph which might contain, in
tubing or piping, residual quantities of samples of halon gases
injected for analysis. Furthermore, the following clarification has
been added to Sec. 82.270(d): ``This provision does not apply to
ancillary system devices such as electrical detection control
components that are not necessary to the safe and secure containment of
the halon within the equipment.''
(iii) Clarification of meaning of halon disposal. One commenter
stated that the term ``halon disposal'' could be interpreted to mean
``halon destruction.'' Halon destruction in the current context means a
process that destroys halon's ozone-depleting properties. The term
``halon disposal'' is explicitly defined as the process leading to and
including discarding of halon from halon-containing equipment. In the
rule as proposed, in contrast with the commenter's interpretation,
recycling is presented as the only available halon disposal option, and
halon destruction is not presented as a disposal option. However, in
reality, halon destruction by one of the destruction technologies
approved by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol is a disposal option
which EPA does not wish to preclude. As discussed later in this
Preamble (Sec. 5(vi)), another commenter urged that the safe
destruction of halon be part of a long-term management plan for U.S.
halon supplies. Therefore, Sec. 82.270(e) has been changed to include
this disposal option. The destruction technologies currently approved
by the Parties to the Protocol are liquid injection incineration;
reactor cracking; gaseous /fume oxidation; rotary kiln incineration;
cement kiln; and radiofrequency plasma destruction. In the future, the
Parties may approve of other destruction technologies; thus there is
the possibility that such other technologies would, if approved by EPA,
present other destruction options.
(iv) Clarification of ``recycler'' and compliance with NFPA
guidance. Several commenters raised questions regarding the extent to
which halon recycling facilities, including in-house recycling
facilities, must demonstrate compliance with the NFPA industry
standards referenced in the regulatory text. A major industry commenter
requested clarification of the extent to which halon equipment owners
are obligated to verify compliance of their recyclers' procedures with
the NFPA industry standards prescribed in the rule. The commenter
further asserted that imposition of obligation on the equipment owner,
beyond requiring a contractual assertion from the disposer that they do
in fact operate in compliance with the prescribed industry standards,
would be inappropriate. A second commenter sought confirmation that the
term ``recycler'' could encompass in-house recycling facilities
operating in accordance with the cited NFPA standards.
The industry association responsible for developing the standards
cited in the rule has no power or authority to police or enforce
compliance with its published standards, and states that ``any
certification of products stating compliance with requirements of this
document is made at the peril of the certifier.'' While EPA seeks to
ensure compliance with industry recycling standards, EPA concurs that a
contractual agreement between the equipment owner and the recycler that
the recycling is performed in compliance with the prescribed standards
will achieve the desired objective.
Regarding the second comment, EPA concurs that the term
``recycler'' encompasses in-house facilities which perform halon
recycling in accordance with NFPA 10 and 12A standards. That is, in
Sec. 82.270(d), the expression ``no person shall dispose of halon-
containing equipment except by sending it for halon recovery * * *''
and in Sec. 82.270(e), the expression ``no person shall dispose of
halon except by sending it for recycling* * *'' are not meant to
preclude halon recovery or recycling by in-house facilities which
perform these functions in accordance with NFPA 10 and 12A standards.
(v) Request for clarification of the term ``fire equipment
dealer''. Two fire protection industry associations requested that the
term, ``fire equipment dealer'', be defined as a ``qualified, properly
trained person or organization engaged in the business of servicing and
disposing of halon-containing equipment.'' Because it has been
specified that the fire equipment dealers referenced in the rule must
be ones who operate in accordance with the NFPA standards relevant to
halon-containing equipment, the additional definition is deemed
unnecessary.
5. Other Comments
(i) Importations of used halons from Article 5 countries. A major
halon industry commenter proposed that all imports of used halons from
countries operating under Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol be
prohibited. The commenter cited a recent solicitation from an Article 5
country to regularly supply massive quantities, far in excess of the
current aggregate U.S. demand, of Halon 1301 to the United States. The
commenter identified possible adverse economic and environmental
consequences such an influx might have, discussing its impact on
management of U.S. halon stocks and on the world requirement for new
halon production.
EPA recognizes the substantial influence that market conditions
have exerted upon ODS handling in this country and elsewhere, and is
accordingly concerned with the appropriate management of halon stocks
and flows. However, the authority under which today's rule is developed
does
[[Page 11093]]
not extend to issues of ODS importation, but rather directs the Agency
to establish requirements regarding the use and disposal of ODSs with
the goal of reducing their use and emissions, and maximizing their
recapture and recycling; the Agency has taken the commenter's issue
under advisement under a different authority (Sections 604 and 606 of
the CAA).
