Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Listing of Substitutes for
Ozone-Depleting Substances
Related Material
[Federal Register: April 28, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 81)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22981-23002]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28ap99-15]
[[Page 22981]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 82
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Listing of Substitutes for Ozone-
Depleting Substances; Final Rule
[[Page 22982]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-6332-3]
RIN 2060-AG12
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Listing of Substitutes for
Ozone-Depleting Substances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action imposes restrictions or prohibitions on
substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP implements section 612 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended in 1990, which requires EPA to evaluate 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 substitutes
posing other environmental problems.
On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated a final rulemaking setting forth
its plan for administering the SNAP program, and has since issued
decisions on the acceptability and unacceptability of a number of
substitutes. In this Final Rule (FRM), EPA is issuing its decisions on
the acceptability of certain substitutes included in a May 21, 1997
notice of proposed rulemaking. Specifically, this action clarifies the
criteria for unique fittings used in motor vehicle air-conditioning
systems, and addresses the acceptability of certain substitutes in the
fire suppression, solvent, and aerosol sectors, and the unacceptability
of substitutes in the refrigeration and air conditioning, solvents,
aerosols, fire suppression, and adhesives, coatings, & inks sectors.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 28, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and data are available in Docket A-91-42,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAR Docket and Information
Center, 401 M Street, SW, Room M-1500, Mail Code 6102, Washington, DC
20460. The docket may be inspected between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on
weekdays. Telephone (202) 260-7548; fax (202) 260-4400. As provided in
40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for photocopying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Stratospheric Protection Hotline
at (800) 296-1996. Kelly Davis at (202) 564-2303 or fax (202) 565-2096,
Analysis and Review Branch, Stratospheric Protection Division, Mail
Code 6205J, Washington, DC 20460. Overnight or courier deliveries
should be sent to 501 3rd Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20001. EPA's
Ozone World Wide Web site at ``http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/
snap/''.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action is divided into four sections:
I. Section 612 Program
A. Statutory Requirements
B. Regulatory History
II. Listing of Substitutes
III. Administrative Requirements
IV. Additional Information
I. Section 612 Program
A. Statutory Requirements
Section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 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:
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 90-day Notification--Section 612(e) requires EPA to
require any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I
substance to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or
existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for
significant new uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The
producer must also provide the Agency with the producer's health and
safety studies on such substitutes.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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 (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 consumed large volumes of ozone-
depleting compounds.
The Agency defines a ``substitute'' as any chemical, product
substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or
new, that could replace a class I or class II substance. Anyone who
produces a substitute must provide the Agency with health and safety
studies on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into
interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. This
requirement applies to chemical manufacturers, but may include
importers, formulators or end-users when they are responsible for
introducing a substitute into commerce.
II. Listing of Substitutes
To develop the lists of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes,
EPA conducts screens of health and environmental risk posed by various
substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds in each use sector. The
outcome of these risk screens can be found in the public docket, as
described above in the Addresses portion of this document.
Under section 612, the Agency has considerable discretion in the
risk
[[Page 22983]]
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. Fully acceptable substitutes, i.e., those
with no restrictions, 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 risk to human health and the environment. Such
substitutes are described as ``acceptable subject to use conditions.''
Use of such substitutes without meeting associated use conditions
renders these substitutes unacceptable and subjects the user to
enforcement for violation of section 612 of the Clean Air Act.
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 applications and end-uses which are not specified
as acceptable in the narrowed use limit renders these substitutes
unacceptable.
In this final rule, EPA is issuing its decision on the
acceptability of certain substitutes not previously reviewed by the
Agency. Today's rule incorporates decisions proposed on May 21, 1997,
at 62 FR 27873 (referred to hereinafter as ``the proposal''). As
described in the final rule for the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), EPA
believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking is required to place any
alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute
as acceptable only under certain use conditions or narrowed use limits,
or to remove an alternative from either the list of prohibited or
acceptable substitutes.
Parts A-E below present a detailed discussion of the substitute
listing determinations by major use sector. Tables summarizing listing
decisions in this Final Rule are in Table 1 and Appendix H. Appendix H
will appear in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 82.
Listings in Table 1 will not appear in the CFR and add to the list of
alternatives acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do not
impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior license to use a
substitute. The comments contained in Appendix H provide additional
information on substitutes determined to be either unacceptable,
acceptable subject to narrowed use limits, or acceptable subject to use
conditions. 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 substitutes to apply all comments in their application of these
substitutes, regardless of any regulatory requirements. 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--Class I
1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. CFC-12 Automobile and Non-automobile Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners,
Retrofit and New
(1) Criteria for Uniqueness of Fittings
Current SNAP regulations require that each refrigerant used in
motor vehicle air conditioning may only be used with a set of fittings
that is unique to that refrigerant. This final rule clarifies minimum
criteria for uniqueness of fittings.
In the course of retrofitting a motor vehicle air-conditioning
(MVAC) system, servicers of these systems, whether professional
technicians or do-it-yourselfers, must affix fittings that are designed
to work only with that refrigerant. To meet that goal, servicers must
install fittings that satisfy the requirements set forth below.
<bullet> High-side screw-on fittings for each refrigerant must
differ from high-side screw-on fittings for all other refrigerants,
including CFC-12, and from low-side screw-on fittings for CFC-12;
<bullet> Low-side screw-on fittings for each refrigerant must
differ from low-side screw-on fittings for all other refrigerants,
including CFC-12;
<bullet> High-side screw-on fittings for a given refrigerant must
differ from low-side screw-on fittings for that refrigerant, to protect
against connecting a low-pressure system to a high-pressure one;
<bullet> High-side quick-connect fittings for each refrigerant must
differ from high-side quick-connect fittings for all other
refrigerants, including CFC-12 (if they exist);
<bullet> Low-side quick-connect fittings for each refrigerant must
differ from low-side quick-connect fittings for all other refrigerants,
including CFC-12 (if they exist);
<bullet> High-side quick-connect fittings for a given refrigerant
must differ from low-side quick-connect fittings for that refrigerant,
to protect against connecting a low-pressure system to a high-pressure
one;
<bullet> For each type of container, the fitting for each
refrigerant must differ from the fitting for that type of container for
all other refrigerants, including CFC-12.
For screw-on fittings, ``differ'' means that either the diameter
must differ by at least \1/16\ inch or the thread direction must be
reversed (i.e. right-handed vs. left-handed). Simply changing the
thread pitch is not sufficient. For quick-connect fittings, ``differ''
means that a person using normal force and normal tools (including
wrenches) must not be able to cross-connect fittings. Following are
some examples:
<bullet> a \3/8\ (\6/16\) inch outside diameter screw-on fitting
with a right-hand thread differs from a \5/16\ inch outside diameter
screw-on fitting with a right-hand thread;
<bullet> a \3/8\ inch outside diameter screw-on fitting with a
left-hand thread differs from a \3/8\ inch outside diameter screw-on
fitting with a right-hand thread;
<bullet> a \3/8\ inch outside diameter screw-on fitting with a
right-hand thread pitch of 18 threads/inch does not differ from a \3/8\
inch outside screw-on diameter fitting with a right-hand thread pitch
of 24 threads/inch;
<bullet> a quick-connect fitting differs from another quick-connect
fitting if all combinations of the same type male and female parts
(high, low, small can, 30-lb. cylinder) will not connect using normal
tools.
[[Page 22984]]
The sole exception to the \1/16\ inch difference requirement is the
difference between the small can fittings for GHG-X4 and R-406A. The
GHG-X4 small can fitting uses a metric measurement, and is slightly
less than \1/16\ inch larger than the small can fitting for R-406A. EPA
has concluded that these fittings will not cross-connect, and therefore
they may be used. No other exception exists, although EPA will consider
any requests on a case-by-case basis.
2. Response to Comments
A commenter noted that the fittings for small cans of GHG-X4 are
not \1/16\ inch different from those of other refrigerants, and
expressed concern that the fittings would be disallowed under the
criteria for uniqueness in today's rule. The commenter further
suggested that because the fittings were metric and EPA had confirmed
they would not cross-thread with other fittings, that an exception be
granted. EPA agrees and discusses this above.
B. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning--Class II
1. Unacceptable Substitutes
a. NARM-22
NARM-22, which consists of HCFC-22, HFC-23, and HFC-152a, is
unacceptable as a substitute for HCFC-22 in all new and retrofitted
end-uses.
NARM-22 contains HCFC-22, which is a class II ozone-depleting
substance. EPA does not believe it is appropriate to replace a class II
refrigerant with a blend containing a class II refrigerant. Listing
this blend as acceptable would be a barrier to a smooth transition away
from ozone-depleting refrigerants. Other alternatives to HCFC-22 are
already acceptable that do not contain any ozone-depleting
refrigerants.
In addition, HFC-23 has a lifetime of 250 years, and its 100-year
global warming potential (GWP) is 11,700.\1\ Both of these
characteristics are considerably higher than other HFCs and HCFCs.
Other acceptable HCFC-22 substitutes do not contain such high global
warming components. The 1993 Climate Change Action Plan directs EPA to
narrow the scope of uses allowed for HFCs with high global warming
potentials where better alternatives exist. For this reason, and the
fact that NARM-22 contains HCFC-22, the use of this blend as an HCFC-22
substitute is unacceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GWPs and atmospheric lifetimes cited in this document are
from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report
entitled Climate Change 1995--The Science of Climate Change, IPCC
Second Assessment Report. More recent values for GWPs and
atmospheric lifetimes published in the Scientific Assessment of
Ozone Depletion: 1998, World Meteorological Organization Global
Ozone Research and Monitoring Project--Report No. 44, may be
somewhat different than the values cited here but do not alter any
of the technical or policy determinations by EPA in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Solvents Cleaning
1. Acceptable Substitutes
a. Metals Cleaning
(1) HFC-4310mee
HFC-4310mee is an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and methyl
chloroform (MCF) in metals cleaning. This chemical does not deplete the
ozone layer since it does not contain chlorine or bromine. Review under
the SNAP program and the Toxic Substances Control Act premanufacture
notification program determined that a time-weighted average workplace
exposure standard of 200 ppm and a workplace exposure ceiling of 400
ppm established by the submitting company would adequately protect
human health and that the industry can meet these exposure limits using
the types of equipment specified in the product safety information
provided by the chemical manufacturer. The ceiling limit, established
by the submitting company, was set based on a potential acute central
nervous system effect above 1500 ppm.
2. Unacceptable Substitutes
a. Chlorobromomethane
Chlorobromomethane (CBM) is unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-
113, methyl chloroform (MCF), and HCFC-141b in metals cleaning,
electronics cleaning and precision cleaning. CBM, also called Halon
1011, has been used as a fire suppressant. EPA has received
notification that it can also be used as a solvent and that it is a
potential substitute for the ozone-depleting solvents CFC-113, methyl
chloroform and HCFC-141b. EPA received a SNAP submission requesting
consideration of CBM as an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and MCF in
solvents cleaning of metals, electronics, and in precision cleaning.
