Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice 14 for Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

Related Material

Other Related Documents

[Federal Register: December 18, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 243)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 78977-78989]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18de00-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-6918-4]

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice 14 for Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Acceptability; Request for Information.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expanding the
list of acceptable substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (ODS)
under our Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program.
Substitutes are for the refrigeration and air conditioning, foams, non-
aerosol solvent cleaning, and aerosol solvents and propellants sectors.
Today's action also requests information from readers on the
composition and safety of certain refrigerants for motor vehicle air
conditioners; the possible expansion of the SNAP program to include
review of, and potentially to establish use conditions for, operations
that involve manual (hand) cleaning with solvents for precision,
electronics, and metals cleaning; and the possible restriction of non-
aerosol solvent substitutes to equipment that meets the cleaning
equipment standards in the National Emission Standards for Halogenated
Solvent Cleaning. Finally, this action updates readers on the SNAP
program's review of n-propyl bromide for use as a substitute for ozone-
depleting solvents used in the non-aerosol solvents cleaning, aerosol
solvents and propellants, and adhesives, coatings and inks sectors.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 18, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Information relevant to this document is contained in Air
Docket A-91-42, Room M-1500, Waterside Mall, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460,
telephone: (202) 260-7548. You may inspect the docket between 8:00 a.m.
and 5:30 p.m. weekdays. As provided in 40 CFR Part 2, a reasonable fee
may be charged for photocopying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Sheppard by telephone at
(202) 564-9163, by fax at (202) 565-2141, by e-mail at
sheppard.margaret@epa.gov, or by mail at U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 6205J, Washington, D.C. 20460. Overnight or courier
deliveries should be sent to the office location at 501 3rd Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C., 20001. Further information can be found by
calling the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at (800) 296-1996, or by
viewing EPA's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/
snap/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Listing of Acceptable Substitutes
A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
B. Foams
C. Non-Aerosol Solvent Cleaning
D. Aerosol Solvents and Propellants
II. Request for Information on Refrigerants for Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioners
III. Request for Information on Expanding SNAP Non-Aerosol Solvent
Cleaning Program Review to Include Operations that Involve Manual
Precision, Electronics, or Metals Cleaning with Solvents
IV. Request for Information on Restricting SNAP Acceptability
Decisions in the Non-Aerosol Solvent Cleaning Sector to Operations
that Involve the Use of Equipment that Meets Equipment Standards in
the National Emission Standards for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning
V. Status of EPA Review of n-Propyl Bromide
VI. Section 612 Program
A. Statutory Requirements
B. Regulatory History
VII. Additional Information
VIII. References
Appendix A--Summary of Acceptable Decisions

I. Listing of Acceptable Substitutes

This section presents EPA's most recent acceptable listing
decisions for substitutes in the refrigeration and air conditioning,
non-aerosol solvent cleaning, and aerosol solvents and propellants
sectors. For copies of the full list of SNAP decisions in all
industrial sectors, contact the EPA Stratospheric Protection Hotline at
(800) 296-1996. You also can find a complete chronology of SNAP
decisions and the appropriate Federal Register citations at EPA's Ozone
Depletion World Wide Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/
chron.html.
The sections below present a detailed discussion of the
acceptability decisions EPA is making today. The table summarizing
today's listing decisions is in Appendix A. The comments contained in
the table in Appendix A provide additional information, but are not
legally binding under section 612 of the Clean Air Act. Thus, adherence
to recommendations in the comments section of the table is not
mandatory for use of a substitute, unless the comments refer to
applicable regulatory requirements. Nevertheless, EPA strongly
encourages users to use these substitutes in a manner consistent with
the recommendations in the comments section. In many instances, the
comments simply refer to standard operating practices that have already
been identified in existing industry and/or building-code standards.
Thus, many of these recommendations, if adopted, would not require
significant changes in existing operating practices for the affected
industry. In addition, such

[[Page 78978]]

recommendations should not be considered comprehensive with respect to
other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute.

A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

1. HFE-7100

EPA's Decision

Hydrofluoroether 7100 is acceptable for use as a secondary heat
transfer fluid in new equipment for not-in-kind replacements of systems
using:

CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-114, CFC-115, HCFC-22 and R-502 in
industrial process refrigeration;
CFC-12 and R-502 in retail food refrigeration; and
CFC-113, R-13B1, and R-503 in very low temperature
refrigeration.

HFE-7100 is also acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-
114, CFC-115, and HCFC-22 in retrofit and new equipment in non-
mechanical heat transfer. Hydrofluoroether 7100 is also known as HFE-
7100; C4F9OCH3;
C6F9OH5; methoxynonafluorobutane, iso
and normal; and methyl nonafluorobutyl ether.

Environmental Information

HFE-7100 does not deplete the ozone layer since it does not contain
chlorine or bromine. It has a 4.1-year atmospheric lifetime and a
global warming potential (GWP) of 390 over a 100-year time horizon.
These values are lower than the atmospheric lifetime and GWP of the
substances HFE-7100 would be replacing.

Flammability Information

HFE-7100 is non-flammable.

Toxicity and Exposure Data

HFE-7100 exhibits low toxicity, with a workplace environmental
exposure limit (WEEL) of 750 ppm established by the American Industrial
Hygiene Association (AIHA).
2. HFE-7200

EPA's Decision

Hydrofluoroether 7200 is acceptable for use as a secondary heat
transfer fluid in new equipment for not-in-kind replacements of systems
using:

HFE-7200 is also acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-
114, CFC-115, and HCFC-22 in retrofit and new equipment in non-
mechanical heat transfer. Hydrofluoroether 7200 is also known as HFE-
7200; C4F9OC2H5;
C5F10H2; and ethoxynonafluorobutane,
iso and normal.

Environmental Information

HFE-7200 does not deplete the ozone layer since it does not contain
chlorine or bromine. It has a 0.9 year atmospheric lifetime and a GWP
of 55 over a 100-year time horizon. These values are much lower than
the atmospheric lifetime and GWP of the substances HFE-7200 would be
replacing.

Flammability Information

The flammability range in air is 2.4-12.4%. HFE-7200 has no
flashpoint.

Toxicity and Exposure Data

The manufacturer's recommended exposure guideline for HFE-7200 is
200 ppm over an eight-hour time-weighted average. EPA expects HFE-7200
users to follow all recommendations specified in the manufacturer's
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs). The Agency also expects that users
of HFE-7200 will adhere to any acceptable exposure limits set by any
voluntary consensus standards organization, including the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists' (ACGIH) threshold
limit values (TLVs) or the AIHA's WEELs.
3. and 4. FOR12A and FOR12B

EPA Decision

The chemical blends submitted to EPA with the unregistered trade
names of FOR12A and FOR12B are acceptable as substitutes for CFC-12 in
the following end-uses:

industrial process refrigeration and air-conditioning
cold storage warehouses
refrigerated transport
retail food refrigeration
ice machines
vending machines
water coolers
centrifugal chillers
reciprocating chillers
household refrigerators and freezers

Inha University of Inchon, Korea and TechnoChem Co., Ltd, the joint
submitters of FOR12A and FOR12B, claim that the compositions of these
blends are confidential business information.

