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

 [Federal Register: May 22, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 100)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25585-25594]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-5467-1]
RIN 2060-AG12
 
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for 
Ozone-Depleting Substances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.



SUMMARY: This action finalizes restrictions or prohibitions on 
substitutes for ozone depleting substances (ODSs) under the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Significant New Alternatives 
Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP implements section 612 of the amended Clean 
Air Act of 1990 which requires EPA to evaluate and regulate substitutes 
for the ODSs to reduce overall risk to human health and the 
environment. Through these evaluations, SNAP generates lists of 
acceptable and unacceptable substitutes for each of the major 
industrial use sectors. The intended effect of the SNAP program is to 
expedite movement away from ozone depleting compounds while avoiding a 
shift into high-risk substitutes posing other environmental problems.
    On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated a final rulemaking setting forth 
its plan for administering the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), and issued 
decisions on the acceptability and unacceptability of a number 
substitutes. In this Final Rulemaking (FRM), EPA is issuing its 
preliminary decisions on the acceptability of certain substitutes not 
previously reviewed by the Agency. To arrive at determinations on the 
acceptability of substitutes, the Agency completed a cross-media 
evaluation of risks to human health and the environment by sector enduse.

DATES: Effective date June 21, 1996.

    The information collection requirements contained in Appendix C of 
subpart G of part 82 have not been approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) and are not effective until OMB has approved them. EPA 
will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB 
approval.

ADDRESSES: Public Docket: Public comments and data specific to this 
final rule are in Docket A-91-42, Central Docket Section, South 
Conference Room 4, U.S. Environmental Agency, 401 M Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20460. The docket may be inspected between 8 a.m. and 4 
p.m. on weekdays. Telephone (202) 260-7549; fax (202) 260-4400. As 
provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for 
photocopying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Smagin at (202) 233-9126 or fax 
(202) 233-9577, Stratospheric Protection Division, USEPA, Mail Code 
6205J, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview of This Action

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

I. Overview of This Action

II. Section 612 Program

    A. Statutory Requirements

    B. Regulatory History

III. Listing of Substitutes

IV. Administrative Requirements

V. Additional Information

Appendix: Summary of Listing Decisions

II. Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements

    Section 612 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to develop a 
program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA 
is referring to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy 
(SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are:
    Rulemaking--Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making 
it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon 
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and 
hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance 
with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present 
adverse effects to human health or the environment where the 
Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the 
overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is currently 
or potentially available.

    Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes--Section 612(c) also 
requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes unacceptable for 
specific uses. EPA must publish a corresponding list of acceptable 
alternatives for specific uses.

    Petition Process--Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to 
petition EPA to add a substitute to or delete a substitute from the 
lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90 
days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, 
EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional six months.
    90-day Notification--Section 612(e) requires EPA to require any 
person who

[[Page 25586]]

produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to notify the 
Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals are 
introduced into interstate commerce for significant new uses as 
substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also provide the 
Agency with the producer's unpublished health and safety studies on 
such substitutes.

    Outreach--Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall 
seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources 
to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying and 
developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial 
applications.

    Clearinghouse--Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a 
public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and 
alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and 
manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.

B. Regulatory History

    On March 18, 1994, EPA published the Final Rulemaking (FRM) (59 FR 
13044) which described the process for administering the SNAP program 
and issued EPA's first acceptability lists for substitutes in the major 
industrial use sectors. These sectors include: refrigeration and air 
conditioning; foam blowing; solvent cleaning; fire suppression and 
explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and 
inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal 
industrial sectors that historically consume large volumes of ozonedepleting 
compounds.

    The Agency defines a ``substitute'' as any chemical, product 
substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or 
new, that could replace a class I or class II substance. Anyone who 
produces a substitute must provide the Agency with health and safety 
studies on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into 
interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. This 
requirement applies to chemical manufacturers, but may include 
importers, formulators or end-users when they are responsible for 
introducing a substitute into commerce.