Recent model analyses establish a best estimate for the ozone
depletion potential (ODP) for CBM in the range of 0.07 to 0.15.
Numerous other alternatives exist with either zero or much lower ODP
that do not pose a comparable risk.
3. Response to Comments
Commenters identified six issues related to the proposed determination
for chlorobromomethane:
<bullet> Ozone depletion potential of chlorobromomethane;
<bullet> Uncertainty in ODP calculation;
<bullet> CBM as a substitute for HCFC-141b;
<bullet> Comparison of CBM with CFC-113;
<bullet> CBM under the Montreal Protocol phaseout;
<bullet> Toxicological issues regarding CBM.
a. Ozone Depletion Potential of Chlorobromomethane
A number of the comments questioned the science employed in
calculating the ODP of CBM. Other comments included studies to
determine ODP conducted by separate groups. As these studies were
completed, they were added to the docket during the comment period. The
differences in estimates from the studies resulted in a conference
among the modelers to compare results, and two of the modelers were
found to have made miscalculations that affected their initial ODP
estimates. Because the commenters were not privy to these collaborative
conversations amongst the modelers, the Agency offers the following
chronology to clarify the sequence of events leading to the agreement
on ODP values.
The initial studies performed on CBM were the following:
``Estimates of the Atmospheric Lifetime and ODP of CBM,'' (Ko and
Chang, 1994); Calculation of the ODP of CBM (Pyle and Bekki, 1994);
``Evaluation of ODP for CBM and 1-Bromo-Propane,'' (Wuebbles, Jain, and
Patten, 1997). These studies produced ODP estimates for CBM ranging
from 0.05 to 0.28. Because of inconsistencies between the models, Pyle,
Bekki and Wuebbles met in the spring of 1997 to discuss the proper
modeling procedures and appropriate variables to be used. The Pyle/
Bekki model had not taken into account several key factors used in the
standard assessments for determining ODP in international forums (e.g.,
WMO, 1995). The meeting resulted in a clarification of various model
parameters (e.g., atmospheric lifetimes and atmospheric transport of
different ozone-depleting compounds, relative reactivity of bromine,
losses to the ocean sink), and recalculation of the original values.
Based on their reanalyses, the group estimated the ODP for CBM,
including the ocean sink, to be in the range of 0.07-0.15.
Based on additional sensitivity analyses on the potential effects
of the ocean sink and the nearly negligible effects of the soil sink,
Wuebbles et al. (1997) determined an ODP range of 0.11-0.13.
Subsequently, extensive revisions were made to the underlying two-
dimensional model to reflect recent data on various parameters
including tropospheric chemistry and kinetic
[[Page 22985]]
rates, atmospheric transport rates, and ozone hole processes. Based on
these changes, Wuebbles et al. (1998) derived an ODP for CBM in the
range of 0.08-0.1, with the range reflecting uncertainty in the ocean
sink for CBM. A semi-empirical model used by a researcher in the NOAA
Aeronomy Laboratory generated an ODP range comparable to the range
derived in the analyses described above (Solomon, 1997).
Considering all available model results, EPA concludes that the
best estimate for the ODP of CBM lies in the range 0.07 to 0.15 when an
estimate for the ocean sink is included. This range is similar to the
ODP for HCFC-141b, a compound also unacceptable for use as a solvent or
adhesive, and whose use as a solvent is allowed only for specific
aerosol applications exempted from the nonessential products
prohibition under section 610 of the Clean Air Act.
b. Uncertainty in ODP Calculation
One commenter suggested that EPA should not make decisions until
all areas of uncertainty are resolved and areas of disagreement among
researchers have been understood. In fact, the Agency has attempted to
gather and assess all available information from the full range of
experts on the ODP of chlorobromomethane. Under section 612 of the CAA,
the Agency has the obligation to reduce the overall risk to human
health and the environment associated with substitutes to ozone-
depleting substances. If new data become available after final
rulemaking that are contrary to the current scientific understanding,
section 612 of the CAA allows the Agency to reconsider its SNAP
decision in response to either a petition or additional information.
c. CBM as a substitute for HCFC-141b
A commenter stated that in the past, the Agency has approved HCFC-
141b while expressing concern for its ODP of 0.11, but that such
approval was warranted to assist in the goal of the Montreal Protocol
and section 612 of the CAA to move usage away from other compounds with
higher ODPs (e.g., CFCs). The commenter believed that the same analysis
applies to CBM as a substitute for HCFC-141b. The Agency disagrees with
this comparison. In the case of HCFC-141b, there were no other viable
alternatives for specific end-uses, and consequently HCFC-141b was
deemed acceptable despite its relatively high ODP. HCFC-141b is
scheduled for a production phaseout in 2003, and has been listed as
unacceptable in many specific end-uses, including solvent end-uses,
because available alternatives exist with a lower ODP. HCFC-141b use is
banned under section 610 of the Clean Air Act (the nonessential
products ban) for many uses, with exemptions limited to aerosol
applications of wasp and hornet sprays, mold release agents, solvent
cleaners for electronics applications, lubricants, aircraft maintenance
products, and spinnerette cleaner lubricants. Considering that the ODP
range for CBM is comparable to that of HCFC-141b and HCFC-141b is
unacceptable as a substitute solvent in all end-uses, the Agency sees
no environmental benefit to approving CBM.
d. Comparison of CBM with CFC-113
One commenter declared that the U.S. EPA must compare the ODP of
CBM only to that of CFC-113, and not to the ODP of other substitutes.
The Agency disagrees; under section 612(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA),
the Agency is required to compare substitutes to each other when they
are available:
``* * * it shall be unlawful to replace any class I or class II
substance with any substitute substance which the Administrator
determines may present adverse effects to human health or the
environment, when the Administrator has identified an alternative
that reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment
and is currently or potentially available.''
Recent model analyses establish a best estimate for the ODP for CBM
in the range of 0.07 to 0.15. Numerous other alternatives exist with
either zero or a much lower ODP that do not pose a comparable risk.
Therefore, while the Agency does compare the substitute to the
substance being replaced, if there are alternatives that pose a lower
overall risk, EPA cannot list the substitute as acceptable.
e. CBM under the Montreal Protocol Phaseout
A commenter stated that the Montreal Protocol does not require the
phaseout of CBM. While Parties to the Protocol have agreed to phase out
many ozone-depleting substances, many other chemicals that pose risks
to the ozone layer, including CBM, have not yet been addressed.
Nevertheless, the CAA gives EPA authority to take actions more
stringent than the Montreal Protocol, and the Agency believes that
section 612 of the Act requires EPA to list CBM as an unacceptable
substitute because of the environmental and health effect risks that it
poses.
f. Toxicological Issues regarding CBM
Many commenters submitted comments regarding toxicological issues
related to CBM. EPA is not addressing comments raised on toxicity
issues at this time because the SNAP decision is based solely on the
ODP of CBM.
D. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. Total Flooding Agents
(1) C<INF>3</INF>F<INF>8</INF>
C<INF>3</INF>F<INF>8</INF> is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute
where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to
performance or safety requirements: (a) because of their physical or
chemical properties, or (b) where human exposure to the extinguishing
agents may result in failure to meet applicable use conditions.
See the discussion under ``Response to Comments'' (section II.D.4)
of the changes made to the use limits on this agent. See Appendix H for
a complete statement of the use conditions (unchanged) which apply to
this agent in this end-use.
(2) C<INF>4</INF>F<INF>10</INF>
C<INF>4</INF>F<INF>10</INF> is acceptable as a Halon 1301
substitute where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to
performance or safety requirements: (a) because of their physical or
chemical properties, or (b) where human exposure to the extinguishing
agents may result in failure to meet applicable use conditions.
See the discussion under ``Response to Comments'' (section II.D.4)
of the changes made to the use limits on this agent. See Appendix H for
a complete statement of the use conditions (unchanged) which apply to
this agent in this end-use.
(3) HFC-236fa
HFC-236fa is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute when
manufactured using any process that does not convert
perfluoroisobutylene directly to HFC-236fa in a single step. HFC-236fa
may be used in explosion suppression and explosion inertion
applications without use limits, and may be used in fire suppression
applications where other non-PFC agents or alternatives are not
technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements: (a)
because their physical or chemical properties, or (b) where human
exposure to the extinguishing agents may result in failure to meet
applicable use conditions.
As discussed in the initial SNAP rulemaking (59 FR 13044, March 18,
1994), total flooding agents are acceptable for use in occupied areas
only under the following conditions:
1. Where egress from an area cannot be accomplished within one
minute, the employer shall not use the agent in
[[Page 22986]]
concentrations exceeding its ``no observed adverse effect level''
(NOAEL);
2. Where egress takes greater than 30 seconds but less than one
minute, the employer shall not use the agent in a concentration greater
than its ``lowest observed adverse effect level'' (LOAEL);
3. Agent concentrations greater than the LOAEL are only permitted
in areas not normally occupied by employees provided that any employee
in the area can escape within 30 seconds.
4. The employer shall assure that no unprotected employees enter
the area during agent discharge.
These conditions were derived from an OSHA safety and health
standard governing fire protection systems used in all workplaces (29
CFR part 1910, subpart L). This OSHA standard is designed to limit
employee exposures to toxic levels of gaseous agents used in fixed
total flood systems. Because OSHA had not set specific workplace
standards for halon substitutes, EPA adopted the relevant provisions of
29 CFR part 1910, subpart L to govern the general use of halon
substitute gaseous agents. As stated in the original SNAP rulemaking,
EPA specifically defers to OSHA and has no intention to assume
responsibility for regulating workplace safety in regard to fire
protection (59 FR 13099 and 13101; also see discussion directly below).
The cardiac sensitization NOAEL of HFC-236fa is 10.0% (by volume)
and its LOAEL is 15%. Cup burner tests with heptane indicate that the
extinguishment concentration for this agent is 5.3%, thus making its
calculated design concentration 6.4%. Compared to the cardiac
sensitization values, these concentrations provide a sufficient margin
of safety for use in a normally occupied area. HFC-236fa can replace
Halon 1301 at a ratio of 1.3 by weight and 1.5 by volume. Due to its
relatively high boiling point of minus 1.6 degrees centigrade, this
agent may not be suitable in a low temperature environment.
The exposure concentration limits referred to here, set as
conditions of acceptability under SNAP, are intended to protect worker
safety in the absence of OSHA or other workplace limits established
under voluntary consensus bodies. As suggested by the court in Southern
Pacific Transp. Co. v. Usery, 539 F.2nd 386 (5th Cir.1976), ``the scope
of the exemption created by [OSHA] Sec. 4(b)(1) is determined by the
[Agency's] intent.'' EPA wishes to clarify that it has no intention of
duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal
protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection), fire protection,
hazard communication, worker training or any other occupational safety
and health standard with respect to EPA's regulation of halon
substitutes. In accordance with the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), section 12(d), EPA will work in
consultation with OSHA to encourage development of technical standards
to be adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Once applicable
consensus standards are established, EPA will rescind the workplace
standards established under this rulemaking.