Environmental Information

The blends do not contain any significant ozone-depleting chemical,
but do contain constituents with a GWP. The GWP for the FOR12A blend is
approximately 1100 and the GWP for the FOR12B blend is approximately
1000. These values are lower than the GWP of the substances that FOR12A
and FOR12B would be replacing. The contribution of these constituents
to global warming will be minimized in each end-use through the
implementation of the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of
the Clean Air Act. This section prohibits venting or release of
substitutes for class I and class II ozone depleting substances used in
refrigeration and requires proper disposal of these substances, such as
recycling or recovery.

Flammability and Fractionation Information

Fractionation and flammability tests by the submitters have
determined that although a constituent of each blend is flammable,
FOR12A and FOR12B as blended are not flammable. Further testing has
shown that FOR12A and FOR 12B do not become flammable after leakage.

Toxicity and Exposure Data

Both blends have low toxicity. Only one of the constituents of the
blends exhibits toxicity, and this substance has an 8-hour acceptable
exposure limit of 150 to 170 ppm.
5. NU-22

EPA Decision

NU-22, an HFC blend, is acceptable as a substitute for HCFC-22 in
new and retrofit applications in the following end-uses:

industrial process refrigeration and air-conditioning
centrifugal chillers
reciprocating chillers
residential air conditioning and heat pumps
residential dehumidifiers
refrigerated transport
motor vehicle air conditioning (buses only)

ICOR International, the submitter of NU-22, claims that its composition
is confidential business information.

Environmental Information

The blend has no ozone-depleting potential. The blend contains
constituents exhibiting GWPs, with the highest GWP being 1600. This
value is lower than the GWP of the substance that NU-22 would be
replacing. The contribution of this blend to global warming will be
minimized in each end-use through the implementation of the venting
prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act. This section
prohibits venting or release of substitutes for class I and class II
ozone

[[Page 78979]]

depleting substances used in refrigeration and requires proper disposal
of these substances, such as recycling or recovery.

Flammability and Fractionation Information

Fractionation and flammability tests by the submitter have
determined that although one component of this blend is flammable, this
refrigerant blend is not flammable.

Toxicity and Exposure Data:

This blend's constituents are all non-toxic.
6. SP34E

EPA's Decision

SP34E is acceptable for use as a substitute for CFC-12 in the
following end uses:
Household refrigerators and freezers (retrofit and new)
Refrigerated transport (retrofit and new)
Retail food refrigeration (retrofit and new)
Cold storage warehouses (retrofit and new)
Vending machines (retrofit and new)
Water coolers (retrofit and new)
Reciprocating chillers (retrofit and new)
SP34E is acceptable for use as a substitute for CFC-12, subject to
use conditions for motor vehicle air conditioning (retrofit and new).
SP34E is an HFC refrigerant with additives. Solpower, the
submitter, has claimed the composition is confidential business
information.

Conditions for use in Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems:

Regulations regarding recycling and prohibiting venting issued
under section 609 of the Clean Air Act apply to this blend.
On October 16, 1996, (61 FR 54029), EPA promulgated a final rule
that prospectively applied certain conditions on the use of any
refrigerant used as a substitute for CFC-12 in motor vehicle air
conditioning systems (Appendix D of subpart G of 40 CFR part 82). That
rule provided that EPA would list new refrigerants in future notices of
acceptability. Therefore, the use of SP34E as a CFC-12 substitute in
motor vehicle air conditioning systems must follow the standard
conditions imposed on previous refrigerants, including:

The use of unique fittings designed by the refrigerant
manufacturer,
The application of a detailed label,
The removal of the original refrigerant prior to charging with
SP34E, and
The installation of a high-pressure compressor cutoff switch
on systems equipped with pressure relief devices.

The October 16, 1996 rule gives full details on these use conditions.
You must use the following fittings to use SP34E in motor vehicle
air conditioning systems:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thread Pitch
Fitting type Diameter (inches) (threads/inch) Thread Direction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-side service port.................. .5 (\8/16\)................ 18 Left
High-side service port................. .4375 (\7/16\)............. 14 Right
Large containers (>20 lb.)............. .5 (\8/16\)................ 18 Left
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently, there is no fitting for small cans. Thus, small cans may not
be used for distribution of this product until either cans are
developed that can use the fittings above or EPA issues a future
acceptability notice identifying an alternative fitting. The labels
will have a tan background and black text.

Required Changes in Technology

When using this refrigerant, you would need to use a filter dryer
appropriate for use with R-134a. The submitter claims that SP34E is a
replacement for CFC-12 that allows the use of mineral oil instead of
synthetic oil. EPA has not evaluated any claims about the effectiveness
of SP34E or whether it may be used with mineral oil. You may find
materials in Docket A-91-42 concerning these claims.

Environmental Information

SP34E has an ozone depletion potential (ODP) of zero. Some of the
constituents of SP34E have GWPs, with the highest GWP over 100 years
being 1300. This value is lower than the GWP of the substance that
SP34E would be replacing. The longest-lived constituent has an
atmospheric lifetime of 14.6 years. The contribution of this blend to
global warming will be minimized through requirements under sections
608(c)(2) and 609 of the Clean Air Act. Section 608(c)(2) prohibits
venting or release of substitutes for class I and class II ozone
depleting substances used in refrigeration and requires proper disposal
of these substances, such as recycling or recovery. Section 609
requires refrigerant recycling and training and certification for
people repairing or servicing motor vehicle air conditioning systems.

Flammability Information

Some constituents of the blend are flammable. Flammability testing
by an independent laboratory has determined that SP34E as blended is
not flammable. SP34E has no flash point.

Toxicity and Exposure Data

SP34E exhibits low toxicity. Two of its constituents have
manufacturer acceptable exposure limits (AELs) of 1000 ppm over an 8-
hour time-weighted average. For the remaining constituent, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued a
permissible exposure limit of 1000 ppm over an 8-hour time-weighted
average. SP34E was submitted to the Agency as a Premanufacture Notice
(PMN) under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
7. Correction: ``Furan'' Corrected to Perfluoro (oxacyclopentane)
The April 11, 2000 notice of acceptability at 65 FR 19327
incorrectly said that EPA was approving ``furan'' as a substitute for
CFC-114 for use in uranium isotope separation processing (retrofit
uses). The proper name of the substitute approved for this purpose is
perfluoro (oxacyclopentane). It may also be called
octafluorotetrahydrofuran or furan, octafluorotetrahydro. Its formula
is c-C4F8O. Perfluoro (oxacyclopentane) is a
cyclic perfluoroether (PFE), with similar atmospheric properties to
those of perfluorocarbons (PFCs): long atmospheric lifetime and high
global warming potential. Therefore, the same care as recommended for
PFCs should be applied in handling this cyclic PFE in order to minimize
emissions.

B. Foams

1. Methyl Formate

EPA Decision

Methyl formate is acceptable as a substitute for CFCs and HCFCs in
the following end-uses:

Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock;
Rigid polyurethane appliance;

[[Page 78980]]

Rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams;
Rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration and sandwich
panels; and
Polyurethane integral skin foam.