III. Listing of Substitutes

    To develop the lists of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes, 
EPA conducts screens of health and environmental risks posed by various 
substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds in each use sector. The 
outcome of these risks screens can be found in the public docket, as 
described above in the Addresses portion of this notice.
    Under section 612, the Agency has considerable discretion in the 
risk management decisions it can make in SNAP. The Agency has 
identified five possible decision categories: acceptable, acceptable 
subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; 
unacceptable; and pending. Acceptable substitutes can be used for all 
applications within the relevant sector end-use. Conversely, it is 
illegal to replace an ODS with a substitute listed by SNAP as 
unacceptable. A pending listing represents substitutes for which the 
Agency has not received complete data or has not completed its review 
of the data.

    After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may make a determination 
that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions of use are 
met to minimize risks to human health and the environment. Use of such 
substitutes in ways that are inconsistent with such use conditions 
renders these substitutes unacceptable.
    Even though the Agency can restrict the use of a substitute based 
on the potential for adverse effects, it may be necessary to permit a 
narrowed range of use within a sector end-use because of the lack of 
alternatives for specialized applications. Users intending to adopt a 
substitute acceptable with narrowed use limits must ascertain that 
other acceptable alternatives are not technically feasible. Companies 
must document the results of their evaluation, and retain the results 
on file for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. This documentation 
shall include descriptions of substitutes examined and rejected, 
processes or products in which the substitute is needed, reason for 
rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety 
standards, and the anticipated date other substitutes will be available 
and projected time for switching to other available substitutes. Use of 
such substitutes in application and end-uses which are not specified as 
acceptable in the narrowed use limit renders these substitutes 
unacceptable.

    In this Final Rulemaking (FRM), EPA is issuing decisions on the 
acceptability of certain substitutes not previously reviewed by the 
Agency. The proposed rulemaking for these decisions was published on 
October 2, 1995 (60 FR 51383). As described in the proposed rule, EPA 
believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking is required to place any 
alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute 
as acceptable only under certain use conditions or narrowed use limits, 
or to remove an alternative from either the list of prohibited or 
acceptable substitutes.

    EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are required to 
list alternatives as acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do 
not impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior license to use a 
substitute. Consequently, EPA adds substitutes to the list of 
acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new 
listings. Updates to the acceptable and pending lists are published as 
separate Notices in the Federal Register.
    Parts A. through C. below present a detailed discussion of the 
substitute listing determinations by major use sector. Tables 
summarizing listing decisions in this Final Rulemaking are in Appendix 
below. The comments contained in the Appendix provide additional 
information on a substitute. Since comments are not part of the 
regulatory decision, they are not mandatory for use of a substitute. 
Nor should the comments be considered comprehensive with respect to 
other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute. 
However, EPA encourages users of acceptable substitutes to apply all 
comments in their application of these substitutes. In many instances, 
the comments simply allude to sound operating practices that have 
already been identified in existing industry and/or building-code 
standards. Thus, many of the comments, if adopted, would not require 
significant changes in existing operating practices for the affected 
industry.

A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

Response to Comment

    EPA received one comment supporting the requirement to use unique 
fittings when retrofitting motor vehicle air conditioning systems 
(MVACS). The commenter, however, requested EPA reduce the information 
required on the label. EPA based the labeling requirements very closely 
on SAE J1660 and a petition by the Mobile Air Conditioning Society 
(MACS), and believes all of the information proposed in the NPRM is 
necessary, as clarified below. The commenter requested that EPA remove 
each of the following pieces of information from the label.
    <bullet> Technician name and address.
    EPA requires this information to ensure that both the consumer and 
various agencies know exactly who worked on the vehicle. In addition, 
this information allows the consumer to check that the technician is 
certified to work on MVACS.

    <bullet> ASHRAE designation.

[[Page 25587]]

    The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning 
Engineers (ASHRAE) assigns unique numbers to new 
refrigerants. Refrigerant properties depend very strongly on both the 
components and the individual percentages within a blend. The 
composition of all ASHRAE-designated refrigerants is public, and EPA 
believes it is important for consumers and technicians to be aware of 
such information if it is available.