In the original March 18, 1994 SNAP rulemaking (59 FR 13099), the
Agency made clear that in cases like this (where EPA finds acceptable
the use of an agent only under certain conditions), we have sought to
avoid overlap with other existing regulatory authorities. In setting
conditions for the safe use of halon substitutes in the workplace under
SNAP, EPA has specifically deferred to OSHA's other regulations that
govern workplace safety. As stated in the preamble to the original SNAP
rule at 59 FR 13099, ``EPA has no intention to assume responsibility
for regulating workplace safety especially with respect to fire
protection, nor does the Agency intend SNAP regulations to bar OSHA
from regulating under its Public Law 91-596 authority.''
In the March 18, 1994 final SNAP rule (59 FR 13044), EPA required
manufacturers to submit information on manufacturing processes to allow
an assessment of the risks posed to the general public and workers. EPA
clarified in that action that acceptability determinations made on the
basis of one company's submission would apply to the same chemical
produced by other manufacturers, obviating the need for duplicative
reporting requirements and review. However, manufacturers who believe a
given manufacturing process may pose additional risks beyond those
posed by other processes involving the same chemical were required to
alert EPA to that increased hazard. The February 8, 1996 (61 FR 4736)
Notice of Acceptability specifically discussed the manufacturing
process used in making HFC-236fa, and that discussion is repeated
below.
EPA is aware of several methods for manufacturing HFC-236fa,
including one that produces HFC-236fa directly from
perfluoroisobutylene (PFIB). PFIB is an extremely toxic substance that
could pose risks in very small concentrations. Thus, EPA believes it is
appropriate to distinguish among the different methods for producing
HFC-236fa. This acceptability determination does not prohibit the
manufacture of HFC-236fa directly from PFIB. Rather, it finds
acceptable the production of HFC-236fa in processes that do not convert
PFIB directly to HFC-236fa in a single step. If a manufacturer wishes
to produce HFC-236fa directly from PFIB, it must submit that process to
EPA for review under SNAP.
HFC-236fa does not deplete stratospheric ozone. However, it has an
atmospheric lifetime of 209 years and a 100-year GWP of 6300. Concerns
have been raised about this agent's potential atmospheric effects.
Please see discussion in the ``Response to Comments'' section II.D.4 on
this issue. This agent should be handled so as to minimize unnecessary
emissions, including: avoiding discharge testing and training;
providing a high level of maintenance to avoid leaks and accidental
discharges; recovering HFC-236fa from fire protection equipment in
conjunction with testing or servicing; and destroying HFC-236fa or
recycling it for later use. In addition, EPA encourages manufacturers
to develop aggressive product stewardship programs to help users avoid
such unnecessary emissions.
While HFC-236fa may be used without ``last resort'' use
restrictions in explosion protection applications, this is not so for
other total flooding applications, see section II.D.2 below. Before
users adopt it for general fire suppression applications in the total
flooding end-use, they must first ascertain that other non-PFC
substitutes or alternatives are not technically feasible due to
performance or safety requirements. In contrast, if a PFC is the only
other substitute that is technically feasible due to performance or
safety requirements, then this agent may be used in a general fire
suppression application. Potential users are expected to evaluate the
technical feasibility of other non-PFC substitutes or alternatives to
determine their adequacy to control the particular fire risk. Such
assessment may include an evaluation of the performance or functional
effectiveness of the non-PFC agents for the intended applications as
well as the risk to personnel potentially exposed to the agent.
Similarly, use of HFC-236fa would be appropriate where use of other
non-PFC substitutes or alternatives would violate the workplace safety
use conditions set forth in the SNAP rulemakings and thus pose risks of
adverse health effects.
To assist users in their evaluation for general fire suppression
applications, EPA has prepared a list of vendors manufacturing halon
substitutes and alternatives. Although users are not required to report
the results of their investigation to EPA, companies must
[[Page 22987]]
retain these results for five years for future reference.
2. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
a. Total Flooding Agents
(1) C<INF>3</INF>F<INF>8</INF>
C<INF>3</INF>F<INF>8</INF> is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute
where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to
performance or safety requirements: (a) because of their physical or
chemical properties, or (b) where human exposure to the extinguishing
agents may result in failure to meet applicable use conditions.
See the discussion under ``Response to Comments'' (section II.D.4)
of the changes made to the use limits on this agent. See Appendix H for
a complete statement of the use conditions (unchanged) which apply to
this agent in this end-use.
(2) C<INF>4</INF>F<INF>10</INF>
C<INF>4</INF>F<INF>10</INF> is acceptable as a Halon 1301
substitute where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to
performance or safety requirements: (a) because of their physical or
chemical properties, or (b) where human exposure to the extinguishing
agents may result in failure to meet applicable use conditions.
See the discussion under ``Response to Comments'' (section II.D.4)
of the changes made to the use limits on this agent. See Appendix H for
a complete statement of the use conditions (unchanged) which apply to
this agent in this end-use.
(3) HFC-236fa
HFC-236fa is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute when
manufactured using any process that does not convert
perfluoroisobutylene (PFIB) directly to HFC-236fa in a single step.
HFC-236fa may be used in explosion suppression and explosion inertion
applications, and may be used in fire suppression applications where
other non-PFC agents or alternatives are not technically feasible due
to performance or safety requirements: (a) because of their physical or
chemical properties, or (b) where human exposure to the extinguishing
agents may result in failure to meet applicable use conditions. Please
see the section on ``Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions'' (II.D.1)
for a complete discussion of this agent. This agent is subject to the
use conditions stated in that section.
b. Streaming Agents
(1) C<INF>6</INF>F<INF>14</INF>
C<INF>6</INF>F<INF>14</INF> is acceptable as a Halon 1211
substitute in nonresidential applications where other alternatives are
not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements: (a)
because of their physical or chemical, or (b) where human exposure to
the extinguishing agents may result in failure to meet applicable use
conditions.
See the discussion under ``Response to Comments'' (section II.D.4)
of the changes made to the use limits on this agent. No applicable use
conditions exist for this agent in the streaming agent end-use.
(2) HFC-236fa
HFC-236fa is acceptable as a Halon 1211 substitute in
nonresidential applications when manufactured using any process that
does not convert perfluoroisobutylene (PFIB) directly to HFC-236fa in a
single step. The cardiac sensitization NOAEL of HFC-236fa is 10.0% and
its LOAEL is 15%. (See preceding discussion regarding OSHA, HFC-236fa,
and voluntary consensus workplace standards in section II.D.1) Cup
burner tests with heptane indicate that the extinguishment
concentration for this agent is 5.3%. Compared to Halon 1211, HFC-236fa
has a weight equivalence of 1.08 to 2.15.
As discussed above, HFC-236fa does not deplete stratospheric ozone.
However, it has an atmospheric lifetime of 209 years and a 100-year GWP
of 6300. Concerns have been raised about this agent's potential
atmospheric effects. Please see discussion in ``Response to Comments''
section II.D.4 regarding this issue. This agent should be handled so as
to minimize unnecessary emissions, including: avoiding discharge
testing and training; providing a high level of maintenance to avoid
leaks and accidental discharges; recovering HFC-236fa from the fire
protection equipment in conjunction with testing or servicing; and
destroying HFC-236fa or recycling it for later use. In addition, EPA
encourages manufacturers to develop aggressive product stewardship
programs to help users avoid such unnecessary emissions.
Further, this agent may not be used in residential applications,
e.g., by a private individual in applications in or around a permanent
or temporary household, during recreation, or for any personal use or
enjoyment. Use in watercraft or aircraft is excluded from the
definition of residential use. As discussed in the ``Response to
Comments'' section II.D.4, the use of this agent in local application
extinguishing systems in textile process machinery is considered to be
a streaming agent application.
(3) HFC-227ea
HFC-227ea is acceptable as a Halon 1211 substitute in
nonresidential applications. The weight equivalence of this agent is
1.66 pounds per pound of Halon 1211. It has a cardiac sensitization
NOAEL of 9.0%, and a LOAEL of 10.5%. (See preceding discussion
regarding OSHA and voluntary consensus workplace standards in section
II. D.1) Its cup burner extinguishment value is 5.8%.
This agent has no ozone depletion potential, a 100-year GWP of
2,900 relative to carbon dioxide, and an atmospheric lifetime of 36.5
years. It is already listed as acceptable subject to use conditions for
use in total flooding applications as an alternative to Halon 1301 (See
59 FR 13107, March 18, 1994).
3. Unacceptable Substitutes
a. Total Flooding Agents
(1) Chlorobromomethane
Chlorobromomethane (CBM) is unacceptable as a substitute for Halon
1301 in total flooding applications. Recent analyses establish an ODP
range for CBM of 0.07 to 0.15. Other alternatives exist for total
flooding applications with lower or no ODP and do not pose a comparable
risk. For example, HFC-227ea, as well as several inert gases, have no
ODP. Additionally, current OSHA regulations prohibit the use of CBM as
an extinguishing agent in fixed fire extinguishing systems where
employees may be exposed. See 29 CFR 1910.160(b)(11).
4. Response to Comments
EPA received 197 letters with comments related to proposed halon
substitute listings in the NPRM. Many of the letters were identical.
This section summarizes the major comments and provides EPA's response
to those comments. A supplemental response to comments document that
addresses the remaining comments is available in the public docket for
this rulemaking. The comments addressed in this document are grouped
into the following four major categories:
<bullet> Limits on PFCs and other long-lived gases;
<bullet> HFC-236fa;
<bullet> Unrelated issues;
<bullet> Chlorobromomethane.
a. Limits on PFCs and Other Long-lived Gases
(1) Description of Use Limits
In the May 21, 1997 proposal, EPA proposed a change in the
description of the use limits (often referred to as ``last resort'' use
limits, first described in the June 13, 1995 final rule, 60 FR 31100)
applicable to PFCs and other long-lived gases. Two commenters supported
EPA's stated purpose in clarifying the
[[Page 22988]]
language but disagreed with the proposed change in language. One of the
commenters opposed the proposed change because it eliminates the
existing reference to cardiac sensitization. The commenter suggests
that, despite EPA's statement that it is not changing but only
clarifying policy, this change could be viewed by fire protection
professionals, who might not read the preamble discussion, as a reduced
concern by EPA for cardiac sensitization and therefore a change in
policy. This commenter proposed alternative language, as follows:
``[X] is proposed acceptable as a Halon [1211/1301] substitute
where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to
performance or safety requirements: (a) due to their chemical or
physical properties or (b) where human exposure may result in
exposure to agent concentrations at or above established cardiac
sensitization levels or below safe oxygen levels, in a failure to
meet other applicable use conditions or in other unacceptable health
effects under normal operating conditions.''
