Vol. 58 No. 90 Wednesday, May 12, 1993 p 28094 (Proposed Rule)

Vol. 58 No. 90 Wednesday, May 12, 1993 p 28094 (Proposed Rule) 1/11379 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82 [FRL-4625-7] Protection of Stratospheric Ozone AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SUMMARY: This action proposes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) program for evaluating and regulating substitutes for the ozone-depleting chemicals being phased out under the stratospheric ozone protection provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). In section 612 of the amended CAA, the Agency is authorized to identify and restrict the use of substitutes for Class I and II ozone-depleting substances where other alternatives exist that reduce overall risk to human health and the environment. EPA is referring to the program that would provide these determinations as the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The intended effect of this action is to expedite movement away from ozone depleting compounds. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is both issuing preliminary decisions on the acceptability of certain substitutes and introducing its plan for administering the SNAP program. To arrive at determinations on the acceptability of substitutes, the Agency completed a cross-media analysis of risks to human health and the environment from use of various substitutes in different industrial applications. This analysis is summarized in today's proposal, and covers substitutes in the refrigeration, foam blowing, solvents cleaning, fire extinguishing, tobacco puffing, adhesives, coatings and inks, aerosols and sterilants sectors. These sectors comprise the principal industrial sectors that historically consume large volumes of ozone-depleting compounds. DATES: Written comments or data provided in response to this document must be submitted by June 21, 1993. Any data submitted can be designated as Confidential Business Information. (See Section V.C. for more detail.). EPA will conduct a public hearing on this NPRM on May 28, 1993 beginning at 9 a.m. The record of this hearing will remain open for 30 days after the hearing for the submission of rebuttals and other supplementary material. ADDRESSES: Written comments and data should be sent to Docket A-91-42, Central Docket Section, South Conference Room 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The docket may be inspected between 8 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. on weekdays. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for photocopying. To expedite review, a second copy of the comments should be sent to Drusilla Hufford, Substitutes Analysis and Review Branch, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation, 401 M Street, SW., 6205J, Washington, DC 20460. Information designated as Confidential Business Information (CBI) under 40 CFR, part 2, subpart B must be sent directly to the contact person for this notice. However, the Agency is requesting that all respondents submit a non-confidential version of their comments to the docket as well. The public hearing on this NPRM will be held at the EPA auditorium in Washington, DC. Please call the contact person listed below for details regarding the public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Drusilla Hufford at (202) 233- 9101, Substitutes Analysis and Review Branch, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Overview of This Action This action is divided into eleven sections, including this overview: I. Overview of This Action II. Background A. Regulatory History B. Subgroup of the Federal Advisory Committee III. Section 612 Program A. Statutory Requirements B. Guiding Principles C. Implementation Strategy IV. Scope of Coverage A. Definition of Substitute B. Who Must Report V. Information Submission A. Overview B. Information Required C. Submission of Confidential Business Information VI. Effective Date of Coverage A. General Provisions VII. Notice, Review, and Decision-Making Procedures A. Substitutes Reviewed under SNAP Only B. Joint Review of New Substitutes under SNAP and TSCA PMN Program C. Joint Review of Substitutes under SNAP and FIFRA D. Shared Statutory Authority with the Food and Drug Administration VIII. Petitions A. Background B. Content of the Petition C. Sufficiency of Data D. Criteria for Evaluating Petitions E. Petition Review Process F. Critical Use Exemption Petitions IX. Preliminary Listing of Substitutes X. Additional Information XI. References Appendix A to the preamble Class I and Class II Ozone-Depleting Substances Appendix B to the preamble Preliminary Listing Decisions Appendix C to the preamble Data Confidentiality Claims II. Background A. Regulatory History The stratospheric ozone layer protects the earth from dangerous ultraviolet (UV-B) radiation. Depletion of stratospheric ozone allows more UV-B radiation to penetrate to the earth's surface. Increased radiation, in turn, has been linked to higher incidence of certain skin cancers and cataracts, suppression of the immune system, damage to crops and aquatic organisms, and increased formation of ground-level ozone. Further, increased radiation can cause economic losses from materials damage such as more rapid weathering of outdoor plastics. (See 53 FR 30566, August 12, 1988, for more information on the effects of ozone depletion.) In response to scientific concerns and findings on ozone depletion, the United States and twenty-three other nations signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer on September 16, 1987. The original agreement set forth a timetable for reducing the production and consumption of specific ozone-depleting substances, including CFC-11, CFC- 12, CFC-113, CFC-114, CFC-115, Halon-1211, Halon-1301, and Halon- 2402. EPA implemented the original Protocol through regulations allocating production and consumption allowances equal to the total amount of production and consumption granted to the United States under the Protocol. (See final rule promulgated on August 12, 1988; 53 FR 30566.) The parties to the Montreal Protocol met in London June 27- 29, 1990 to consider amendments to the Protocol. In response to scientific evidence indicating greater than expected stratospheric ozone depletion, the Parties agreed to accelerate the phase- out schedules for the substances already controlled by the Protocol. They also added phase-out requirements for other ozone-depleting chemicals, including methyl chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, and other fully-halogenated chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). On November 15, 1990, the President signed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Title VI, section 604 of the amended CAA requires a phase-out of CFCs, halons, and carbon tetrachloride by 2000, which is identical to the London Amendments, but with more stringent interim reductions. Title VI also differs from the London Amendments in mandating a faster phase-out of methyl chloroform (2002 instead of 2005), a restriction on the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) after 2015, and a ban on the production of HCFCs after 2030. In Title VI, section 602, the CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform are defined as Class I substances; HCFCs are referred to as Class II substances. Appendix A lists the Class I and Class II substances identified in the CAA. In addition to the phase-out requirements, Title VI includes provisions to reduce emissions of Class I and Class II substances to the "lowest achievable level" in all use sectors and to maximize the use of recycling and