Environmental Information

Methyl formate has no ODP and very low or zero global warming
potential (GWP). Users should be aware that methyl formate is a
volatile organic compound (VOC) and may be subject to state or federal
requirements developed under Title I of the Clean Air Act. Also,
because methyl formate is considered hazardous, spills and disposal
should be handled in accordance with requirements of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Flammability Information

Methyl formate is flammable and should be handled with proper
precautions. Use of methyl formate will require safe handling and
shipping as prescribed by OSHA and DOT (for example, using personal
safety equipment and following requirements for shipping hazardous
materials at 49 CFR parts 170 through 173).

Toxicity and Exposure Data

Methyl formate is toxic and should be handled with proper
precautions. Use of methyl formate will require safe handling and
shipping as prescribed by OSHA and DOT (for example, using personal
safety equipment, observing permissible exposure limits, and following
requirements for shipping hazardous materials at 49 CFR parts 170
through 173). OSHA established a permissible exposure limit for methyl
formate of 100 ppm for a time-weighted average over an eight-hour work
shift. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists recommend a
15-minute short term exposure limit (STEL) of 150 ppm.

C. Non-Aerosol Solvent Cleaning

1. HFE-7100

EPA Decision

Hydrofluoroether 7100 is acceptable as a substitute for HCFC-141b
and HCFC-22 in metals cleaning, precision cleaning, and electronics
cleaning applications. Hydrofluoroether 7100 is also known as HFE-7100;
C4F9OCH3;
C6F9OH5; methoxynonafluorobutane, iso
and normal; and methyl nonafluorobutyl ether. EPA previously found HFE-
7100 acceptable as a substitute for CFC-113 and methyl chloroform in
metals cleaning, precision cleaning, and electronics cleaning
applications (61 FR 47015).

Environmental Information

Flammability Information

HFE-7100 is non-flammable.

Toxicity and Exposure Data

HFE-7100 exhibits low toxicity, with a workplace environmental
exposure limit (WEEL) of 750 ppm established by the American Industrial
Hygiene Association (AIHA).
2. HFE-7200

EPA Decision

Hydrofluoroether 7200 is acceptable as a substitute for HCFC-141b
and HCFC-22 in metals cleaning, precision cleaning, and electronics
cleaning applications. Hydrofluoroether 7200 is also known as HFE-7200;
C4F9OC2H5;
C5F10H2; and ethoxynonafluorobutane,
iso and normal. EPA previously found HFE-7200 acceptable as a
substitute for CFC-113 and methyl chloroform in metals cleaning,
precision cleaning, and electronics cleaning applications (64 FR
68039).

Environmental Information

Flammability Information

The flammability range in air is 2.4-12.4%. HFE-7200 has no
flashpoint.

Toxicity and Exposure Data

EPA Decision

Heptafluorocyclopentane is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-113,
methyl chloroform, and HCFC-141b in precision cleaning, electronics
cleaning, and metals cleaning applications within the non-aerosol
solvent cleaning sector. Heptafluorocyclopentane is also known as HFCPA
and C5H3F7, and by the trade name
Zeorara-H.

Environmental Information

HFCPA is a hydrofluorocarbon, and thus has no ozone-depleting
potential. The GWP is 250 over a 100-year time horizon, and the
atmospheric lifetime is 1.8 years. These values are either lower or
comparable to the GWPs and atmospheric lifetimes of the substances
HFCPA would be replacing.

Flammability Information

HFCPA has no flash point below its boiling point.

Toxicity and Exposure Data

Although this acceptability determination is not subject to any use
conditions or narrowed use restrictions, EPA expects users to adhere to
the manufacturer's recommended exposure guideline of 123 ppm over an
eight-hour time-weighted average, with a ceiling of 500 ppm.
4. HFC-365mfc

EPA Decision

HFC-365mfc is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-113, methyl
chloroform, and HCFC-141b in precision cleaning, electronics cleaning,
and metals cleaning applications within the non-aerosol solvent
cleaning sector. HFC-365mfc is a halogenated alkane.

Environmental Information

HFC-365mfc contains no chlorine or bromine and does not contribute
to ozone depletion. The GWP is 790 over a 100-year time horizon and the
atmospheric lifetime is 10.2 years. These values are either lower or
comparable to the GWPs and atmospheric lifetimes of the substances HFC-
365mfc would be replacing.

Flammability Information

HFC-365mfc has no flash point. The lower and upper flammability
limits are 3.8% and 13.3%, respectively.

Toxicity and Exposure Data

The submitting manufacturer has set a preliminary acceptable
exposure limit (AEL) of 500 ppm.

[[Page 78981]]

D. Aerosol Solvents and Propellants

1. HFE-7100

EPA Decision

Hydrofluoroether 7100 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 and
HCFC-141b as a solvent in aerosol products. Hydrofluoroether 7100 is
also known as HFE-7100; C4F9OCH3;
C6F9OH5; methoxynonafluorobutane, iso
and normal; and methyl nonafluorobutyl ether. EPA previously found HFE-
7100 acceptable as a substitute for CFC-113 and methyl chloroform in
aerosol solvents (61 FR 47015).

Environmental Information

HFE-7100 does not deplete the ozone layer since it does not contain
chlorine or bromine. It has a 4.1-year atmospheric lifetime and a
global warming potential (GWP) of 390 over a 100-year time horizon.
These are lower than the atmospheric lifetime and GWP of the substances
HFE-7100 would be replacing.

Flammability Information

HFE-7100 is non-flammable.

Toxicity and Exposure Data

HFE-7100 exhibits low toxicity, with a workplace environmental
exposure limit (WEEL) of 750 ppm established by the American Industrial
Hygiene Association (AIHA).
2. HFE-7200

EPA Decision

Hydrofluoroether 7200 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11, and
HCFC-141b as a solvent in aerosol products. Hydrofluoroether 7200 is
also known as HFE-7200;
C4F9OC2H5;
C5F10H2; and ethoxynonafluorobutane,
iso and normal. EPA previously found HFE-7200 acceptable as a
substitute for CFC-113 and methyl chloroform in aerosol solvents (64 FR
68039).

Environmental Information

Flammability Information

The flammability range in air is 2.4-12.4%. HFE-7200 has no
flashpoint.

Toxicity and Exposure Data

EPA Decision

HFC-365mfc is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-113, methyl
chloroform, and HCFC-141b as an aerosol solvent. HFC-365mfc is a
halogenated alkane.

Environmental Information

Flammability Information

HFC-365mfc has no flash point. The lower and upper flammability
limits are 3.8% and 13.3%, respectively.

Toxicity and Exposure Data

The submitting manufacturer has set a preliminary acceptable
exposure limit (AEL) of 500 ppm.