In response, EPA reiterates that the proposed change in language is
indeed a clarification of, not a change in, policy and that reference
to ``failure to meet applicable use conditions'' is the most precise
way to refer to the existing use conditions for any halon substitute.
Existing SNAP use conditions for ``clean agent'' halon substitutes
(meaning they dissipate rapidly, leaving no residue thereby avoiding
secondary damage to the property they are protecting) are generally
based on two measurements of exposure to health risks: the
concentration and the length of time a person is exposed to the agent.
To describe the applicable use conditions as ``exposure to agent
concentrations at or above established cardiac sensitization levels or
below safe oxygen levels'' is imprecise (as is the original language,
``may approach cardiac sensitization levels'') because it refers only
to the exposure concentration, i.e., a ``NOAEL,'' ``LOAEL,'' ``no
effect level,'' or ``lowest effect level,'' and not to the length of
exposure.
The applicable use conditions for each SNAP-listed acceptable halon
substitute are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations chart in a
column immediately adjacent to the decision column containing the
narrowed use limit language, if applicable. See 40 CFR part 82, subpart
G, appendices A through G. It is easy for any fire protection
professional to check the applicable use conditions to see the cardiac
sensitization NOAEL or LOAEL, or the oxygen deprivation ``no effect
level'' or ``lowest effect level'' by simply reading the next column of
the chart for a particular halon substitute. Thus, EPA believes the
commenter's concerns are addressed by EPA's proposed revised language
and therefore rejects the proposed alternative language suggested by
this commenter.
A second commenter supported EPA's proposed change in language,
with one exception. The exception is EPA's proposed decision not to
change the phrase ``or result in other unacceptable health effects
under normal operating conditions.'' The commenter suggests that this
language may still allow for too much latitude regarding ability to
select PFCs as an acceptable alternative. The commenter recommends
deleting the phrase or, if that is not possible, changing the phrase to
specify the type of unacceptable health effects, i.e., hypoxia for
inert gases or cardiac sensitization for halocarbons. This would
prevent system designers or specifiers from using theoretical or
potentially insignificant health effects to justify the use of PFCs.
EPA acknowledges that the phrase ``or result in other unacceptable
health effects under normal operating conditions'' is vague, and leaves
open the possibility of citing unnamed health effects as reasons for
using otherwise unacceptable halon substitutes. EPA's use of this
phrase in the original language was intended to refer to hypoxia for
inert gases. Other than halocarbon clean agents for which cardiac
sensitization is the health effect of concern, inert gases were the
only type of clean agents for which use conditions were imposed. In
making the proposed change to ``failure to meet applicable use
conditions,'' EPA no longer needs the phrase ``or result in other
unacceptable health effects under normal operating conditions'' because
both specified health effects, i.e., cardiac sensitization and hypoxia,
are incorporated by reference to the ``applicable use conditions'' of
halon substitutes. EPA's proposal should have made a corresponding
change to delete the phrase ``or result in other unacceptable health
effects under normal operating conditions,'' or it should have
specifically identified other health effects that would be the basis of
proposed use conditions for particular agents. The phrase adds no
information without identifying specific health concerns, and
contributes to the imprecision of the original language. Thus, EPA
accepts the commenter's suggestion to delete this phrase, which EPA
neglected to do in the proposal. The final language reads as follows:
``[X] is proposed acceptable as a Halon [1211/1301] substitute
where other alternatives are not technically feasible due to
performance or safety requirements: (a) because of their physical or
chemical properties, or (b) where human exposure to the
extinguishing agents may result in failure to meet applicable use
conditions.''
(2) Changes to ``Comments'' Column in CFR
Each substitute reviewed under SNAP and found unacceptable,
acceptable subject to narrowed use limits, or acceptable subject to use
conditions is listed in charts in the Code of Federal Regulations by
end-use. For each substitute, ``comments'' may be listed in a separate
column, and they provide additional information on a substitute
intended to help users apply sound operating practices (e.g., existing
industry standards) for listed substitutes. EPA proposed a change to
the ``comments'' which apply to halon substitutes for which the ``last
resort'' use limits apply. One comment was received that opposed
changing the language from ``making reasonable effort to undertake the
following measures'' to ``taking the following measures.'' The
commenter cites SNAP regulations at Sec. 82.180(b)(2), where the users
intending to adopt a restricted substitute are directed as follows:
--82.180(b)(2) Acceptable subject to use conditions. . . . Where
users intending to adopt a substitute acceptable to use conditions
must make reasonable efforts to ascertain that other alternatives
are not feasible due to safety, performance or technical reasons,
documentation of this assessment must be retained on file for the
purpose of demonstrating compliance.
The commenter objects that EPA has not provided any basis for
making the change, and that any changes to an existing regulation must
be justified and explained. The commenter states this change unfairly
singles out PFCs, and could confuse the user community in light of the
regulatory language cited above.
EPA may have caused some confusion by incorrectly indicating in the
preamble of the proposed rule that the ``last resort'' use limits at
issue here are ``use conditions,'' when in fact they are not; instead,
they are ``narrowed use limits.'' The instructions to users are worded
differently in the regulatory text for these two different types of
listing decisions.
``Narrowed use limits'' are described in Sec. 82.180(b)(3) of the
SNAP regulations, which provides that:
-82.180(b)(3) Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits. . . .
Users intending to adopt a substitute acceptable with narrowed use
limits must ascertain that other alternatives are not technically
feasible. Companies must document the results of
[[Page 22989]]
their evaluation, and retain the results on file for the purpose of
demonstrating compliance.''
The ``comments'' language, as proposed, that users must observe the
limits by ``taking'' certain steps, conforms to the regulatory language
that users ``must ascertain'' that other alternatives are not
technically feasible. Thus, EPA is not changing the regulatory language
but rather providing ``comment'' language that is consistent with the
existing regulations. Although these instructions are contained in the
``comments'' column of the appendix to the final rule, the source of
the instructions is the SNAP regulation itself. The only change is in
the summary of this regulatory language which appears in the
``comments'' column as a convenience to users of substitutes.
This change in wording does not ``unfairly single out'' PFCs. EPA
notes that the same ``last resort'' use restrictions apply to a non-PFC
substitute, HFC-236fa, which is listed in this final rule as acceptable
as a total flooding agent subject to these narrowed use limits.
(3) Procedural Aspects of EPA's review
The May 21, 1997 proposal discussed a petition that EPA received
asking for reconsideration of the wording of use conditions for PFCs
and other long-lived gases. EPA received one comment expressing concern
that the procedure for EPA's review of this petition might be used in
the future as a way to urge changes in proposed use conditions without
providing sufficient technical justification for those changes.
Specifically, the commenter raises a concern that it did not receive
notice from EPA of the petition, as Sec. 82.184(d)(1) of the SNAP
regulations requires. Although, it is the original submitter of the
substitutes which were the subject of the petition. Additionally, the
commenter notes that the SNAP rule allows EPA to submit the petition
for review by appropriate experts inside and outside EPA prior to
proceeding to a proposed rule. The commenter recommends that EPA should
rely on this provision in the future to engage in technical dialogue
with affected companies and other stakeholders to ensure that any
proposed rule resulting from the petition reflects such technical
input.
In response, EPA regrets any concerns that may have been raised by
the Agency's process in reviewing this petition, and assures the public
that the Agency does not view the petition process as a way for
interested parties to urge changes in SNAP regulatory conditions
without providing sufficient technical justification for those changes.
EPA acknowledges that the Agency failed to formally notify the
commenter upon receipt of the petition, and EPA apologizes for this
failure. EPA notes, however, that the commenter did contact the Agency
to discuss the petition. This initial contact was followed by several
discussions between representatives of EPA and representatives of the
commenter over several months, as well as a letter from the commenter
to EPA discussing the merits of the petition.
Although EPA failed to meet the required notice provision of
Sec. 82.184(d)(1) of the SNAP regulations, the purpose of the notice
requirement-- to provide the opportunity to communicate on the merits
of the petition--was in fact fulfilled. EPA did not deny any
opportunity to the commenter to participate in discussing the merits of
the petition. EPA has placed in the docket for this rulemaking a
description of the contacts between EPA staff and the commenter's staff
on this subject; it is EPA's belief that the commenter fully
participated in the process of commenting on the merits of the
petition.
EPA agrees that in certain cases it may be appropriate to engage in
technical dialogue with affected companies and other stakeholders to
ensure that any proposed rule resulting from a petition reflects such
technical input. However, the Agency notes that the SNAP regulations do
not require such dialogue; rather, the regulations provide EPA with the
discretion to allow internal or external experts an opportunity to
review the petition. The Agency will determine on a case-by-case basis
if and when to seek review by outside experts and whether additional
dialogue with others is appropriate. In addition, Sec. 82.184(d)(5) of
the SNAP regulations requires EPA to follow standard rulemaking
procedures whenever the Agency grants a petition to change an
acceptable listing by imposing or deleting use conditions or limits,
among other actions. Such rulemaking procedures require public notice
and comment, which afford interested parties the opportunity to comment
on the merits of EPA's decision on a petition, or to recommend that EPA
consult with outside experts or others in a particular case. EPA has
followed that process in this case.
In any event, EPA notes that it did engage in dialogue with
stakeholders, including the commenter, on the merits of this petition
prior to publishing the proposed rule, and the description in the
docket explains EPA's contacts with the commenter in this regard.
Further, as described above in discussing its response to the comments
on the substance of the proposed changes, EPA believes there is
sufficient technical justification for these changes, and that the
justification was discussed with affected parties and adequately
explained in the preamble to the proposed rule. Both commenters who
provided written comments on EPA's proposed language, including this
commenter, stated they supported EPA's purpose in clarifying the
language.
b. HFC-236fa
(1) Use Conditions and Limits
EPA proposed various use conditions and use limits for HFC-236fa as
a streaming agent and as a total flooding agent. Many comments objected
to the lack of proposed ``last resort'' use limits to the streaming
agent end-use of HFC-236fa. One commenter also specifically objected to
the lack of proposed ``last resort'' use limits to explosion protection
applications within the total flooding end-use of HFC-236fa. These
comments were based on concerns that since this substitute's global
warming potential (GWP) is high and its atmospheric lifetime is long,
it should be subject to the same ``last resort'' use restrictions in
all end-use categories and applications.
One commenter stated that the GWP of HFC-236fa is between 6,300 and
8,000 and that its atmospheric lifetime is 250 years; others stated
that the GWP of HFC-236fa is more than three times that of HFC-227ea.
For HFC-236fa, the 1995 IPCC Second Assessment Report lists a GWP of
6,300 (on a 100-year basis) not a range from 6,300 to 8,000, and an
atmospheric lifetime of 209 years not 250 years. (Based on information
available at the time, EPA listed the atmospheric lifetime of HFC-236fa
as 250 years in the preamble to the May 21, 1997 proposed rule.) By
comparison, the GWP (on a 100-year basis) for HFC-227ea is listed in
the 1995 IPCC Report as 2,900, which is roughly one-half the listed
value for HFC-236fa.