    <bullet> Lubricant Manufacturer.
    Given the large number of new refrigerants and lubricants, EPA 
believes the consumer is best served by having this information. This 
information is particularly important since it is extremely difficult 
to test every possible refrigerant/lubricant combination in every 
vehicle.

    <bullet> ``Ozone depleter'' phrase.
    The commenter reasoned that SNAP acceptability was the only 
relevant criterion to protect the ozone layer. Until November 15, 1995, 
however, only ozone-depleting substances were required to be recovered 
from MVACS, and since the composition of certain blends was 
confidential, EPA believed it was important to alert technicians of the 
necessity of recovering the refrigerant during servicing and disposal. 
EPA still believes that this statement does not add significantly to 
the label size and provides useful information to the consumer.
    <bullet> Flammability phrase.
    The commenter requested that this phrase be shortened from ``This 
refrigerant is FLAMMABLE. Take appropriate precautions.'' to 
``FLAMMABLE''. However, because flammable refrigerants are not 
currently in use, EPA believes it is extremely important to draw 
attention to a flammable substitute. Technicians and consumers need to 
be aware of the potential hazards posed by flammable refrigerants, and 
the entire phrase serves that purpose better than a single word.
    In addition to the above rationale, the labeling requirements 
cannot be changed each time EPA lists a new refrigerant as acceptable 
for use in MVACS subject to use conditions. The labeling requirements 
were finalized on June 13, 1995 (60 FR 51383) for HCFC Blend Beta, R-
401C, and HFC-134a. It is not reasonable to require vendors of those 
refrigerants to modify their labels or to meet standards not imposed on 
subsequent refrigerants. EPA believes the labeling requirements are 
necessary and appropriate to help the MVAC industry in its transition 
away from CFC-12 in as smooth and safe a manner as possible.
2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. CFC-12 Automobile and Non-automobile Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners, 
Retrofit and New

    EPA is concerned that the existence of several substitutes in this 
end-use may increase the likelihood of significant refrigerant crosscontamination 
and potential failure of both air conditioning systems 
and recovery/recycling equipment. In addition, a smooth transition to 
the use of substitutes strongly depends on the continued purity of the 
recycled CFC-12 supply. In order to prevent cross-contamination and 
preserve the purity of recycled refrigerants, EPA is imposing several 
conditions on the use of all motor vehicle air conditioning 
refrigerants. For the purposes of this rule, no distinction is made 
between ``retrofit'' and ``drop-in'' refrigerants; retrofitting a car 
to use a new refrigerant includes all procedures that result in the air 
conditioning system using a new refrigerant. Please note that EPA only 
reviews refrigerants based on environmental and health factors.
    When retrofitting a CFC-12 system to use any substitute 
refrigerant, the following conditions must be met:
    <bullet> Each refrigerant may only be used with a set of fittings 
that is unique to that refrigerant. These fittings (male or female, as 
appropriate) must be used with all containers of the refrigerant, on 
can taps, on recovery, recycling, and charging equipment, and on all 
air conditioning system service ports. These fittings must be designed 
to mechanically prevent cross-charging with another refrigerant. A 
refrigerant may only be used with the fittings and can taps 
specifically intended for that refrigerant. Using an adapter or 
deliberately modifying a fitting to use a different refrigerant will be 
a violation of this use condition. In addition, fittings shall meet the 
following criteria, derived from Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 
standards and recommended practices:

--When existing CFC-12 service ports are to be retrofitted, conversion 
assemblies shall attach to the CFC-12 fitting with a thread lock 
adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism in a manner 
that permanently prevents the assembly from being removed.
--All conversion assemblies and new service ports must satisfy the 
vibration testing requirements of sections 3.2.1 or 3.2.2 of SAE J1660, 
as applicable, excluding references to SAE J639 and SAE J2064, which 
are specific to HFC-134a.