(ii) Criticism of rule basis. A former manufacturer of fire
extinguishers employing an extinguishing agent containing a blend of
Halons 1211 and 1301 questioned whether the proposed ban on the sale of
halon blends would promote or hinder the goal of reducing halon
emissions. He suggested that the proposed ban would not reduce halon
emissions because: (1) Halon blends are not manufactured any more in
the United States, (2) a ban could result in encouraging midnight
venting (presumably because the value and market for blends would
vanish following such a ban), (3) blends technically can be recycled,
despite the fact that it is currently impracticable to do so, and (4)
most halon emissions arise during the recharging of fire extinguisher
units with Halon 1211, and not from use and handling associated with
equipment containing halon blends.
The points made by the commenter have some merit; however, EPA
believes that the arguments above do not weaken the basis for this
regulatory action for the following reasons. First, halon blends are
currently manufactured within the United States at very low levels.
However, it is not possible to forecast with certainty that the
manufacture of blends will vanish in the future. EPA's concern with
continued, even low-level, production of halon blends is the potential
accumulation of a distributed pool of halon blends for which
insufficient incentive exists to recover. Because of the low market
volume of the blends, recycling infrastructure is not currently
equipped to economically recycle blended products. Therefore, in recent
years, because of the increased value of halons, use of halon blends
has diminished further. The possibility of midnight venting exists with
or without a formal ban, if current market trends for the product
continue. EPA, in this rulemaking, has specifically included provisions
governing the proper disposal of all halon products, thus providing a
regulatory incentive not to vent. Finally, the fact that most halon
emissions arise during testing and training, service and repair, and
accidental discharges does not preclude the necessity to avoid other
possible releases such as from the existence of a pool of non-
recyclable halon blends. It should also be noted that EPA has included
in this rulemaking provisions governing the release of halons during
servicing of halon-containing equipment.
(iii) Coordination of Federal policy on aviation halon use. A
national fire protection association, while recognizing the need to
exempt aviation halon applications from the ban on releases for
testing, criticized the current collective federal policy on halon use
as being ``far too disjointed and piecemeal * * * with far too little
emphasis on the prompt identification and certification of effective
alternative suppression agents.'' This association urged coordinated
and timely federal policy making on halon alternatives for aviation to
assure public safety in the face of a possible requirement among the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol to destroy halons. The commenter
suggested that the aviation exemption contained in this rule be handled
as part of a more comprehensive policy moving toward prompt replacement
of halons used in aviation.
EPA concurs with the idea that a coordinated Federal effort to
promote halon alternatives is the optimal approach toward this goal.
Section 613 of the CAA directs all federal agencies to promulgate
regulations conforming their procurement regulations to the provisions
of Title VI (Stratospheric Protection) of the CAA and to maximize the
substitution of safe alternatives to class I (encompassing halons) and
class II substances. Federal agencies have in response devoted
considerable resources to developing relevant regulations and guidance.
EPA and FAA further recognize the specific importance of
coordinated federal, as well as industry, effort in halon replacement
in aviation (see, for example, the section, ``Halon Considerations,''
in the FAA NPRM at 62 FR 32412, 32417, June 13, 1997. EPA support for
FAA's continued use of halons in aviation is conditional on the
aviation industry efforts to develop halon alternatives, and on FAA's
accelerated efforts to develop criteria for certification of
alternatives. FAA has participated in an extensive program to develop
criteria on which to evaluate possible alternatives. Thus, EPA believes
that the goal of coordinated federal effort is being pursued, and that
today's aviation-related exemptions from the ban on intentional halon
releases during testing will not set this effort back.
(iv) Support for rulemaking. Many commenters expressed support for
the intent and motivation of the rule--to minimize halon emissions and
thereby reduce damage to the Earth's stratospheric ozone layer.
(v) Certification of halon recycling and recovery equipment. Based
upon its experience with a program to promote the recovery of halons in
businesses, schools, and communities throughout the U.S. mid-Atlantic
area, an environmental group observed a need to require certification
of recycling and recovery equipment used in halon recovery. EPA also
recognizes the merit in considering a certification requirement as a
potentially important element of halon regulation, and is revising a
study on the merits of such a requirement. EPA will address this issue
in a separate action.