Several commenters stated that the GWP of HFC-236fa is higher than
those of the PFCs. In fact, the GWP of HFC-236fa for the 100-year time
horizon is comparable to the GWP of many PFCs. This is not the case,
however, when comparisons are made in terms of GWPs integrated over a
longer time horizon that reflects the significantly longer atmospheric
lifetimes of PFCs. Because PFCs have atmospheric lifetimes at least an
order of magnitude longer than HFC-236fa (2,600 to 50,000 years for
PFCs versus 209 years for HFC-236fa), a more relevant comparison is in
terms of
[[Page 22990]]
GWPs integrated over 500 years. As such, the GWP of HFC-236fa for the
500-year time horizon (4700 according to the 1995 IPCC report) is
significantly lower than the 500-year GWP for any of the listed PFCs
(which range between 10,000 and 14,000).
These commenters supported their concerns with both general
statements regarding the need to limit use of greenhouse gases, and
specific statements designed to show that the streaming agent end-use
would be highly emissive, and/or that the streaming agent end-use would
be at least as, if not more, emissive than the total flooding end-use.
The general statements include the following: (a) HFC-236fa is 6,300
times more effective than carbon dioxide in its global warming
potential; (b) HFC-236fa is not a byproduct or feedstock of another
chemical's production, which was the justification for SNAP listing of
HFC-23, another potent greenhouse gas, as a total flooding agent; (c)
the unrestricted use of HFC-236fa as a streaming agent is tantamount to
a decision to do nothing about global warming; and (d) the unrestricted
use of HFC-236fa contradicts President Clinton's 1993 Climate Change
Action Plan (CCAP), which directs EPA (in Action 40) to reduce the use
of greenhouse gases as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances.
EPA appreciates the concerns for both global warming potential and
atmospheric lifetime. EPA does not disagree with the first two general
statements regarding the potency of HFC-236fa as a greenhouse gas and
this agent's lack of status as a byproduct or feedstock in another
chemical process.
With respect to the final two general statements, EPA disagrees
that the lack of ``last resort'' restrictions on HFC-236fa in its use
as a streaming agent is tantamount to a decision to do nothing about
global warming, and that it contradicts Action 40 of the CCAP. In
discussing HFCs generally as a halon substitute in the preamble to the
original SNAP rule (59 FR 13100), EPA noted that, because HFCs can
contribute to global warming, they are included in the CCAP, and EPA is
directed to limit uses of gases with high global warming potentials as
substitutes for ozone-depleting substances where better substitutes
exist. EPA noted further that, because EPA is simultaneously also
interested in promoting the broader shift away from ozone-depleting
substances, any limits on use will be imposed in ways that preserve as
much flexibility as possible for those trying to move to alternatives.
EPA evaluates substitutes within a comparative risk framework in
order to fulfill both the mandate under Clean Air Act section 612 to
identify alternatives to ozone-depleting substances which reduce
overall risk to human health and the environment, and the President's
direction under the CCAP. In evaluating a potential substitute by
comparing risks, EPA compares the substitute to the original ODS it
would replace and to other substitutes by use. Although it may be
desirable to compare restrictions between end-uses such as streaming
agents and total flooding agents, EPA's SNAP determinations require a
relative comparison among all substitutes available for a particular
end-use, as well as to the original ODS, at the time the comparison is
made. See discussion in the preamble to the original SNAP rule, 59 FR
13044 (March 18, 1994), at pages 13046 and 13067-13069.
Thus, in evaluating the use of HFC-236fa as a streaming agent, EPA
compared its use to that of other SNAP-listed and proposed streaming
agent substitutes currently available. Of clean agent substitutes for
Halon 1211, there are no commercially available alternatives for
general fire protection use with both zero ozone depletion potential
and low toxicity. HFC-236fa meets these criteria and thus can serve a
unique role as a streaming agent, aiding in the transition from halons.
Although some of the commercially available streaming agent substitutes
which are not clean agents have no ozone depletion potential and are
low in toxicity, they are not as widely applicable as halocarbon clean
agent alternatives and thus are not suitable for general fire
protection use.
EPA made a similar comparison of SNAP-listed and proposed halon
substitutes which are commercially available in the total flooding
agent end-use. By contrast to the streaming agent end-use, there are
commercially available clean agent alternatives in the flooding agent
end-use for general fire suppression which have both zero ozone
depletion potential and low toxicity, such as HFC-227ea and the inert
gases. In the explosion protection application, however, which is a
type of total flooding use, the required design concentration is much
higher than for general fire suppression. As a practical matter, this
eliminates most of the SNAP-listed total flooding clean agent
substitutes for use in explosion protection except for HFC-23 and the
PFCs, some of which have even higher GWPs, and all of which have longer
atmospheric lifetimes, than that of HFC-236fa. By comparison to the
commercially available clean agent substitutes, HFC-236fa can serve a
unique role in the explosion protection application of the total
flooding agent end-use, but not in the general fire suppression
applications of this end-use.
Responses are given below to each of the specific comments that
emissions from streaming end-uses are high and are at least as great,
if not greater, compared to total flooding end-uses. EPA notes that
most of these statements were made without any specific supporting
data.
(a) Expected discharge in a streaming application would be greater
than if used in a flooding system.
As noted previously, EPA's SNAP determinations require a relative
comparison among all substitutes available for a particular end-use, as
well as to the original ODS, at the time the comparison is made.
Nevertheless, streaming agent uses in fire extinguishers, whether
handheld, wheeled, or vehicular, typically use many fewer pounds of
agent than total flooding systems, which are piped into an enclosed
space to flood the enclosure upon discharge. One would expect,
therefore, that discharges from streaming applications would be less
per discharge than those from a flooding system. It is not clear
whether the commenters who claimed that ``expected discharge in a
streaming application would be greater than if used in a flooding
system'' (without any supporting data) meant discharges per unit or
total discharges, which would require data on the total number of units
in each end-use and/or the rates of discharge for each end-use.
(b) Both streaming and flooding systems are intended to be
discharged, and are not closed systems.
EPA notes that all fire extinguishing uses are emissive by their
nature, even though the cylinder or container which holds the agent is
a ``closed system'' in the sense that the chemical is contained in
equipment that precludes full emission unless emission is triggered. In
order to extinguish a fire, however, the agent must be emitted from its
container.
The emission of fire extinguishing agents is usually only done in
case of fire, a life-threatening emergency. Other possible sources of
emissions are leakage, accidental discharge, maintenance losses during
servicing, and discharge during testing and training. EPA estimates the
total amount of losses for leakage and discharges other than for fire
protection is less than 5% per year. Of this amount, virtually none is
due to testing and training. In response to the phaseout of halon and
[[Page 22991]]
concerns over atmospheric impacts of both halon and halocarbon
substitutes, the fire protection community has greatly decreased the
use of fire extinguishing agents in testing and training (formerly the
single largest use of halon fire extinguishers). There is also a
financial incentive to conserve halocarbon fire extinguishing agents
which serve as clean agent substitutes for halon because they are more
expensive than traditional fire extinguishing agents such as dry
chemical and foam.
(c) Portable fire extinguishers are more numerous than flooding
systems, and are discharged more often.
EPA has no data on the number of portable fire extinguishers versus
flooding systems, nor on relative discharge rates of portables versus
flooding systems. No data were offered by the commenters who claimed
portables are more numerous, and are discharged more often. EPA
believes that this type of comparison is not relevant to the risk
comparison of particular substitutes within a particular end-use, but
EPA refers to its earlier estimate of 5% total losses (not related to
fire suppression) from all fire extinguishers as support for the
statement that non-emergency emissions of halocarbon fire extinguishing
agents in both streaming agent and total flooding agent end-uses is
relatively small.
(d) This agent should be restricted to the ``original design
concept'' of a closed system such as refrigeration substitutes for CFC-
114 in heat pumps, which are subject to venting prohibitions.
This comment reflects concern about possible emissions from any
fire extinguishing system, whether streaming or flooding. As noted
above, fire extinguishing systems are by nature emissive but serve a
valuable purpose in preventing or mitigating danger to human health and
property. Fire extinguisher emission rates are relatively low and, when
balanced against the risks of fire emergencies, are extremely valuable.
Comparing refrigeration uses to fire suppression uses is not relevant
to the risk comparison of particular fire suppression substitutes
within a particular end-use. Previous decisions in another SNAP
industrial sector are not relevant to decisions in a different SNAP
industrial sector, just as decisions for a particular end-use within a
single sector are not relevant to a different end-use in the same
sector.
(e) This agent has a lower weight equivalence to Halon 1301 than to
Halon 1211, is more effective as a Halon 1301 substitute than as a
Halon 1211 substitute, and is probably more efficient as a flooding
agent than as a streaming agent.
Weight equivalence relates the number of pounds of substitute
required to replace each pound of halon to achieve the same fire
extinguishing capability. A substitute's weight equivalence to halon is
not the only measure of a substitute's efficiency or effectiveness in
extinguishing fires. A substitute's extinguishing (or design)
concentration is important as well as its storage volume equivalence to
halon. Additional factors, which would be tested in full-scale
performance fire testing by independent testing laboratories in order
to rate particular products, include the extinguisher configurations,
pressurization, nozzle and valve assembly as well as other
characteristics. EPA notes that several portable fire extinguishing
products using this agent have received performance ratings from an
independent testing laboratory which could not have happened without
satisfactory performance test results. These commenters provided no
further information to support their statements that this agent may be
more efficient and more effective as a replacement for halon 1301 in
flooding systems than as a replacement for halon 1211 as a streaming
agent. EPA is not aware of any evidence to support these statements.
Nevertheless, EPA notes that the reported weight equivalencies in
the preamble to the proposed rule were based on information in the SNAP
submission, which has become outdated due to further commercial
development of portable fire extinguishing equipment using this agent
as a replacement for halon 1211. EPA requested and obtained current
information from the system designer regarding this agent's weight
equivalence to halon 1211, and has placed in the public docket for this
rulemaking the memo from the system designer providing this
information, as well as information from Underwriters Laboratories,
Inc., showing its current listing information for portable fire
extinguishing products containing this agent.
The commenters are correct in identifying the weight equivalence of
this agent to halon 1211 as 2.4 in the portable fire extinguishing
product containing 6.0 pounds of this agent, since it apparently
replaced a product with equivalent fire extinguishment ratings
containing 2.5 pounds of halon 1211. However, there are three other
sizes of portable extinguishers containing this agent which have weight
equivalencies to halon 1211 ranging from 1.08 to 2.15. The product with
6.0 pounds of this agent, although it is still listed by UL, has been
replaced by the system designer with a product containing 4.75 pounds
of this agent, with the same UL rating, resulting in a weight
equivalence to halon 1211 of 2.15. Thus, this agent's weight
equivalence to halon 1211 currently ranges from 1.08 to 2.15, rather
than a range of 1.1 to 1.5 as indicated in the preamble to the proposed
rule.