--In order to prevent discharge of refrigerant to the atmosphere, 
systems shall have a device to limit compressor operation before the 
pressure relief device will vent refrigerant. This requirement is 
waived for systems that do not feature such a pressure relief device.
--All CFC-12 service ports not retrofitted with conversion assemblies 
shall be rendered permanently incompatible for use with CFC-12 related 
service equipment by fitting with a device attached with a thread lock 
adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism in a manner 
that prevents the device from being removed.

    <bullet> When a retrofit is performed, a label must be used as 
follows:

--The person conducting the retrofit must apply a label to the air 
conditioning system in the engine compartment that contains the 
following information:

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

*The date of the retrofit

*The trade name, charge amount, and, when applicable, the ASHRAE 
refrigerant numerical designation of the refrigerant
*The type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used
*If the refrigerant is or contains an ozone-depleting substance, the 
phrase ``ozone depleter''

*If the refrigerant displays flammability limits as measured according 
to ASTM E681, the statement ``This refrigerant is FLAMMABLE. Take 
appropriate precautions.''

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

--The background color must be unique to the refrigerant.
--The label must be affixed to the system over information related to 
the previous refrigerant, in a location not normally replaced during 
vehicle repair.

--Information on the previous refrigerant that cannot be covered by the 
new label must be permanently rendered unreadable.

    <bullet> No substitute refrigerant may be used to ``top-off'' a 
system that uses another refrigerant. The original refrigerant must be 
recovered in accordance with regulations issued under section 609 of 
the CAA prior to charging with a substitute.
    Since these use conditions necessitate unique fittings and labels, 
it will be necessary for developers of automotive refrigerants to 
consult with EPA about the existence of other alternatives. Such

[[Page 25588]]

discussions will lower the risk of duplicating fittings already in use.
    No determination guarantees satisfactory performance from a 
refrigerant. Consult the original equipment manufacturer or service 
personnel for further information on using a refrigerant in a 
particular system.

(a) HCFC Blend Delta

    HCFC Blend Delta is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in 
retrofitted and new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject to the use 
conditions applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described 
above. The composition of this blend has been claimed confidential by 
the manufacturer. This blend contains at least one HCFC, and therefore 
contributes to ozone depletion, but to a much lesser degree than CFC-
12. Regulations regarding recycling and reclamation issued under 
section 609 of the Clean Air Act apply to this blend. Its production 
will be phased out according to the accelerated schedule (published 12/
10/93, 58 FR 65018). The GWPs of the components are moderate to low. 
This blend is nonflammable, and leak testing has demonstrated that the 
blend never becomes flammable.

(b) Blend Zeta

    Blend Zeta is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in retrofitted 
and new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject to the use conditions 
applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described above. The 
composition of this blend has been claimed confidential by the 
manufacturer. This blend does not contribute to ozone depletion. The 
GWPS of the components are moderate to low. This blend is nonflammable, 
and leak testing has demonstrated that the blend never becomes 
flammable.

B. Solvents

 Response to Comment

    In response to EPA's proposal, the Agency received public comment 
stating that the scope of SNAP did not extend to setting workplace 
standards for chemicals. The Agency disagrees with this comment, and it 
discussed in the original SNAP rule-making (59 FR 13044, March 18, 
 how it is using section 612 authority under the Clean Air Act to 
set workplace standards as interim measures until OSHA has had an 
opportunity to review and decide on the need for standards under OSHA 
legislative authorities. The commenter suggested that EPA review with 
OSHA its intention of setting these standards. The EPA has already 
taken this step, and EPA and OSHA are in agreement about the ability 
and the need for the SNAP program to set occupational standards as an 
interim regulatory measure until the chemical in question has been 
reviewed by OSHA. Further discussion of this issue is included under 
the Fire Extinguishing section below.

 Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. Metals Cleaning

(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides
    Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are acceptable subject to use 
conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in metals cleaning. These 
two classes of chemicals are being sold as blends for a variety of 
cleaning applications. Of all the structures of commercial interest, 
the only chemical with an Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA) standard is orthochlorotoluene, one of the monochlorotoluenes. 
This substance has an OSHA Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) of 50 ppm. 
Using this standard as a proxy, the Agency is setting a workplace 
standard of 50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes as a group. None of the 
benzotrifluorides has a PEL. Based on a toxicological study recently 
completed by the company interested in commercialization of these 
chemicals, the Agency is setting a workplace standard of 25 ppm for 
benzotrifluorides. Companies intending to use monochlorotoluene/
benzotrifluoride mixtures should take the inherent hazard of these 
chemicals into account.