(vi) Long-term halon policy. An environmental group urged the EPA,
in cooperation with the DoD halon bank, industry, environmental groups,
and the fire protection community, to develop a long-term management
plan for U.S. halon supplies. Such a plan, they commented, should
enable halon use in essential applications, or the safe destruction of
halon, while preventing further ozone depletion.
EPA concurs with the need to consider long-term halon supply
situations, and to develop plans, in conjunction with industry,
environmental groups, the fire protection industry, and federal
agencies, such that the complete halon life cycle is properly managed.
This need has to a large extent been met through the successful
development and management of a domestic halon banking system, overseen
by the Halon Recovery Corporation (HRC), in addition to a military bank
operated by the Defense Logistics Agency. Furthermore, EPA routinely
participates in meetings with various stakeholders, formal and informal
research and information exchange among all parties, monitoring of key
research and development regarding halon destruction technologies, and
assistance, when appropriate, in research relating to federal
rulemaking.
In recent years the regulation of halons and other ODSs has led to
economic incentives to conserve halon supplies and has driven the
community of halon users to minimize losses of this commodity.
Nevertheless, since the future dynamics of the halon market cannot be
known with certainty, today's rulemaking is a necessary strengthening
and codification of these environmentally friendly practices that have
become standard practice within the U.S. fire protection community.
[[Page 11094]]
(vii) Discussion of ``essential use'' concept. Two commenters, in
discussing the need for a broader set of exemptions from the ban on
intentional release during testing, specifically suggested applying the
``critical use'' [sic] criteria, contained in Decision IV/25 of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol (``Parties''), as EPA's basis for
granting exemptions to the intentional release ban.
Article 2 of the Protocol states that Parties may create exemptions
to the phaseout of an ODS for uses agreed by them to be ``essential.''
Decision IV/25 contains the criteria to be applied in making
``essential use'' determinations. The only uses deemed essential under
the Protocol to date are metered dose inhalers, the space shuttle and
Titan rocket, and certain laboratory uses. No use of halons (other than
laboratory use) has been approved as essential.
Consequently, a more appropriate basis for an exemption from the
ban on intentional release during testing, as discussed above, requires
that (1) Systems or equipment employing suitable alternative fire
extinguishing agents are not available, (2) system or equipment testing
requiring release of extinguishing agent is essential to demonstrate
the functionality of the system or equipment, (3) failure of the system
or equipment would pose great risk to human safety or the environment,
and (4) a simulant agent cannot be used in place of the halon during
system or equipment testing for technical reasons.
(viii) Simulant agents. Several commenters raised the subject of
simulant agents--less or non-ozone-depleting substances with similar
enough physical properties to allow them to be used as proxies for the
halon agent during fire suppression system testing. The research to
develop such simulants is promising, and some of these substances are
approaching acceptance for some of the applications mentioned in the
preceding paragraph. HFC-125, in particular, was identified in a major
Navy research program as an excellent halon simulant. One commenter
suggested that the exemption for aviation applications may delay the
adoption of simulants for use in aviation system testing. EPA
acknowledges that an exemption from the ban on intentional releases of
halons during testing for a class of halon applications, when a
suitable simulant is available, might counteract the regulatory
objective of this rule. However, in establishing the non-availability
of a suitable simulant as a condition for an exemption (see previous
section), EPA has avoided a delay in the adoption of simulants.
(ix) Savannah River Halon Repository. The DOE states that the
proposed rule could have economically significant impacts on procedures
at its Savannah River halon repository. The rule, it was stated, could
``require potential training, installation of release prevention
devices, loss of revenue from the sale of portable fire extinguishers,
additional costs for sending halon and equipment offsite for recovery,
recycling, and disposal, and additional record keeping costs.''
With respect to the sale of portable fire extinguishers, as
clarified in this Supplementary Information to today's rule, EPA does
not ban the sale of pre-existing stores of halon blends such as those
in previously manufactured portable fire extinguishers. In addition,
this rule does not impose specific recordkeeping requirements.
Furthermore, as clarified above, no additional costs need be incurred
for off-site halon recovery if appropriate recovery procedures can be
performed on-site in a manner consistent with industry standards.
With respect to training, installation of release prevention
devices, and other measures related to this rulemaking that might be
necessary at DOE's Savannah River halon repository, EPA concurs that
such measures could have economic impacts. However, EPA does not concur
that such impacts would result directly from this rule. The practices
codified in today's rule, as explained earlier, reflect practices
already currently widely adopted by industry. Moreover, responsible
management of halon stocks has been a Federal objective for 7 years.