Even if this agent's efficiency and effectiveness as a halon
replacement were in doubt, these characteristics are not the only
factors involved in making a SNAP determination on the substitute's
acceptability. As stated in the preamble to the original SNAP rule, at
59 FR 13101 (March 18, 1994), EPA believes that efficacy of a
substitute is a consideration in decision making in the fire
suppression sector in order to help assess the risks of using a
substitute, its health effects, and its potential to fill various niche
markets. However, this is only one of many characteristics of a
substitute that are evaluated in making a SNAP determination which
fulfills the section 612 mandate to ``reduce overall risk to human
health and the environment.'' See discussion in preamble to the
original SNAP rule, 59 FR 13044 (March 18, 1994) at pages 13054-13056,
and at pages 13068-13069, for more information on the characteristics
to be evaluated.
(f) Since there are fewer limits on testing and training for
streaming agents, and more testing and training is done with portable
fire extinguishers than with flooding systems, the discussion in the
preamble regarding the need to minimize emissions during such
activities should be equally as strict for streaming agent uses as for
total flooding agent uses.
EPA agrees that the discussion in the preamble regarding the need
to minimize emissions during testing and training should be equally as
strict for streaming agents as for total flooding agents; these two
discussions in the preamble to the final rule are now the same. EPA
notes that it has no information to support or oppose the statements
made by these commenters that there are fewer limits on testing and
training for streaming agents, and that more testing and training is
done with portable fire extinguishers than with flooding systems.
(2) Use in Local Application Systems
Under the SNAP program, halon substitutes have been categorized as
either those used in streaming applications (manually dispensed from
[[Page 22992]]
a hand-held or portable fire extinguisher), or in total flooding and
explosion protection applications (a predetermined quantity of the gas
is dispensed into an enclosed space and maintained at a certain
concentration for a period of time throughout the entire protected
space). Another well-recognized type of fire protection product,
referred to as ``local application'' or ``pre-engineered'' local
application extinguishing systems, is not clearly considered either a
streaming agent system or a total flooding agent system. Local
application extinguishers are designed to release a set amount of an
extinguishing agent from a fixed nozzle or nozzles directly onto
burning material. They have been used to provide fire protection for
specialized industrial uses such as textile processing machinery.
The Agency received several comments, discussed below, that HFC-
236fa be listed acceptable for use in a newly created category of local
application or pre-engineered systems. Elsewhere in today's action,
HFC-236fa is being listed as acceptable for use as a substitute for
halon 1211 and halon 1301 in fire suppression and explosion protection;
the Agency does not believe it is necessary or appropriate at this
time, however, to designate under SNAP a new category of fire
protection specifically for local application systems.
Although the vast majority of fire protection systems using halon
and halon substitutes can be classified as streaming agents or total
flooding agent systems, the local application systems defy easy
classification in either category. Unlike total flooding systems, they
are not designed to distribute the extinguishing agent evenly at a
specific design concentration maintained throughout the entire volume
of the protected space and, unlike streaming agents, they are not
designed to allow a person to manipulate the discharge direction or
quantity of the extinguishing agent. Local application or pre-
engineered systems are mentioned in and may be subject to parts of
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards which apply to
total flooding systems (NFPA 12, 12A, and 2001, for example). However,
as mentioned by two commenters referred to below, local application
systems primarily use halon 1211 (which is more commonly associated
with streaming agents), rather than halon 1301 (which is more commonly
associated with total flooding agents), as the fire extinguishant.
Five commenters urged EPA to list HFC-236fa acceptable for use in a
third, distinct category--``local application'' systems. Three of the
five commenters specifically urged acceptability of this agent as a
replacement for halon 1211 in local application systems; two of these
three commenters specifically urged acceptability of this agent as a
replacement for halon 1211 in textile process machinery, and indicated
that this type of use could be considered a streaming agent
application.
The remaining two commenters urged EPA to list HFC-236fa acceptable
for use in local application systems as a replacement for either halon
1211 or halon 1301. One of these commenters urged EPA to create an
additional category for ``pre-engineered systems'' or ``local
application systems'' or ``pre-engineered local application systems,''
which would be distinct from engineered total flooding systems.
The other commenter urged that EPA list HFC-236fa acceptable for
use in local application systems as a type of streaming agent
application, presumably as a replacement for halon 1211, and acceptable
for use in local application systems as a type of total flooding agent
application, presumably as a replacement for halon 1301. This commenter
specifically urged EPA to consider such local application uses in the
total flooding agent category as ``without prejudice'' (similar to the
proposal for use in explosion suppression and explosion inertion
applications in the total flooding agent category) and therefore not
subject to the ``last resort'' restrictions which EPA proposed for
general fire suppression applications in the total flooding agent
category.
Based on the description from the commenters of local application
systems generally, and local application systems for textile process
machinery specifically, neither of EPA's existing risk assessment
methodologies for halon substitutes are relevant to local application
systems. The existing methodology for evaluating end-use exposure to
streaming agent substitutes assumes the discharged extinguishing agent
will be completely released into the protected space immediately
following its discharge, resulting in a high concentration of
extinguishing agent which eventually disperses throughout the space at
lower concentrations. Local application systems for textile process
machinery, by contrast, discharge the extinguishing agent at a very
high concentration into the localized protected space, inside the
machinery. The extinguishing agent is eventually released outside the
machinery by dissipating into the rest of the space where the machinery
is located. In neither case is there an alarm before discharge or is
the extinguishing concentration maintained at a constant level in an
enclosed space as for total flooding systems.
EPA's evaluation of the characteristics of local application
systems, particularly in the case of textile process machinery (which
is the only case presented to EPA with actual design specifications for
use of this agent in a local application system) shows that exposure
patterns for this type of use are more similar to streaming agents than
total flooding agent systems. Evaluating the exposure risk of persons
who are near the textile process machinery when a local application
system is discharged requires modifying the streaming agent methodology
to account for the different rate of release of the extinguishing
agent. Based on relevant system and exposure specifications provided by
one of the commenters, EPA has made these modifications. The Agency's
analyses project that local application extinguishing systems using
HFC-236fa located inside textile process machinery would maintain
worker exposures below the cardiotoxicity NOAEL and LOAEL
concentrations.
In summary, EPA agrees with the suggestion of some of the
commenters that the use of HFC-236fa in local application systems
inside textile process machinery as a replacement for halon 1211 is
covered by the acceptability listing of this agent in the streaming
agent end-use. Local application systems other than those used inside
textile process machinery are not included in the streaming agent end-
use since EPA's review is based solely on the specifications for such
systems in textile process machinery. Thus, EPA rejects suggestions by
some of the commenters that this agent be listed acceptable as a
replacement for halon 1211 in local application systems generally.
Since EPA has no specific information on the potential use of this
agent in local application systems as a replacement for halon 1301, and
since the methodology for evaluating exposure to total flooding agents
is not appropriate for the textile processing machinery system, EPA
does not agree that local application systems using this agent as a
replacement for halon 1301 are covered by the total flooding agent end-
use. Thus, EPA is rejecting suggestions by some of the commenters that
this agent be listed acceptable as a replacement for halon 1301 in
local application systems, either as a separate end-use or as part of
the total flooding
[[Page 22993]]
end-use. EPA welcomes information about potential uses of this agent
and other halon substitutes in local application systems as a
replacement for either halon 1211 or halon 1301, and may consider
creating a separate end-use for local application extinguishing systems
in the future. EPA notes the potential for environmental benefit if
more use is made of these systems since they may require relatively
small amounts of extinguishing agent and pose less risk of occupational
exposure than other types of fire extinguishing systems, such as total
flooding systems.
(3) ``Grandfathering'' Existing Uses of HFC-236fa
One commenter took issue with the following paragraph, which
appeared in Section III.D.3 of the preamble to the proposed rule and
was incorporated by reference in the proposed listing of HFC-236fa
acceptable subject to use conditions in the total flooding agent end-
use:
``In the event of the development of acceptable alternatives
which EPA finds should not only replace halon 1301 and HFC-236fa in
new systems, EPA may grandfather existing uses but only to the
extent warranted by cost and timing as outlined in the original SNAP
rule discussion of grandfathering of unacceptable substitutes (59 FR
13057).''
The commenter requested that this paragraph be modified and
relocated. The commenter believes that such discussion is inappropriate
when specifically isolated to comments about one particular substitute;
to the extent this may be consistent with EPA's mandate under the Act,
the commenter states it should be clear to potential end-users that the
comments apply to all alternatives or to all members of a defined class
of alternatives.
EPA has included similar language in the preamble discussion of
specific listings of substitutes in previous rulemakings. (See
discussion of PFCs as acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in the
Solvents sector in the original SNAP rule (March 18, 1994) at 59 FR
13095-13096). This commenter suggests this statement by EPA is
consistent with the scope of EPA's authority to permit the continuation
of activities otherwise restricted where the balance of equities
supports such grandfathering. See discussion in the preamble of the
original SNAP rule (59 FR 13057).
EPA believes, since this language is merely a statement of the
Agency's authority and not a stated intention to take such action, it
is appropriate to include this statement in discussion of listings of
any substitute, even if this statement is not included in its
discussion of listings of all substitutes in a particular rulemaking.
EPA can use its grandfathering authority, within the limits described
above, any time it changes a listing of a substitute. EPA did not
intend, however, to create confusion by including this language in the
listing of this particular substitute alone; thus, EPA is deleting any
reference in this final rule to potential grandfathering in this sector
and refers end-users to the discussion of grandfathering in the
original SNAP rule as described above.
c. Unrelated Issues
EPA received one letter with comments purportedly relating to this
proposal but which actually are unrelated. This commenter asked that
EPA modify the use conditions and/or change to unacceptable several
halon substitutes currently listed as acceptable by SNAP. Since none of
these listings was proposed to be changed in this rulemaking, the
comments are not relevant to this final rule. In any event, the
commenter did not provide adequate information to justify re-opening
the listings which were made through notice-and-comment rulemakings in
the past. A more complete discussion of this comment and EPA's response
is contained in the Supplemental Response to Comments which is
available in the public docket for this rulemaking.
d. Chlorobromomethane
As described in the response to comments received under the
Solvents; Aerosols; and Adhesives, Coatings, and Inks sectors, EPA
received several comments on its proposal listing of chlorobromomethane
as unacceptable in those sectors. The same comments apply to the
proposed listing of CBM as unacceptable in the total flooding end-use
in the Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection sector with respect to
its ozone depletion potential. See the discussion of the ODP of CBM
under the solvents section, II.C.3. Specific information related to
flooding systems is discussed under the unacceptable determination for
CBM, II.D.3.
E. Aerosols
1. Acceptable Substitutes
a. Solvents
(1) HFC-4310mee
HFC-4310mee is an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and methyl
chloroform (MCF) in aerosols. For further information, see the
discussion of HFC-4310mee in section II.C.1 above in the metals
cleaning end-use within the solvents cleaning sector.