II. Request for Information on Refrigerants for Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioners

EPA requests information on the refrigerants Enviro-Safe, Red Tek,
Maxi-Frig, ES-12A, and Auto Cool. EPA has received numerous inquiries
regarding the SNAP acceptability of the above refrigerants for use in
motor vehicle air conditioners (MVACs). Materials disseminated through
mailings and the internet (Air Docket A-91-42, item IX-B-60) have made
consumers question whether the products listed above are acceptable
substitutes under the SNAP program for CFC-12 (R12 or freon) and other
ozone-depleting CFC-12 substitutes. Under Section 612(e) of the CAA,
any person who produces a substitute for a CFC is required to submit
information to EPA at least 90 days before the substitute is introduced
into interstate commerce. The refrigerants listed above have not been
submitted to EPA for review under the SNAP program. Therefore, the
Agency believes that they cannot be sold as replacements for CFC-12 or
other ozone-depleting CFC substitutes in MVACs.
Additionally, based on advertising materials, Material Safety Data
Sheets (MSDSs) and independent laboratory testing (Air Docket A-91-42,
item IX-B-60), EPA believes the refrigerants listed above may be
flammable hydrocarbon-based blends. In June 1995, flammable
refrigerants were listed as unacceptable as substitutes for CFC-12 in
MVACs because a comprehensive risk assessment on the use of flammable
refrigerants had not been submitted to EPA (60 FR 31092). EPA welcomes
the submission of such a risk assessment. However, until EPA receives
sufficient information on the potential risks of flammable refrigerants
in MVACs, all flammable refrigerants are unacceptable as substitutes
for CFC-12 and ozone-depleting freon substitutes in MVACs, unless
specifically listed as acceptable. Consumers should also be aware that
the following 19 states ban the use of flammable refrigerants in MVACs:
Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah,
Virginia, Wisconsin, Washington, and the District of Columbia. For
further information about flammable refrigerants, see EPA's web site
(http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/hc12alng.html).
EPA requests information on the composition and the flammability of
Enviro-Safe, Red Tek, Maxi-Frig, ES-12A, and Auto Cool. We also would
welcome any formal risk assessment on these refrigerants.

III. Request for Information on Expanding SNAP Program Review of
the Non-Aerosol Solvent Cleaning Sector to Include and Potentially
to Establish Use Conditions for Operations that Involve Manual
Precision, Electronics, or Metals Cleaning

In the non-aerosol solvent cleaning sector, EPA has historically
applied SNAP review only to large industrial cleaning applications,
including cold cleaning and vapor degreasing and defluxing operations,
where ozone-depleting substances have been historically used. Within
industrial cleaning, the three main applications that in the past used
ozone-depleting solvents are precision cleaning, electronics cleaning,
or general metals cleaning, and solvents used in those applications are
subject to SNAP

[[Page 78982]]

review.\1\ The preamble language to the original SNAP rule of March 18,
1994 provided EPA's interpretation that its SNAP regulation excludes
some applications within metals, precision and electronics cleaning.
Specifically, the preamble stated that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ In a February 24, 1998 Notice of Acceptability in the
Federal Register (63 FR 9151), EPA clarified the definitions of
these applications as follows:
``(1) Electronics Cleaning. Primarily the removal of flux
residues from wiring assemblies after a soldering operation has been
completed. This is considered a high value end use application where
performance is critical.
``(2) Metals Cleaning. The removal of a wide variety of
contaminants from metal objects during a manufacturing or
maintenance process. At each stage in the manufacturing process
contaminants must be removed from the piece to ensure a clean metal
surface for the next step in the production process or for final
consumption. These parts tend to be metal objects ranging from fully
assembled aircraft down to small metal parts stamped out in high
volume. These contaminants are most often greases, cutting oils,
coatings, large particles, and metal chips.
``(3) Precision Cleaning. Applies to components and surfaces of
any composition for which an extremely high level of cleanliness is
necessary to ensure satisfactory performance during the
manufacturing process or in final consumption. This end use is
characterized as very high value end use segment based on a non-cost
criteria. Examples of such criteria would be: high value products,
protection or safeguarding of human life, compatibility concerns
with plastics, temperature and mechanical stress limitations,
precision mechanical assemblies/components with demanding machining
tolerances or complex geometrics, and base or mix of metals readily
pitted, corroded, eroded or otherwise compromised''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The SNAP determinations issued in the solvent cleaning sector
focus on substitutes for CFC-113 and methyl chloroform (MCF) when
used in industrial cleaning equipment, since this application
comprises the largest use of ozone-depleting solvents. . . . Other
applications for ozone-depleting solvents exist as well, such as in
dry cleaning of textiles or in hand cleaning or maintenance cleaning
as a spray. In addition, these solvents are used as bearer media
(such as lubricant carriers), mold release agents, component testing
agents, or in other non-cleaning applications. CFC-11 is also
occasionally used as a cleaning solvent in specialized applications.
. . . The Agency intends to exclude cleaning substitutes for CFC-
113, MCF and CFC-11 in these applications--with the exception of
aerosol substitutes--from the SNAP determinations at this time. As a
result, the Agency is not at this time issuing any determinations on
acceptability of such substitutes, and will neither approve nor
restrict their uses.

(59 FR 13090) Based on this language, EPA has not required SNAP review
of substitutes for CFC-113, methyl chloroform and other ozone-depleting
solvents when those substitutes are used in the following specific
manual cleaning applications for metals, electronics or precision
cleaning:

Bearer media (e.g., substitutes for CFC-113 in depositing
lubricants on medical catheters);
Plasma etching;
Mold release agents (for nonaerosol applications);
Motor vehicle air conditioning flushing;
Hand wiping or maintenance cleaning with a non-aerosol
spray;
Dry cleaning of textiles;
Substitutes for CFC-11 (although note that EPA reviews
substitutes to CFC-11 when it is used as an aerosol propellant); and
Flushing of oxygen systems.

There are a wide variety of cleaning operations. Some of these
operations are more emissive, and present more risks to workers
handling the equipment, than others. EPA is concerned that for certain
solvents reviewed under the SNAP program, it may not make sense to
determine that use of that compound is acceptable without conditions or
restrictions, or alternatively that it is unacceptable, in both manual
and machine cleaning operations. EPA is considering pursuing the use of
certain narrowed use restrictions on SNAP acceptability decisions for
manual metals, electronics, or precision cleaning. We believe that this
would better implement the intent of the Clean Air Act Section 612
mandate to evaluate the overall health and environmental risks
associated with potential substitutes to ozone-depleting substances.
Because of the emissive nature of many manual cleaning operations
and relatively high volumes of ozone-depleting solvents and their
substitutes used in manual cleaning,\2\ EPA is now considering
expanding the scope of SNAP review in the non-aerosol solvent cleaning
sector to include one or more of the manual cleaning applications above
for metals cleaning, electronics cleaning, or precision cleaning.\3\ In
most manual cleaning operations, solvent use is not contained within
equipment, and the potential for soil and groundwater contamination is
a major issue. Contamination is also a concern where solvents are
allowed to fall on concrete or other porous floors. In addition to
solvents causing soil and groundwater contamination, the evaporation of
solvents often results in atmospheric damage. Many solvents used in
manual cleaning are volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which contribute
to ground-level ozone pollution. In addition, a significant number of
solvents contribute to global warming and/or to stratospheric ozone
depletion. Human health risk is another concern: cleaning manually
rather than with automated processes will more likely result in
significant worker exposures to solvents, some of which have been
assigned, either by manufacturers, governmental agencies, or voluntary
standard-setting organizations, relatively low exposure limits due to
their potential short-term or long-term toxicity. Other potential
hazards to workers from manual cleaning include skin absorption of
solvents, contact dermatitis, contact burns, exposure to flammable
vapors, and exposure to compounds that may react with chemicals from
other processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ EPA uses the terms ``hand cleaning'' and ``manual cleaning''
synonymously.
\3\ Manual cleaning has never been excluded from the scope of
SNAP in the aerosol solvents and propellants sector, or in the
adhesives, coatings and inks sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Manual cleaning occurs in electronic and precision cleaning as well
as in metals cleaning. Manual cleaning encompasses a diverse set of
cleaning operations. It can involve organic solvents, water-based
cleaners, impingement cleaning, and/or mechanical cleaning. It is
generally, but not always, cold cleaning (i.e., cleaning where the
removal of soils is accomplished by solvents, solvent blends, or water-
based cleaners that are at room temperature or are otherwise below
their boiling points). Sometimes the applications are small-scale; in
some applications, the part to be cleaned may be several stories high.
Manual cleaning may be one or a few steps of an overall cleaning
process that involves hundreds or thousands of cleaning steps.
Techniques of manual cleaning include:

Non-automated wiping, swabbing, scraping, sanding,
brushing, pressure-washing or abrasively blasting surfaces with a
cloth, swab, brush, sponge, pad or other implement that is moistened
with solvent or other cleaner, manually applying the solvent or other
cleaner directly to surfaces to agitate the surface soils, and then
wiping, swabbing, brushing or pressure-washing the surfaces;
Submerging parts in a solution that includes water,
solvents and/or surfactants (this may include ultrasonic cleaning); and
Using spraying equipment, whether the spray is from an
aerosol can, other pressurized can, or non-pressurized container (such
as a pump).

Swabs are generally used in specific spots, wipers can cover a
larger specific area, and sprays are used over a more general area.
Manual cleaning can be performed with either aqueous or solvent-based
cleaning fluids or sprays, and includes the following operations:

Spot cleaning,

[[Page 78983]]

Cleaning large metal surfaces such as milking machines and
other tanks and vessels,
Cleaning small batches of parts, and
Cleaning articles such as medical examination instruments,
optical instruments, labware or circuit boards, and process equipment.

Examples of applications that involve manual cleaning include:
Removal of paints, mineral deposits, dirt and oils during
the overhauling, repairing, or rebuilding of automotive parts,
machinery parts or instruments,
Removal of residual rosin flux during the manufacture and
service of electronics assemblies,
Removal of rosin flux, oil, dirt, and mineral deposits
during the repair of heavy-use military assemblies,
Removal of burnt-on carbonized and/or caramelized oil
during the repair of compressors after burnout,
Removal of flux, oils, polishing compounds and
fingerprints from large, critical aerospace components,
Removal of oils, fluxes and fingerprints from high-value,
critical biomedical devices, and
Removal of residue polishing compounds in precision optics
and in semiconductor manufacturing wafer fabrication.

EPA has previously regulated manual cleaning with solvents in the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)
under Sec. 112(b) of the Act. The September 1, 1995 NESHAP for
Aerospace Manufacturing and Reworking Facilities defines ``hand-wipe
cleaning operation'' as ``the removal of contaminants such as dirt,
grease, oil, and coatings from an aerospace vehicle or component by
physically rubbing it with a material such as a rag, paper, or cotton
swab that has been moistened with a cleaning solvent.'' (60 FR 45958)
The NESHAP rule differentiates between hand-wipe cleaning operations,
spray gun cleaning, and ``flush cleaning,'' in which contaminants are
removed by ``passing solvent over, into, or through the item being
cleaned.'' (60 FR 45958) Similarly, EPA is considering differentiating
between manual cleaning and other methods for solvent cleaning under
the SNAP program.
As part of EPA's efforts to comply with the intent of the mandate
in Section 612 of the Clean Air Act to evaluate the overall health and
environmental risks associated with potential substitutes to ozone
depleting substances, we are interested in receiving comments and
information on the following:
Appropriateness of SNAP review of ODS substitutes used in
manual cleaning,
Potential health and environmental benefits from SNAP
review of solvents used in manual cleaning,
Other solvent applications not currently reviewed under
SNAP, but where SNAP review of solvents used in these applications may
result in environmental benefits, and
Consequences of the expansion of SNAP review into manual
cleaning. For example, since HCFC-141b is already listed as
unacceptable in all non-aerosol solvent cleaning applications (i.e., in
precision, electronics, and metals cleaning), the use of HCFC-141b as a
substitute for CFC-113 or methyl chloroform in manual wiping would
automatically become prohibited if EPA were to promulgate a final rule
expanding the scope of SNAP to include manual cleaning. In addition,
when EPA promulgates rules in the future that list acceptability
determinations for particular solvents, we could prohibit the use of
those solvents in manual cleaning.

The Agency hopes that today's action will give the public an
opportunity to provide input at an early stage in this decision-making
process. If EPA pursues this expansion of the scope of SNAP review, we
will do so through notice-and-comment rulemaking.

IV. Request for Information on Restricting SNAP Acceptability
Decisions in the Non-Aerosol Solvent Cleaning Sector to Operations
That Involve the Use of Equipment That Meets Equipment Standards in
the National Emission Standards for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning

As discussed in the previous section of this action, EPA has
historically applied SNAP review in the non-aerosol solvent cleaning
sector only to large industrial cleaning applications where ozone-
depleting substances have been historically used. Within industrial
cleaning, the three main applications that in the past used ozone-
depleting solvents are precision cleaning, electronics cleaning, or
general metals cleaning. Solvents used in these applications are
subject to SNAP review.
Each of these applications includes a wide range of cleaning
operations and equipment: cold cleaning methods such as pail-and-brush,
hand wipe, recirculating over-spray (``sink-on-a-drum'') parts washers,
immersion cleaning into dip tanks with manual parts handling, automated
immersion cleaning using multiple dip tanks, and either automated or
manual immersion cleaning that incorporates ultrasonic or mechanical
agitation, and heated cleaning methods such as heated dip tanks and
vapor degreasing. Some of these operations are more emissive, and
present more risks to workers handling the equipment, than others. The
Agency is interested in pursuing regulatory options within the SNAP
decisionary framework in order to better account for these differences.
In other words, for certain solvents reviewed under the SNAP program,
it may not make sense to determine that use of that compound is
acceptable without conditions or restrictions, or alternatively that it
is unacceptable, in all precision (or electronic, or metals) cleaning
operations. EPA is interested in pursuing the use of certain narrowed
use restrictions on SNAP acceptability decisions that would better
implement the intent of the Clean Air Act Section 612 mandate to
evaluate the overall health and environmental risks associated with
potential substitutes to ozone-depleting substances.
EPA is specifically interested in receiving comments and
information on the appropriateness of restricting SNAP acceptability
decisions for newly submitted non-aerosol solvents to operations that
involve the use of equipment that meets the requirements set forth in
40 CFR 63.462, Batch cold cleaning machine standards, and 40 CFR
63.463, Batch vapor and in-line cleaning machine standards, which are
set forth in the national emission standards for halogenated solvent
cleaning (``HSC NESHAP'').\4\ Does it