Section 613 of the CAA, as discussed elsewhere, directs all Federal
agencies to promulgate regulations conforming their procurement
regulations to the provisions of Title VI (Stratospheric Protection) of
the CAA and to maximize the substitution of safe alternatives to ozone-
depleting substances (ODS), both class I (encompassing halons) and
class II. Federal agencies have in response devoted considerable
resources to developing relevant regulations and guidance. In response
to the CAA, DOE, among other federal agencies, initiated programs to
accomplish optimal ODS management. The DOE in particular developed a
guidance document on this subject, ``Guidance on the DOE Facility
Phaseout of Ozone-Depleting Substances,'' published in October 1995. In
the section of this document devoted to fire suppression (pp. 10-12),
the DOE specifically recommends training programs to accomplish
essentially the same objective that today's training requirement is
designed to achieve (i.e., ``All Department Elements should take steps
to avoid inadvertent discharge of Halon systems and extinguishers
through timely maintenance of fire detection equipment, proper use of
recovery/recycling equipment, attention during servicing, and suitable
personnel training''). Therefore, EPA believes that today's rule does
not impose additional costs or burdens on the Savannah River site that
did not already exist.
(x) Clarification of applicability of rule. One commenter suggested
that the language of Sec. 82.250(b), describing the applicability of
the rule, is too broad. The commenter stated that the applicability of
the rule should be strictly limited to equipment used to store and hold
halon, and not the entire fire suppression system including such
ancillary components as control panels. EPA does not concur with the
comment because Sec. 82.250(b) is meant to broadly identify the
possible universe of entities to which the rule applies. In later
sections of the rule that enumerate specific prohibitions and
provisions, the scope of applicability is much more strictly defined.
Since not all provisions of the rule apply to the same set of entities,
it is necessary in the ``Purpose and Scope'' section of this rule to
broadly encompass all affected populations.
(xi) Lack of necessity for several major provisions of the rule.
Two commenters from an industry with well-known halon requirements
stated that some of the chief provisions of the proposed rule (e.g.,
requirements for technician training, and for proper halon and halon-
containing equipment disposal), were unnecessary because they were
already practiced at their companies; in fact, rather than provide
additional environmental benefit, it was argued in one case that the
rule would simply impose unnecessary record-keeping burdens.
EPA concurs that technician training and proper halon and halon-
containing equipment disposal is widely practiced throughout industry,
based on industry research conducted in developing this rule.
Nevertheless, EPA believes that it is necessary to codify these
practices in order to ensure their continued implementation should the
market conditions, currently conducive to halon emissions reduction and
halon recycling, change. Regarding the suggestion that this rule
imposes unnecessary record-keeping burdens, EPA points out that this
final rule does not establish any record-keeping requirements.
[[Page 11095]]
6. References
Gann, R.G., editor, 1975. Halogenated Fire Suppressants. A
Symposium Hosted by the Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX,
April 23-24, 1975. ACS Symposium Series 16, American Chemical Society,
Washington, D.C. 453 pp.
IV. Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
In this final action, EPA is promulgating regulations relative to
halons under CAA section 608. Several additional exemptions and
clarifications have been made to provisions of this rule. Definitions
of halon, halon product, halon blend, and halon-containing equipment
have been added. In addition, de minimis releases have been discussed
in greater detail. Because the intent of the ban on the sale of halon
blends was to prevent the manufacture of new halon blends, the ban has
accordingly been revised to focus on manufacture, rather than on sale.
The time frame for implementing the training requirements has been
extended. Disposal requirements have been further clarified, with a
specific provision addressing equipment owners' responsibilities
regarding loss of halon due to equipment disrepair, and with
modifications to the definition of halon disposal. An exemption from
the ban on the new manufacture of halon blends has been added for
situations in which (1) the manufacturer or its designee is capable of
recycling the blend to the relevant industry standards for the chemical
purity of each individual halon, (2) the manufacturer includes in all
sales contracts for blends produced by it on or after April 6, 1998 the
provision that the blend must be returned to it or its designee for
recycling, and (3) the manufacturer or its designee in fact recycles
blends produced by the manufacturer on or after April 6, 1998 and
returned to it for recycling to the relevant industry standards for the
chemical purity of each individual halon. Finally, additional
exemptions have been provided for halon releases during testing of
halon fire and explosion protection systems when the application meets
a set of criteria enumerated in the rule.
V. Administrative Requirements
a. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether this proposed regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant
regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined by OMB and EPA that this action is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review under the Executive
Order.
b. Regulatory Flexibility
EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also
determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The
rule will not have a significant impact in the area of intentional
release because it closely models current industry standards for
prevention of intentional release of halon during repair, testing, and
disposal of halon-containing equipment, and during technician training.