    These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety 
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its 
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in 
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as 
defined in P.L. 91-596.

b. Electronics Cleaning

(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides
    Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are acceptable subject to use 
conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in electronics cleaning. 
For the reasons described in the section on metals cleaning, the Agency 
is setting a workplace standard of 50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes and 25 
ppm for benzotrifluorides.

    These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety 
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its 
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in 
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as 
defined in P.L. 91-596.

c. Precision Cleaning

(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides
    Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are acceptable subject to use 
conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in precision cleaning. 
For the reasons described in the section on metals cleaning, the Agency 
is setting a workplace standard of 50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes and 25 
ppm for benzotrifluorides.

    These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety 
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its 
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in 
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as 
defined in P.L. 91-596.

C. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection

 Response to Comments

    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's regulation of total 
flooding agents is within the purview of OSHA, and that EPA should 
defer to OSHA rather than create duplicative regulation. Further, the 
commenter states that the conditions EPA has stipulated allowing 
exposure to oxygen deficient atmospheres of 10to 1212xygen is 
hazardous and inconsistent with OSHA's requirement for 19.512xygen in 
confined spaces. The commenter further advised EPA that OSHA published 
an update to its Respiratory Protection Standard (November 15, 1994, 59 
FR 58906) which includes a chart indicating that oxygen concentrations 
below 16at sea level should require the extra precautions that go 
with IDLH atmospheres (immediately dangerous to life and health). The 
commenter also pointed out the OSHA regulations requiring predischarge 
alarms. In summary, the commenter recommended (1) that EPA revise the 
proposed rule to be consistent with current OSHA regulation, (2) that 
EPA not establish a 12``no effect level'' or a 10``lowest effect 
level,'' and (3) that EPA leave this regulatory activity to OSHA.
    Response: EPA would like to direct the commenter's attention to the 
original SNAP rulemaking published March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), as 
discussed in the Solvents section above. The Agency responded to many 
comments questioning its authority to promulgate workplace safety

[[Page 25589]]

regulations. To quote earlier language from the Comment Response 
document:

    In imposing conditions of use, EPA does not intend to preempt 
other regulatory authorities, such as those exercised by the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or other 
government or industrial standard-setting bodies. Rather, EPA hopes 
to fill existing regulatory gaps during the interim period of 
substitution away from ozone-depleting compounds and provide the 
needed margin of protection to human health and the environment 
until other regulatory controls or standards are developed under 
appropriate authorities.

    EPA anticipates applying use conditions only in the rare 
instances where clear regulatory gaps exist, and where an 
unreasonable risk would exist in the absence of any condition. These 
limitations will only remain in place until the appropriate standard 
setting agency acts. Once existing gaps are filled, EPA will rescind 
any conditions which have become redundant. The mechanism for 
informing the public of this change will be the quarterly Federal 
Register notices updating the status of the SNAP lists.