[[Page 78984]]

make sense to add a narrowed use restriction to SNAP ``acceptable'' or
``acceptable subject to use conditions'' determinations that would
permit the use of the solvent in the appropriate application (i.e.,
precision cleaning, electronics cleaning, or metals cleaning) only if
the solvent is used in conjunction with equipment that meets the HSC
NESHAP? This restriction might be stated as follows: ``May only be used
in conjunction with batch cold cleaning machines or batch vapor or in-
line cleaning machines that conform to 40 CFR 63.462 or 40 CFR
63.463.'' If an acceptability decision were restricted in this manner,
and if EPA were to regulate manual cleaning as discussed in the
previous section of the preamble, then the solvent presumably could not
be used in (a) manual cleaning in that application, (b) any other
cleaning process in that application not subject to the HSC NESHAP, or
(c) any cleaning process in that application subject to the HSC NESHAP
but not in conformance with the NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ For reference, the HSC NESHAP provisions at 40 CFR 63.461
(July 1, 1999 revision) include the following definitions:
Batch cleaning machine means a solvent cleaning machine in which
individual parts or a set of parts move through the entire cleaning
cycle before new parts are introduced into the solvent cleaning
machine. An open-top vapor cleaning machine is a type of batch
cleaning machine. A solvent cleaning machine, such as a ferris wheel
cleaner, that cleans multiple batch loads simultaneously and is
manually loaded is a batch cleaning machine.
Cold cleaning machine means any device or piece of equipment
that contains and/or uses liquid solvent, into which parts are
placed to remove soils from the surfaces of the parts or to dry the
parts. Cleaning machines that contain and use heated, nonboiling
solvent to clean the parts are classified as cold cleaning machines.
Open-top vapor cleaning machine means a batch solvent cleaning
machine that has its upper surface open to the air and boils solvent
to create solvent vapor used to clean and/or dry parts.
Immersion cold cleaning machine means a cold cleaning machine in
which the parts are immersed in the solvent when being cleaned.
In-line cleaning machine or continuous cleaning machine means a
solvent cleaing machine that uses an automated parts handling
system, typically a conveyor, to automatically provide a continuous
supply of parts to be cleaned. These units are fully enclosed except
for the conveyor inlet and exit portals. In-line cleaning machines
can be either cold or vapor cleaning machines.
Solvent cleaning machine means any device or piece of equipment
that uses halogenated HAP solvent liquid or vapor to remove soils
from the surfaces of materials. Types of solvent cleaning machines
include, but are not limited to, batch vapor, in-line vapor, in-line
cold, and batch cold solvent cleaning machines.
Vapor cleaning machine means a batch or in-line solvent cleaning
machine that boils liquid solvent generating solvent vapor that is
used as a part of the cleaning or drying cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another alternative would be to restrict a solvent's use to some
subset of the applications mentioned above. For example, there could be
conditions prohibiting the solvent's use for any cleaning machines in
that application not subject to the HSC NESHAP, or for any cleaning
process in that application subject to the HSC NESHAP but not in
conformance with the NESHAP. This alternative restriction might be
stated as follows: ``If used in cleaning machines, may only be used in
conjunction with batch cold cleaning machines or batch vapor or in-line
cleaning machines that conform to 40 CFR 63.462 or 40 CFR 63.463.'' Or,
the restriction could apply to cleaning processes that are subject to
the HSC NESHAP and to manual cleaning applications. Under this second
alternative, the narrowed use restriction might be stated as follows:
``If used in conjunction with batch cold cleaning machines or batch
vapor or in-line cleaning machines that are subject to 40 CFR 63.462 or
40 CFR 63.463, may only be used in conjunction with equipment that
meets the requirements set forth in these provisions. Also may not be
used in manual cleaning operations.''
EPA is also interested in receiving comments and information on the
following:

What are the potential health and environmental benefits
from the SNAP program adding these types of restrictions to future SNAP
acceptability determinations?
Which solvents submitted to the SNAP program in the
future, if any, should be subject to the HSC NESHAP restriction? For
example, should this restriction be attached to acceptability
determinations for any compound for which the eight-hour time-weighted
average exposure limit, whether set by the chemical manufacturer, a
voluntary industry organization, or a federal or state health or safety
agency, is 100 ppm or less? 150 ppm or less? 50 ppm or less?
Should any solvents that EPA has already listed as
``acceptable'' be subject to this type of restriction, in order to
prevent worker exposures or atmospheric emissions?

V. Status of EPA Review of n-Propyl Bromide

EPA is in the process of reviewing n-propyl bromide (nPB) as a
potential substitute for CFC-113, methyl chloroform and HCFC-141b in
the non-aerosol solvent cleaning sector for general metals, precision,
and electronics cleaning applications, as well as in adhesive and
coatings applications, and aerosol propellant and solvent applications.
On February 18, 1999, EPA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register at 64 FR 8043, which
requested comment and information on nPB, particularly with regard to
its ozone-depletion potential (ODP) and its toxicity, in order to
assist in the development of effective regulatory options.
Through the publication of the ANPRM, EPA summarized and made
publicly available the information it had received on nPB so that
interested parties could evaluate these data. The ANPRM noted that EPA
will supplement the public docket as new information is received, and
issue an additional notice of data availability. Today's action serves
to provide the public with an update on the information EPA has
received to date (which has been added to the public docket), and
provides a summary of anticipated next steps in developing regulations
under SNAP for nPB.
The discussion below presents this new information for each of the
main areas previously identified in the February 1999 ANPRM where
significant uncertainties existed or data were incomplete.
Ozone Depletion Potential. Since the publication of the ANPRM, EPA
has received new information about ongoing modeling efforts to estimate
nPB's ODP. These new efforts involve development and refinement of
three-dimensional (3-D) chemical transport models that account for the
relatively short-atmospheric lifetime of nPB (11-14 days according to
Nelson et al. 1997; Wuebbles et al., 1998; 1999a, and 19-20 days
according to Wuebbles et al., 2000) and for the location and timing of
emissions. While two-dimensional models can treat longer-lived gases
(e.g., CFCs, halons) that are well-mixed in the atmosphere as if they
are uniformly emitted at all latitudes and longitudes, they are not
designed to adequately account for variations in concentrations and
transport of short-lived compounds and their degradation products. As
discussed in a March 1999 workshop on short-lived compounds sponsored
by EPA and NASA (Wuebbles and Ko, 1999), the ODPs for short-lived
compounds ideally would be defined as a function of location and
perhaps time of emission. 3-D models can examine questions related to
convective transport rates of these short-lived compounds and their
degradation products at different latitudes, and the relative
importance of transient versus steady-state effects. Using the most
recent version of the MOZART2 3-D model and considering the full
degradation chemistry of nPB in the atmosphere, Wuebbles et al. 2000
(available from the EPA Air Docket) derived a range of ODP values that
are strongly dependent on location of the emissions, especially with
respect to latitude. For example, the ODP averaged for all global
emissions is estimated to range from 0.033 to 0.040, but the ODP for
emissions from the tropics (India, Southeast Asia, and Indonesia) is
estimated to be much larger, 0.87 to 0.105. The authors attribute the
difference to the strong effect of the deep convective transport in the
tropics in rapidly moving gases to the upper troposphere. Assuming that
emissions occur only over the contiguous United States, the ODP is
estimated to range from 0.016 to 0.019. While many of the previously
identified uncertainties with