The rule also will not have a significant impact in the areas of
technician training and disposal of halons and halon-containing
equipment because it closely models current industry standards,
including the practice of recovering halons for reuse or recycling.
Because the use of halon blends has already declined substantially,
there will not be a substantial number of entities affected by the
requirement to dispose of halon blends through recycling or
destruction. Because the market for halon blends is so small, and
because alternatives to halon blends are available for distribution and
sale, the ban on the manufacture of halon blends will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Businesses that manufacture halon blends will be subject to the ban;
however, there will not be a significant impact on these businesses and
these businesses are not substantial in number. One of the two U.S.
manufacturers of halon blends of which EPA is aware has stated that the
ban on halon blends will minimally impact the business' profitability;
and the other manufacturer will be exempted from the ban providing that
its product will be adequately recycled and thus pose no environmental
risk.
c. Unfunded Mandates Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the
Agency 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,
educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly
or uniquely affected by the rule. Section 204 requires the Agency to
develop a process to allow elected state, local, and tribal government
officials to provide input in the development of any action containing
a significant Federal intergovernmental mandate. Under section 205 of
the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule
for which a budgetary impact statement must be prepared. The Agency
must select from those alternatives the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule, unless the Agency explains why this alternative is not
selected or the selection of 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 proposed rule, the Agency is not required to develop a
plan with regard to small governments. Finally, because this rule does
not contain a significant intergovernmental mandate, the Agency is not
required to develop a process to obtain input from elected state,
local, and tribal officials.
[[Page 11096]]
d. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action requires no information collection subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and therefore no
information collection request will be submitted to OMB for review.
e. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
f. Executive Order 12875
Today's action does not impose any unfunded mandate upon any State,
local, or tribal government; therefore, Executive Order 12875 does not
apply to this rulemaking.
g. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), Sec. 12(d), Pub. L. 104-113, requires federal agencies and
departments to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as
a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the
agencies and departments. If use of such technical standards is
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical, a federal
agency or department may elect to use technical standards that are not
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies if the
head of the agency or department transmits to the Office of Management
and Budget an explanation of the reasons for using such standards.
This final rule does not mandate the use of any technical
standards; accordingly, the NTTAA does not apply to this rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control.
Dated: February 27, 1998.
Carol Browner,
Administrator.
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. Part 82 is amended by adding subpart H consisting of
Secs. 82.250, 82.260 and 82.270 to read as follows:
Subpart H--Halon Emissions Reduction
Sec.
82.250 Purpose and scope.
82.260 Definitions.
82.270 Prohibitions
Subpart H--Halon Emissions Reduction
Sec. 82.250. Purpose and scope.
(a) The purpose of this subpart is to reduce the emissions of halon
in accordance with section 608 of the Clean Air Act by banning the
manufacture of halon blends; banning the intentional release of halons
during repair, testing, and disposal of equipment containing halons and
during technician training; requiring organizations that employ
technicians to provide emissions reduction training; and requiring
proper disposal of halons and equipment containing halons.
(b) This subpart applies to any person testing, servicing,
maintaining, repairing or disposing of equipment that contains halons
or using such equipment during technician training. This subpart also
applies to any person disposing of halons; to manufacturers of halon
blends; and to organizations that employ technicians who service halon-
containing equipment.
Sec. 82.260 Definitions.
Halon-containing equipment means equipment used to store, transfer,
and/or disperse halon.
Disposal of halon means the process leading to and including
discarding of halon from halon-containing equipment.
Disposal of halon-containing equipment means the process leading to
and including:
(1) The discharge, deposit, dumping or placing of any discarded
halon-containing equipment into or on any land or water;
(2) The disassembly of any halon-containing equipment for
discharge, deposit, or dumping or placing of its discarded component
parts into or on any land or water; or
(3) The disassembly of any halon-containing equipment for reuse of
its component parts.
Halon means any of the Class I, Group II substances listed in
subpart A, Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 82. This group consists of the
three halogenated hydrocarbons known as Halon 1211, Halon 1301, and
Halon 2402, and all isomers of these chemicals.
Halon product means any mixture or combination of substances that
contains only one halon (e.g., Halon 1301 plus dinitrogen gas
(N2))
Halon blend means any mixture or combination of substances that
contains two or more halons.
Manufacturer means any person engaged in the direct manufacture of
halon, halon blends or halon-containing equipment.