    For the March 18, 1994 SNAP rulemaking, EPA had conducted an 
analysis of existing regulation of low oxygen atmospheres and 
determined that none relates to the use of a fixed gaseous system. 
(Available from the EPA Air Docket A-91-42, IV-A-4. ``Evaluation of 
Federal Regulations and Industry Guidelines Governing Minimum Oxygen 
Levels in Work Areas Protected By Gaseous Total Flooding Fire 
Protection Systems,'' Memo from ICF Incorporated to Karen Metchis, EPA, 
1993.) OSHA had a number of inquiries concerning the definition of 
``oxygen deficient atmospheres'', but the definition remained unclear 
with OSHA stating that any atmosphere containing less than 19.5 per 
cent oxygen falls within the definition of ``oxygen deficient 
atmosphere.'' However existing regulations concerned only such things 
as entering tanks (Ventilation Standard, 29 CFR 1910.94), confined 
spaces not intended for occupancy, etc. In addition, the proposed OSHA 
Respiratory Standard cited by the commenter does not apply to fire 
protection systems, except in situations where personnel wish to 
reenter an area that has experienced a system discharge.
    The Agency views discharge of fire extinguishment systems as 
emergency situations, whether they be accidental discharges or 
discharges in response to a fire. In these cases, personnel are 
expected to quickly egress from an area, presumably before discharge 
occurs, but potentially very quickly after discharge. To prohibit use 
of this technology for fear of emergency situations would be akin to 
prohibiting the use of a particular chemical for fear of an accidental 
spill. Both cases represent an emergency situation that should be 
handled accordingly. Inert gas systems are not to be used while 
personnel remain in an area to conduct normal duties.
    Current OSHA regulations (1910.162) allow use of halon in fixed 
extinguishing systems in normally occupied areas in amounts that would 
result in an oxygen deficient atmosphere. The same regulation allows 
use of carbon dioxide systems in normally occupied areas even though 
exposure to discharge of a CO<INF>2 system results in immediate death. 
Thus, it is not inconsistent with current OSHA regulations to design 
fire extinguishing systems that might result in low oxygen atmospheres 
provided that certain protections are present.
    Comment: The manufacturer of one inert gas system commented that 
EPA has erred in determining that inert gases without CO<INF>2 can be 
used at the same levels and for the same exposure times as inert gases 
with added CO<INF>2, and referenced a supporting document, 
``Physiological Effects of Abrupt Exposure to 10O2 with 4
CO<INF>2,'' dated February 15, 1995. Further, the commenter explained 
why EPA's concern that added CO<INF>2 might cause an increased 
inspiration of combustion products is not warranted, by elaborating on 
three exposure scenarios to a fire agent: no-fire, small-fire, and 
large-fire. The commenter pointed out that only in the case of a large 
fire will high levels of combustion products exist and in that case the 
risk of the fire greatly exceeds any incremental risk from the added 
CO<INF>2.

    Response: While EPA generally agrees with the commenter's 
elaboration of the scenarios of exposure, the question of the relative 
importance of the effects of inert gases systems with and without added 
CO<INF>2 in fire protection scenarios is the subject of a current peer 
review on hypoxic atmospheres. Pending the outcome of that assessment, 
EPA may re-propose use conditions on these agents either to increase 
flexibility in the use of these agents and/or to differentiate the use 
conditions applicable to systems with or without added CO<INF>2.
    Comment: One manufacturer of this agent stated that the most 
recently published atmospheric information on CF<INF>3I indicates that 
its atmospheric lifetime is less than one day, the ozone depletion 
potential is less than 0.0008 and more likely below 0.0001, and its 
global warming potential is less than five.
    The commenter further stated that, compared to Halon 1211, its 
weight and volume equivalence are 0.94 and 0.83 respectively. Finally, 
the commenter requested that CF<INF>3I not be referred to as Halon 
13001, as this might confuse the public as to why ``halon'' was being 
replaced by a ``halon.''

    In addition, the manufacturer provided the Agency with the report 
entitled ``Exposure Assessment of Firefighters to Triodide during 
Streaming Scenarios,'' conducted at Tyndall Air Force Base. The results 
of personal monitoring indicated that exposure to this agent during use 
indoors does not exceed its cardiotoxic effect levels.
    Response: The Agency agrees with the commenter and will use the 
most recent information on atmospheric characteristics as well as 
weight and volume equivalence, as noted by the commenter. In addition, 
CF<INF>3I will not be labeled Halon 13001 in order to avoid general 
confusion. Finally, the Agency is proceeding to list this agent as 
acceptable for use as a streaming agent in nonresidential uses.
2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
    As was discussed in the March 18, 1994 SNAP rulemaking, EPA in some 
cases finds acceptable the use of an agent only under certain 
conditions. In impleme
Notices For
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Ozone-Depleting Substances

Local Navigation