[[Page 78985]]

respect to the potential impacts of nPB on stratospheric ozone are
addressed in this study, the authors note that considerable
uncertainties remain related to the lack of empirical data on reaction
rate constants and products for the degradation chemistry associated
with nPB. Additional uncertainties also remain that are common to any
3-D modeling of short-lived gases related to the treatment of
convective processes, boundary layer processes, surface deposition, and
rainout.
The Agency remains interested in receiving from the public any
other information pertaining to the atmospheric effects and ozone
depletion potential of short-lived atmospheric chemicals (e.g., shorter
than three months), and any additional information on the ODP of nPB,
specifically. EPA will make any new information accessible to the
public as it becomes available by placing it in the docket identified
in the Addresses section of this document, and if appropriate, will
issue a notice of data availability in the Federal Register to insure
that the public is aware of any new information.
Toxicity. As with other solvents, occupational exposure to nPB may
occur via both inhalation and skin absorption. Potential health effects
related to overexposure to nPB (and many other solvents) may include
irritation of the eyes, mucous membranes, upper respiratory tract, and
skin. At higher exposure levels, central nervous system effects
(characterized by headache and dizziness, possibly leading to loss of
consciousness) may occur. Animal studies indicate that exposure to nPB
at concentrations above 400 parts per million for ``sub-chronic''
durations of 28-90 days is associated with liver toxicity and
reproductive system effects (reduced sperm counts and motility).
Reproductive system effects have also been observed in both rats and
humans exposed to 2-bromopropane (iPB), an isomer of nPB which also has
tested positive in some in vitro cancer assays.
As discussed in the February 1999 ANPRM, the reproductive and
developmental effects of nPB are especially uncertain, and require
additional data before the Agency issues a proposed regulation. In
cooperation with EPA, a consortium of nPB manufacturers conducted a
study to evaluate the effects of nPB exposures on the developmental and
reproductive systems in two generations of rats. This study was
recently completed, and we expect that its results will be available
for Agency review early in 2001.
EPA is also aware of recent Japanese studies that have shown
adverse neurotoxicological and reproductive toxicological effects in
rats exposed to nPB levels as low as 200 ppm, which is a lower level
for adverse effects than has been previously demonstrated (Ichihara et
al., 2000a, b). The Agency intends to review the protocols followed in
these studies in order to estimate the significance of the findings.
EPA plans on issuing a proposed nPB regulation as soon as possible
once we have had an opportunity to evaluate the results of these recent
toxicological studies. In the event that EPA lists uses of nPB in
certain applications as acceptable, we expect that the final action
will include a recommended exposure limit. In the February 1999 ANPRM,
EPA recommended that until exposure levels are set, either on a
voluntary basis by a standard-setting organization such as the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) or the
American Industrial Hygienists Association (AIHA), or on a mandatory
basis by OSHA, nPB users should adhere to a preliminary exposure limit
of 50-100 ppm over an eight-hour time-weighted average. The nPB
manufacturers' current company-set limit at that time was 100 ppm.
However, based on the preliminary review of the two-year study
discussed above, one manufacturer of nPB has revised its recommended
exposure limit to 25 ppm on an 8-hour, time-weighted average basis (see
docket A-91-42, item IX-B-61). As indicated by at least one
manufacturer's decision and as noted in the February 1999 ANPRM, the
results from developmental and reproductive testing may require a lower
limit than EPA's preliminary recommendation of 50-100 ppm to be
protective.
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has
submitted nPB and iPB to the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences' National Toxicology Program (NTP) for further assessment. In
its submission, OSHA recommended that NTP consider administering the
following tests: Carcinogenicity study in both sexes of rats and mice;
a multi-generation reproductive study; developmental studies
(inhalation by pregnant animals); a subchronic neuro-toxicity study; a
genotoxicity battery; and toxicokinetic/mechanistic studies. These
studies would likely take several years to complete. EPA anticipates
that once the assessment is finalized, OSHA will work to develop a
mandatory exposure limit for nPB use in the workplace. The results of
OSHA's review could result in a limit that is lower than EPA's
preliminary recommendation of 50-100 ppm.
EPA is presenting and making publicly available the information it
has received so that interested parties may evaluate these data for
themselves and use it as guidance if they choose to use nPB until a
proposal and final rule are in place. EPA remains interested in
receiving additional information on human health and toxicological
risks associated with exposure to nPB. As EPA receives new information,
we will add it to the docket, along with a notice of data availability
in the Federal Register, as appropriate.

VI. 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
refers 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 substance to or delete a substance 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) directs EPA to require
any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance
to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing
chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new
uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also
provide the Agency with the producer's

[[Page 78986]]

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 original rulemaking (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; solvents cleaning; fire suppression and
explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and
inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors compose the principal
industrial sectors that historically consumed the largest volumes of
ozone-depleting compounds.
As described in this original rule for the SNAP program, 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
substance. Consequently, by this action EPA is adding substances to the
list of acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new
listings.
EPA does, however, believe that notice-and-comment rulemaking is
required to place any substance on the list of prohibited substitutes,
to list a substance as acceptable only under certain conditions, to
list substances as acceptable only for certain uses, or to remove a
substance from the lists of prohibited or acceptable substitutes.
Updates to these lists are published as separate notices of rulemaking
in the Federal Register.
The Agency defines a ``substitute'' as any chemical, product
substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or
new, intended for use as a replacement for 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 substitute
manufacturers, but may include importers, formulators, or end-users,
when they are responsible for introducing a substitute into commerce.
You can find a complete chronology of SNAP decisions and the
appropriate Federal Register citations at EPA's Ozone Depletion World
Wide Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/chron.html. This
information is also available from the Air Docket (see Addresses
section above for contact information).

VI. Additional Information

Contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at (800) 296-1996,
Monday-Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (EST). For
more information on the Agency's process for administering the SNAP
program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the
original SNAP rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18,
1994 (59 FR 13044). Notices and rulemakings under the SNAP program, as
well as all EPA publications on protection of stratospheric ozone, are
available from EPA's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site at
www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/ and from the Stratospheric Protection
Hotline, the toll-free telephone number of which is listed above.