Person means any individual or legal entity, including an
individual, corporation, partnership, association, state, municipality,
political subdivision of a state, Indian tribe, and any agency,
department, or instrumentality of the United States, and any officer,
agent, or employee thereof.
Technician means any person who performs testing, maintenance,
service, or repair that could reasonably be expected to release halons
from equipment into the atmosphere. Technician also means any person
who performs disposal of equipment that could reasonably be expected to
release halons from the equipment into the atmosphere. Technician
includes but is not limited to installers, contractor employees, in-
house service personnel, and in some cases, owners.
Sec. 82.270 Prohibitions.
(a) Effective April 6, 1998 no person may newly manufacture any
halon blend. Halon blends manufactured solely for the purpose of
aviation fire protection are not subject to this prohibition, provided
that:
(1) The manufacturer or its designee is capable of recycling the
blend to the relevant industry standards for the chemical purity of
each individual halon;
(2) The manufacturer includes in all sales contracts for blends
produced by it on or after April 6, 1998 the provision that the blend
must be returned to it or its designee for recycling; and
(3) The manufacturer or its designee in fact recycles blends
produced by the manufacturer on or after April 6, 1998 and returned to
it for recycling to the relevant industry standards for the chemical
purity of each individual halon.
[[Page 11097]]
(b) Effective April 6, 1998, no person testing, maintaining,
servicing, repairing, or disposing of halon-containing equipment or
using such equipment for technician training may knowingly vent or
otherwise release into the environment any halons used in such
equipment.
(1) De minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to
recycle or recover halon are not subject to this prohibition.
(2) Release of residual halon contained in fully discharged total
flooding fire extinguishing systems would be considered a de minimis
release associated with good faith attempts to recycle or recover
halon.
(3) Release of halons during testing of fire extinguishing systems
is not subject to this prohibition if the following four conditions are
met:
(i) Systems or equipment employing suitable alternative fire
extinguishing agents are not available;
(ii) System or equipment testing requiring release of extinguishing
agent is essential to demonstrate system or equipment functionality;
(iii) Failure of the system or equipment would pose great risk to
human safety or the environment; and
(iv) A simulant agent cannot be used in place of the halon during
system or equipment testing for technical reasons.
(4) Releases of halons associated with research and development of
halon alternatives, and releases of halons necessary during analytical
determination of halon purity using established laboratory practices
are exempt from this prohibition.
(5) This prohibition does not apply to qualification and
development testing during the design and development process of halon-
containing systems or equipment when such tests are essential to
demonstrate system or equipment functionality and when a suitable
simulant agent can not be used in place of the halon for technical
reasons.
(6) This prohibition does not apply to the emergency release of
halons for the legitimate purpose of fire extinguishing, explosion
inertion, or other emergency applications for which the equipment or
systems were designed.
(c) Effective April 6, 1998, organizations that employ technicians
who test, maintain, service, repair or dispose of halon-containing
equipment shall take appropriate steps to ensure that technicians hired
on or before April 6, 1998 will be trained regarding halon emissions
reduction by September 1, 1998. Technicians hired after April 6, 1998
shall be trained regarding halon emissions reduction within 30 days of
hiring, or by September 1, 1998, whichever is later.
(d) Effective April 6, 1998, no person shall dispose of halon-
containing equipment except by sending it for halon recovery to a
manufacturer operating in accordance with NFPA 10 and NFPA 12A
standards, a fire equipment dealer operating in accordance with NFPA 10
and NFPA 12A standards or a recycler operating in accordance with NFPA
10 and NFPA 12A standards. This provision does not apply to ancillary
system devices such as electrical detection control components which
are not necessary to the safe and secure containment of the halon
within the equipment, to fully discharged total flooding systems, or to
equipment containing only de minimis quantities of halons.
(e) Effective April 6, 1998, no person shall dispose of halon
except by sending it for recycling to a recycler operating in
accordance with NFPA 10 and NFPA 12A standards, or by arranging for its
destruction using one of the following controlled processes:
(1) Liquid injection incineration;
(2) Reactor cracking;
(3) Faseous/fume oxidation;
(4) Rotary kiln incineration;
(5) Cement kiln;
(6) Radiofrequency plasma destruction; or
(7) An EPA-approved destruction technology that achieves a
destruction efficiency of 98% or greater.
(f) Effective April 6, 1998, no owner of halon-containing equipment
shall allow halon release to occur as a result of failure to maintain
such equipment.
[FR Doc. 98-5720 Filed 3-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081108140949im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}