(2) HCFC-225 ca/cb
HCFC-225 ca/cb is an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and methyl
chloroform (MCF) in aerosols. HCFC-225 ca/cb blend is offered as a 45%-
ca/55%-cb blend. The company-set exposure limit for the -ca isomer is
25 ppm. The company-set exposure limit for the -cb isomer is 250 ppm.
Based on the results of exposure assessment studies, it is EPA's
opinion that companies can meet the 25 ppm limit of the HCFC-225 ca
isomer in defluxing and cleaning providing that the standard operating
procedures and employee work habits are conducted in accordance with
the procedures specified in the product safety information provided by
the chemical manufacturer.
2. Unacceptable
a. Chlorobromomethane
Chlorobromomethane is unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-113,
methyl chloroform, and HCFC-141b in aerosols. See the discussion of CBM
in section II.C.2 above in the metals cleaning end-use within the
solvents cleaning sector.
3. Response to Comments
EPA incorporates by reference the response to comments on
chlorobromomethane in the solvents cleaning sector, II.C.3.
F. Adhesives, coatings, and inks
1. Unacceptable
a. Chlorobromomethane
Chlorobromomethane is unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-113,
methyl chloroform, and HCFC-141b in adhesives, coatings and inks. See
the discussion of CBM in section II.C.2 above in the metals cleaning
end-use within the solvents cleaning sector.
2. Response to Comments
EPA incorporates by reference the response to comments on
chlorobromomethane in the solvents cleaning sector, II.C.3.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of
[[Page 22994]]
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter
the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB notified EPA
that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within the
meaning of the Executive Order and EPA submitted this action to OMB for
review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations
have been documented in the public record.
B. Unfunded Mandates Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the
Agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule
that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by
state, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 203 requires
the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing,
educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly
or uniquely affected by the rule. Section 204 requires the Agency to
develop a process to allow elected state, local, and tribal government
officials to provide input in the development of any action containing
a significant Federal intergovernmental mandate. Under section 205 of
the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule
for which a budgetary impact statement is prepared. The Agency must
select from those alternatives the least costly, most cost-effective,
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the
rule, unless the Agency explains why this alternative is not selected
or the selection of this alternative is inconsistent with law.
Because this final rule is estimated to result in the expenditure
by State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of less
than $100 million in any one year, the Agency has not prepared a
budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the selection of
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative.
Because small governments will not be significantly or uniquely
affected by this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a plan
with regard to small governments. Finally, because this FRM does not
contain a significant intergovernmental mandate, the Agency is not
required to develop a process to obtain input from elected state,
local, and tribal officials.
C. Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This rule would not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because costs of the SNAP
requirements as a whole are expected to be minor. In fact, this rule
offers regulatory relief to small businesses by providing alternatives
to phased-out ozone-depleting substances. EPA has determined that it is
not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in
connection with this final rule. The actions herein may well provide
benefits for small businesses anxious to examine potential substitutes
to any ozone-depleting class I and class II substances they may be
using, by requiring manufacturers to make information on such
substitutes available. Therefore, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has determined that this final rule contains no information
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., that are not already approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). OMB has reviewed and approved two Information Collection
Requests (ICRs) by EPA which are described in the March 18, 1994
rulemaking (59 FR 13044, at 13121, 13146-13147) and in the October 16,
1996 rulemaking (61 FR 54030, at 54038-54039). These ICRs included five
types of respondent reporting and record-keeping activities pursuant to
SNAP regulations: submission of a SNAP petition, filing a SNAP/TSCA
Addendum, notification for test marketing activity, record-keeping for
substitutes acceptable subject to narrowed use limits, and record-
keeping for small volume uses. The OMB Control Numbers are 2060-0226
and 2060-0350.
E. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
F. Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks''
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health
or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is
not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and because the
Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or
safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk
to children, as the exposure limits and acceptability listings in this
final rule primarily apply to the workplace.
G. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
[[Page 22995]]
costs incurred by those governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the
nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments, because this regulation
applies directly to facilities that use these substances and not to
governmental entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of
Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), section 12(d), Public Law 104-113, requires federal agencies
and departments to use technical standards that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical
standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities
determined by the agencies and departments. If use of such technical
standards is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical,
a federal agency or department may elect to use technical standards
that are not developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards
bodies if the head of the agency or department transmits to the Office
of Management and Budget an explanation of the reasons for using such
standards. This rule does not mandate the use of any technical
standards; accordingly, the NTTAA does not apply to this rule.
IV. Additional Information
For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists or additional
information on SNAP, contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at 1-
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
SNAP final rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18,
1994 (59 FR 13044). Notices and rulemakings under the SNAP program, as
well as EPA publications on protection of stratospheric ozone, are
available from EPA's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site at ``http://
www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/'' and from the Stratospheric Protection
Hotline number as listed above.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 21, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Note: The following Table 1 will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Table 1: Summary of Acceptable Decisions
Solvents Cleaning--Acceptable Subsitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals cleaning w/CFC-113..... HFC-4310mee...... Acceptable....... Company-set time-weighted average
workplace exposure standard of 200 ppm,
and a workplace exposure ceiling of 400
ppm.
Metals cleaning w/MCF......... HFC-4310mee...... Acceptable....... Company-set time-weighted average
workplace exposure standard of 200 ppm
and a workplace exposure ceiling of 400
ppm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerosols--Acceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvent in aerosols w/CFC-113. HFC-4310mee...... Acceptable....... Company-set time-weighted average
workplace exposure standard of 200 ppm,
and a workplace exposure ceiling of 400
ppm.
Solvent in aerosols w/MCF..... HFC-4310mee...... Acceptable....... Company-set time-weighted average
workplace exposure standard of 200 ppm,
and a workplace exposure ceiling of 400
ppm.
Solvent in aerosols w/CFC-113. HCFC-225ca/cb.... Acceptable....... Company-set time weighted average exposure
limit of 25 ppm for the HCFC-225 ca
isomer.
Solvent in aerosols w/MCF..... HCFC-225ca/cb.... Acceptable....... Company-set time weighted average exposure
limit of 25 ppm for the HCFC-225 ca
isomer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 22996]]
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended
as follows:
PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
1. The authority citation for Part 82 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
2. Subpart G is amended by adding the following Appendix H to read
as follows:
Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
* * * * *
Appendix H to Subpart G--Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions
and Unacceptable Substitutes, Effective May 28, 1999.
CFC-12 Automobile and Non-automobile Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners,
Retrofit and New
Criteria for Uniqueness of Fittings
(a) All fittings for alternative motor vehicle refrigerants must
meet the following requirements:
(1) high-side screw-on fittings for each refrigerant must differ
from high-side screw-on fittings for all other refrigerants, including
CFC-12, and from low-side screw-on fittings for CFC-12;
(2) low-side screw-on fittings for each refrigerant must differ
from low-side screw-on fittings for all other refrigerants, including
CFC-12;
(3) high-side screw-on fittings for a given refrigerant must differ
from low-side screw-on fittings for that refrigerant, to protect
against connecting a low-pressure system to a high-pressure one;
(4) high-side quick-connect fittings for each refrigerant must
differ from high-side quick-connect fittings for all other
refrigerants, including CFC-12 (if they exist);
(5) low-side quick-connect fittings for each refrigerant must
differ from low-side quick-connect fittings for all other refrigerants,
including CFC-12 (if they exist);
(6) high-side quick-connect fittings for a given refrigerant must
differ from low-side quick-connect fittings for that refrigerant, to
protect against connecting a low-pressure system to a high-pressure
one;
(7) for each type of container, the fitting for each refrigerant
must differ from the fitting for that type of container for all other
refrigerants, including CFC-12.
(b) For screw-on fittings, ``differ'' means that either the
diameter must differ by at least \1/16\ inch or the thread direction
must be reversed (i.e. right-handed vs. left-handed). Simply changing
the thread pitch is not sufficient. For quick-connect fittings,
``differ'' means that a person using normal force and normal tools
(including wrenches) must not be able to cross-connect fittings.
(c) The sole exception to the \1/16\ inch difference requirement is
the difference between the small can fittings for GHG-X4 and R-406A.
The GHG-X4 small can fitting uses a metric measurement, and is slightly
less than \1/16\ inch larger than the small can fitting for R-406A. EPA
has concluded that these fittings will not cross-connect, and therefore
they may be used.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All HCFC-22 end-uses, retrofit NARM-22.......... Unacceptable..... This blend contains HCFC-22, and it is
and new. inappropriate to use such a blend as a
substitute for HCFC-22. In addition, this
blend contains HFC-23, which has an
extremely high GWP and lifetime. Other
substitutes for HCFC-22 exist that do not
contain either HCFC-22 or HFC-23.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvents Cleaning--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals, Electronic, and Chlorobromo- Unacceptable..... Other alternatives exist with zero or much
Precision cleaning with CFC- methane. lower ODP.
113, methyl chloroform, and
HCFC-141b.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 22997]]
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Total Flooding Agents--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301 replacement............. C3F8 Acceptable for nonresidential uses where other For occupied areas from which personnel cannot The comparative design
alternatives are not technically feasible due be evacuated in one minute, use is permitted concentration based on cup
to performance or safety requirements: only up to concentrations not exceeding the burner values is
(a) because of their physical or chemical cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 30%; Although no approximately 8.8%. Users
properties, or LOAEL has been established for this product, should observe the
(b) where human exposure to the extinguishing standard OSHA requirements apply, i.e., for limitations on PFC
agents may result in failure to meet occupied areas from which personnel can be acceptability by taking the
applicable use conditions evacuated or egress can occur between 30 and following measures:
60 seconds, use is permitted up to a (i) conduct an evaluation of
concentration not exceeding the LOAEL. foreseeable conditions of end-
All personnel must be evacuated before use;
concentration of C3F8 exceeds 30%. (ii) determine that the
Design concentration must result in oxygen physical or chemical
levels of at least 16%. properties or other technical
See additional comment 5 constraints of the other
available agents preclude
their use; and
(iii) determine that human
exposure to the other
alternative extinguishing
agents may result in failure
to meet applicable use
conditions.
Documentation of such measures
should be available for
review upon request.
The principal environmental
characteristic of concern for
PFCs is that they have high
GWPs and long atmospheric
lifetimes. Actual
contributions to global
warming depend upon the
quantities of PFCs emitted.
For additional guidance
regarding applications in
which PFCs may be
appropriate, users should
consult the description of
potential uses which is
included in the March 18,
1994 final rule (59 FR
13044.)
See additional comments 1, 2,
3, 4.