VII. References

The following referenced documents are available for inspection and
copying at the EPA Docket.
Ichihara, G., et al., ``1-Bromopropane, an Alternative to Ozone
Layer Depleting Solvents, Is Dose-Dependently Neurotoxic to Rats in
Long-Term Inhalation Exposure,'' Toxicological Sciences 55, 116-123
(2000a), available through the EPA Air Docket and at http://
toxsci.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/55/1/116.
Ichihara, G., et al., ``Reproductive Toxicity of 1-Bromopropane, a
Newly Introduced Alternative to Ozone Layer Depleting Solvents, in Male
Rats,'' Toxicological Sciences 54, 416-423 (2000b), available through
the EPA Air Docket and at http://toxsci.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/
full/54/2/416).
Wuebbles, D.J., Patten, K.O., Johnson, M.T., Kotomarthi, R.; The
New Methodology for Ozone Depletion Potentials of Short-Lived
Compounds: n-Propyl Bromide as an Example June 26, 2000 Draft.
Web site for Albemarle Corporation, ``Regulatory Status'' and
``Product Data'' for Abzol cleaners, available through the EPA Air
Docket and at http://www.albemarle.com/abztopicsfrm.htm.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: December 6, 2000.
Paul Stolpman,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation.

Appendix A: Summary of Acceptable Decisions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-Use Substitute Decision Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REFRIGERATION and AIR CONDITIONING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
industrial process refrigeration, for Hydrofluoroether 7100 as a Acceptable.
use as a secondary heat transfer fluid substitute for CFC-11,
in new equipment for not-in-kind CFC-12, CFC-114, CFC-115,
replacements of systems. HCFC-22 and R-502.
Hydrofluoroether 7200 as a Acceptable.
substitute for CFC-11,
CFC-12, CFC-114, CFC-115,
HCFC-22 and R-502.

[[Page 78987]]

retail food refrigeration, for use as a Hydrofluoroether 7100 as a Acceptable.
secondary heat transfer fluid in new substitute for CFC-12 and
equipment for not-in-kind replacements R-502.
of systems.
Hydrofluoroether 7200 as a Acceptable.
substitute for CFC-12 and
R-502.
very low temperature refrigeration, for Hydrofluoroether 7100 as a Acceptable.
use as a secondary heat transfer fluid substitute for CFC-113, R-
in new equipment for not-in-kind 13B1, and R-503.
replacements of systems.
Hydrofluoroether 7200 as a Acceptable.
substitute for CFC-113, R-
13B1, and R-503.
non-mechanical heat transfer, for use Hydrofluoroether 7100 as a Acceptable.
in retrofit and new equipment. substitute for CFC-11,
CFC-12, CFC-114, CFC-115,
and HCFC-22.
Hydrofluoroether 7200 as a Acceptable.
substitute for CFC-11,
CFC-12, CFC-114, CFC-115,
and HCFC-22.
industrial process refrigeration and FOR12A as a substitute for Acceptable.
air-conditioning (retrofit and new). HCFC-22.
FOR12B as a substitute for Acceptable.
CFC-12.
NU-22 as a substitute for Acceptable.
HCFC-22.
industrial process refrigeration SP34E as a substitute for Acceptable.
(retrofit and new). CFC-12.
cold storage warehouses (retrofit and FOR12A as a substitute for Acceptable.
new). CFC-12.
FOR12B as a substitute for Acceptable.
CFC-12.
SP34E as a substitute for Acceptable.
CFC-12.
refrigerated transport (retrofit and FOR12A as a substitute for Acceptable.
new). CFC-12.
FOR12B as a substitute for Acceptable.
CFC-12.
NU-22 as a substitute for Acceptable.
HCFC-22.
SP34E as a substitute for Acceptable.
CFC-12.
retail food refrigeration (retrofit and FOR12A as a substitute for Acceptable.
new). CFC-12.
FOR12B as a substitute for Acceptable.
CFC-12.
SP34E as a substitute for Acceptable.
CFC-12.
ice machines (new)..................... FOR12A as a substitute for Acceptable.
CFC-12.
FOR12B as a substitute for Acceptable.
CFC-12.
vending machines (retrofit and new).... FOR12A as a substitute for Acceptable...............
CFC-12.
FOR12B as a substitute for Acceptable...............
CFC-12.
SP34E as a substitute for Acceptable...............
CFC-12.
water coolers (retrofit and new)....... FOR12A as a substitute for Acceptable...............
CFC-12.
FOR12B as a substitute for Acceptable...............
CFC-12.

[[Page 78988]]

SP34E as a substitute for Acceptable...............
CFC-12.
centrifugal chillers (retrofit and new) FOR12A as a substitute for Acceptable...............
CFC-12.
FOR12B as a substitute for Acceptable...............
CFC-12.
NU-22 as a substitute for Acceptable...............
HCFC-12.
reciprocating chillers (retrofit and FOR12A as a substitute for Acceptable...............
new). CFC-12.
FOR12B as a substitute for Acceptable...............
CFC-12.
NU-22 as a substitute for Acceptable...............
HCFC-12.
SP34E as a substitute for Acceptable...............
CFC-12.
household refrigerators and freezers FOR12A as a substitute for Acceptable...............
(retrofit and new). CFC-12.
FOR12B as a substitute for Acceptable...............
CFC-12.
SP34E as a substitute for Acceptable...............
CFC-12.
residential air conditioning and heat NU-22 as a substitute for Acceptable...............
pumps (retrofit and new). HCFC-22.
residential dehumidifiers (retrofit and NU-22 as a substitute for Acceptable...............
new). HCFC-22.
motor vehicle air conditioning, buses NU-22 as a substitute for Acceptable.
only (retrofit and new). HCFC-22.
motor vehicle air conditioning SP34E as a substitute for Acceptable............... Users must use the unique fittings and label specified
(retrofit and new). CFC-12. by the manufacturer, as required by Appendix D to
subpart G of 40 CFR part 82. Use is subject to
requirements under Sec. 609 of the Clean Air Act.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOAMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rigid polyurethane and Methyl formate as a Acceptable...............
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock. substitute for CFCs and
HCFCs.
rigid polyurethane appliances.
rigid polyurethane slabstock
and other foams.
rigid polyurethane commercial
refrigeration and sandwich panels.
polyurethane integral skin
foam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NON-AEROSOL SOLVENT CLEANING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all metals cleaning, precision Hydrofluoroether 7100 as a Acceptable...............
cleaning, and electronics cleaning substitute for HCFC-141b
applications. and HCFC-22.
Hydrofluoroether 7200 as a Acceptable...............
substitute for HCFC-141b
and HCFC-22.
Heptafluorocyclopentane as Acceptable. EPA expects users to adhere to an exposure limit of 123
a substitute for CFC-113, ppm over an eight-hour time-weighted average, with a
methyl chloroform, and ceiling of 500 ppm.
HCFC-141b.
HFC-365mfc as a substitute Acceptable...............
for CFC-113, methyl
chloroform, and HCFC-141b.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 78989]]

AEROSOL SOLVENTS AND PROPELLANTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aerosol solvents....................... Hydrofluoroether 7100 as a Acceptable...............
substitute for CFC-11 and
HCFC-141b.
Hydrofluoroether 7200 as a Acceptable...............
substitute for CFC-11 and
HCFC-141b.
HFC-365mfc as a substitute Acceptable...............
for CFC-113, methyl
chloroform, and HCFC-141b.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 00-32150 Filed 12-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice 14 for Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

Related Material

Local Navigation