[[Page 22998]]
Halon 1301 replacement............. C4F10 Acceptable for nonresidential uses where other For occupied areas from which personnel cannot The comparative design
alternatives are not technically feasible due be evacuated in one minute, use is permitted concentration based on cup
to performance or safety requirements: only up to concentrations not exceeding the burner values is
(a) because of their physical or chemical cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 40%; approximately 6.6%. Users
properties, or Although no LOAEL has been established for should observe the
(b) where human exposure to the extinguishing this product, standard OSHA requirements limitations on PFC
agents may result in failure to meet apply, i.e., for occupied areas from which acceptability by taking the
applicable use conditions personnel can be evacuated or egress can following measures:
occur between 30 and 60 seconds, use is (i) conduct an evaluation of
permitted up to a concentration not exceeding foreseeable conditions of end-
the LOAEL. use;
All personnel must be evacuated before (ii) determine that the
concentration of C4F10 exceeds 40%. physical or chemical
Design concentration must result in oxygen properties or other technical
levels of at least 16%. constraints of the other
See additional comment 5 available agents preclude
their use; and
(iii) determine that human
exposure to the other
alternative extinguishing
agents may result in failure
to meet applicable use
conditions.
Documentation of such measures
should be available for
review upon request.
The principal environmental
characteristic of concern for
PFCs is that they have high
GWPs and long atmospheric
lifetimes. Actual
contributions to global
warming depend upon the
quantities of PFCs emitted.
For additional guidance
regarding applications in
which PFCs may be
appropriate, users should
consult the description of
potential uses which is
included in the March 18,
1994 final rule (59 FR
13044.)
See additional comments 1, 2,
3, 4.
Halon 1301 replacement............. HFC-236fa Acceptable when manufactured using any process For occupied areas from which personnel cannot The comparative design
that does not convert perfluoroiso-butylene be evacuated in one minute, use is permitted concentration based on cup
(PFIB) directly to HFC-236fa in a single only up to concentrations not exceeding the burner values is
step: cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 10%; approximately 6.4%. Users
--for use in explosion suppression and For occupied areas from which personnel can be should observe the
explosion inertion applications, and evacuated or egress can occur between 30 and limitations on HFC-236fa
--for use in fire suppression applications 60 seconds, use is permitted up to a acceptability by taking the
where other non-PFC agents or alternatives concentration not exceeding the LOAEL of 15%; following measures:
are not technically feasible due to All personnel must be evacuated before (i) conduct an evaluation of
performance or safety requirements: concentration of HFC-236fa exceeds 15%. foreseeable conditions of end-
(a) because of their physical or chemical Design concentration must result in oxygen use;
properties, or levels of at least 16%. (ii) determine that the
(b) where human exposure to the extinguishing See additional comment 5 physical or chemical
agents may result in failure to meet properties or other technical
applicable use conditions constraints of the other
available agents preclude
their use; and
(iii) determine that human
exposure to the other
alternative extinguishing
agents may result in failure
to meet applicable use
conditions.
Documentation of such measures
should be available for
review upon request.
Feasible for use in a normally
occupied area.
See additional comments 1, 2,
3, 4.
Additional comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--Should conform with OSHA requirements, 29 CFR 1910, Subpart L, Section 1910.160.
2--Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) should be available in the event personnel should reenter the area.
3--Discharge testing should be strictly limited to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements.
4--The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later use or destroyed.
[[Page 22999]]
5--EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection), fire protection, hazard communication,
worker training or any other occupational safety and health standard with respect to EPA's regulation of halon substitutes.
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Total Flooding Agents--Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301 replacement.......... C3F8 Acceptable for For occupied areas from which personnel The comparative design
nonresidential uses cannot be evacuated in one minute, use is concentration based on cup
where other permitted only up to concentrations not burner values is
alternatives are not exceeding the cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 30%; approximately 8.8%. Users
technically feasible Although no LOAEL has been established for should observe the
due to performance or this product, standard OSHA requirements limitations on PFC
safety requirements: apply, i.e., for occupied areas from which acceptability by taking
(a) because of their personnel can be evacuated or egress can the following measures:
physical or chemical occur between 30 and 60 seconds, use is (i) conduct an evaluation
properties, or (b) permitted up to a concentration not of foreseeable conditions
where human exposure to exceeding the LOAEL. All personnel must be of end-use; (ii) determine
the extinguishing evacuated before concentration of C3F8 that the physical or
agents may result in exceeds 30%. Design concentration must chemical properties or
failure to meet result in oxygen levels of at least 16%. other technical
applicable use See additional comment 5 constraints of the other
conditions available agents preclude
their use; and (iii)
determine that human
exposure to the other
alternative extinguishing
agents may result in
failure to meet applicable
use conditions.
Documentation of such
measures should be
available for review upon
request. The principal
environmental
characteristic of concern
for PFCs is that they have
high GWPs and long
atmospheric lifetimes.
Actual contributions to
global warming depend upon
the quantities of PFCs
emitted. For additional
guidance regarding
applications in which PFCs
may be appropriate, users
should consult the
description of potential
uses which is included in
the March 18, 1994 final
rule (59 FR 13044.) See
additional comments 1, 2,
3, 4.
Halon 1301 replacement.......... C4F10 Acceptable for For occupied areas from which personnel The comparative design
nonresidential uses cannot be evacuated in one minute, use is concentration based on cup
where other permitted only up to concentrations not burner values is
alternatives are not exceeding the cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 40%; approximately 6.6%. Users
technically feasible Although no LOAEL has been established for should observe the
due to performance or this product, standard OSHA requirements limitations on PFC
safety requirements: apply, i.e., for occupied areas from which acceptability by taking
(a) because of their personnel can be evacuated or egress can the following measures:
physical or chemical occur between 30 and 60 seconds, use is (i) conduct an evaluation
properties, or (b) permitted up to a concentration not of foreseeable conditions
where human exposure to exceeding the LOAEL. All personnel must be of end-use; (ii) determine
the extinguishing evacuated before concentration of C4F10 that the physical or
agents may result in exceeds 40%. Design concentration must chemical properties or
failure to meet result in oxygen levels of at least 16%. other technical
applicable use See additional comment 5 constraints of the other
conditions available agents preclude
their use; and (iii)
determine that human
exposure to the other
alternative extinguishing
agents may result in
failure to meet applicable
use conditions.
Documentation of such
measures should be
available for review upon
request. The principal
environmental
characteristic of concern
for PFCs is that they have
high GWPs and long
atmospheric lifetimes.
Actual contributions to
global warming depend upon
the quantities of PFCs
emitted. For additional
guidance regarding
applications in which PFCs
may be appropriate, users
should consult the
description of potential
uses which is included in
the March 18, 1994 Final
Rule (59 FR 13044.) See
additional comments 1, 2,
3, 4.
[[Page 23000]]
Halon 1301 replacement.......... HFC-236fa Acceptable when For occupied areas from which personnel The comparative design
manufactured using any cannot be evacuated in one minute, use is concentration based on cup
process that does not permitted only up to concentrations not burner values is
convert perfluoroiso- exceeding the cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 10%; approximately 6.4%. Users
butylene (PFIB) For occupied areas from which personnel can should observe the
directly to HFC-236fa be evacuated or egress can occur between 30 limitations on HFC-236fa
in a single step: -for and 60 seconds, use is permitted up to a acceptability by taking
use in explosion concentration not exceeding the LOAEL of the following measures:
suppression and 15%; All personnel must be evacuated before (i) conduct an evaluation
explosion inertion concentration of HFC-236fa exceeds 15%. of foreseeable conditions
applications, and -for Design concentration must result in oxygen of end-use; (ii) determine
use in fire suppression levels of at least 16%. See additional that the physical or
applications where comment 5 chemical properties or
other non-PFC agents or other technical
alternatives are not constraints of the other
technically feasible available agents preclude
due to performance or their use; and (iii)
safety requirements: determine that human
(a) because of their exposure to the other
physical or chemical alternative extinguishing
properties, or (b) agents may result in
where human exposure to failure to meet applicable
the extinguishing use conditions.
agents may result in Documentation of such
failure to meet measures should be
applicable use available for review upon
conditions request. Feasible for use
in a normally occupied
area. See additional
comments 1, 2, 3, 4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional comments:
\1\ Should conform with OSHA requirements, 29 CFR 1910, Subpart L, Section 1910.160.
\2\ Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) should be available in the event personnel should reenter the area.
\3\ Discharge testing should be strictly limited to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements.
\4\ The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later use or destroyed.
\5\ EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection),
fire protection, hazard communication, worker training or any other occupational safety and health standard with respect to EPA's regulation of halon
substitutes.
[[Page 23001]]
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Streaming Agents--Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1211......................... C6F14 Acceptable for nonresidential uses where other .............................................. Users should observe the
replacement........................ alternatives are not technically feasible due limitations on PFC
to performance or safety requirements: (a) acceptability by taking the
because of their physical or chemical following measures: (i)
properties, or (b) where human exposure to conduct an evaluation of
the extinguishing agents may result in foreseeable conditions of end-
failure to meet applicable use conditions. use; (ii) determine that the
physical or chemical
properties or other technical
constraints of the other
available agents preclude
their use; and (iii)
determine that human exposure
to the other alternative
extinguishing agents may
result in failure to meet
applicable use conditions
Documentation of such
measures should be available
for review upon request. The
principal environmental
characteristic of concern for
PFCs is that they have high
GWPs and long atmospheric
lifetimes. Actual
contributions to global
warming depend upon the
quantities of PFCs emitted.
For additional guidance
regarding applications in
which PFCs may be
appropriate, users should
consult the description of
potential uses which is
included in the March 18,
1994 Final Rule (59 FR
13044.) See comments 1, 2.
Halon 1211 replacement............. HFC-236fa Acceptable in nonresidential uses when .............................................. See comments 1, 2, 3.
manufactured using any process that does not
convert perfluoroisobutylene (PFIB) directly
to HFC-236fa in a single step
Halon 1211 replacement............. HFC-227ea Acceptable in nonresidential uses only .............................................. See comments 1, 2.
Additional comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--Discharge testing and training should be strictly limited only to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements.
2--The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later use or destroyed.
3--Acceptable for local application systems inside textile process machinery.
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Total Flooding Agents--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301 replacement........ Chlorobromo- Unacceptable..... Other alternatives exist with zero or
methane. lower ODP; OSHA regulations prohibit its
use as extinguishing agent in fixed
extinguishing systems where employees may
be exposed. See 29 CFR 1910.160(b)(11).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerosols--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvent in aerosols with CFC- Chlorobromo- Unacceptable..... Other alternatives exist with zero or much
113, MCF, or HCFC-141b. methane. lower ODP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 23002]]
Adhesives, Coatings, and Inks--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvent in adhesives, Chlorobromo- Unacceptable..... Other alternatives exist with zero or much
coatings, and inks with CFC- methane. lower ODP.
113.
Solvent in adhesives, Chlorobromo- Unacceptable..... Other alternatives exist with zero or much
coatings, and inks with MCF. methane. lower ODP.
Solvent in adhesives, coatings Chlorobromo- Unacceptable..... Other alternatives exist with zero or much
and inks with HCFC-141b. methane. lower ODP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 99-10630 Filed 4-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081026152544im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}