recovery upon disposal (section 608). It also requires EPA to ban nonessential products containing ozone-depleting substances (section 610); establish standards and requirements for the servicing of motor vehicle air conditioners (section 609); mandate warning labels on products made with or containing Class I or containing Class II substances (section 611); and establish a safe alternatives program (section 612). The development and implementation of the safe alternatives program under section 612 is the subject of this action. In October 1991, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announced several new findings documenting ozone depletion over the last decade that was more severe than had previously been predicted by atmospheric modeling or measurements. In particular, NASA found 2.9 per cent ozone depletion over the northern mid- latitudes over the past decade in summertime-the first time a trend showing ozone depletion had been detected in the U.S. during that time of year, when risks from depletion are greatest. Partly in response to these findings, on February 11, 1992, President Bush announced an accelerated phase-out schedule for Class I substances as identified in the CAA. This schedule has recently been published in the Federal Register (58 FR 15014; March 18, 1993). The President also ordered an accelerated review of substitutes that do less damage to the ozone layer than ozone- depleting compounds. The existence of the expedited phase-out schedule and the President's directive regarding alternatives adds a new urgency to EPA's effort to review and list substitutes for Class I and II substances under section 612. B. Subgroup of the Federal Advisory Committee In 1989, EPA organized the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Advisory Committee (STOPAC) in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. section 9(c). The STOPAC consists of members selected on the basis of their professional qualifications and diversity of perspectives and provides representation from industry, academia, Federal, state, and local government agencies, non-governmental and environmental groups, as well as international organizations. Since its formation, the STOPAC has provided advice and counsel to the Agency on policy and technical issues related to the protection of stratospheric ozone. In 1991, the Agency asked STOPAC members to participate in subgroups to assist in developing regulations under Title VI of the CAA. EPA established a subgroup of the standing STOPAC to guide the Agency specifically on development of the safe alternatives program. To date, the subgroup on safe alternatives has met twice. At the first meeting in May 1991, subgroup members reviewed a detailed description of EPA's plans for implementing section 612. At this meeting, there was general agreement on the need to issue a request for data to provide the general public with an opportunity to furnish the Agency with information on substitutes. The group also agreed on the need to review substitutes as quickly as possible to avoid any delay in industry's efforts to phase out of ozone-depleting substances. At the second meeting of the subgroup, in July 1991, subgroup members provided EPA with comments on a draft of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), which was prepared in response to the conclusions of the first meeting. The comments focused primarily on the draft discussion of EPA's plans for implementing section 612 and refinements to a list of preliminary substitutes that the Agency intended to review. Based on comments received from the subgroup and other offices within EPA, a final ANPRM was prepared which was published in the Federal Register on January 16, 1992 (57 FR 1984; January 16). III. Section 612 Program A. Statutory Requirements Section 612 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to develop a program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA is referring to this new program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are: Rulemaking-Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules by November 15, 1992, making it unlawful to replace any Class I or Class II substance with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the Administrator has identified an alternative that: (1) Reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is currently or potentially available. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes-Section 612(c) also requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes prohibited for specific uses. EPA must publish a corresponding list of acceptable alternatives for specific uses as well. Petition Process-Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to add a substance to or delete a substance from the lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny a petition. 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 unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes. Outreach-Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall seek to maximize the use of Federal research facilities and resources to assist users of Class I and II substances in identifying and developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial applications. Clearinghouse-Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and manufacturing processes which use Class I and II substances. B. Guiding Principles EPA has followed several guiding principles in developing the SNAP program: (1) Evaluate substitutes within a comparative risk framework. The Agency's risk evaluation examines risks of substitutes using risks from continued use of ozone-depleting compounds as well as risks associated with other substitutes as reference points. This evaluation will consider factors such as effects due to ozone depletion as well as effects due to direct toxicity across all substitutes. Other risk factors considered include effects on water and air quality, direct and indirect contributions to global warming, and occupational health and safety. Where such effects could be of concern, the evaluation will screen these effects. However, EPA does not believe that a numerical scheme producing a single index to rank all substitutes based on risks is appropriate. A strict quantitative index would not allow for sufficient flexibility in making appropriate risk management decisions that consider issues such as the quality of information supporting the decision, the degree of uncertainty in the data, the availability of other substitutes, and economic feasibility. (2) Do not require that substitutes be risk-free to be considered "safe". Section 612(c) requires the Agency to publish a list of safe alternatives where the Agency has identified unacceptable substitutes. The Agency interprets this as a mandate to identify substitutes that reduce risks when compared to use of Class I or II compounds or to other substitutes for Class I or II substances, rather than a mandate to list as acceptable only those substitutes with zero risks. In keeping with this interpretation, the Agency believes that a key goal of the SNAP program is to promote the use of substitutes for Class I and II chemicals that minimize risks to human health and the environment relative to other alternatives. In some cases, this approach may involve designating a substitute as acceptable even though the compound may be toxic, or pose other environmental risk of some type. (3) Restrict only those substitutes that are significantly worse. As a corollary to the point above, EPA does not intend to restrict a substitute if it poses only marginally greater risk than another substitute, all things considered. Drawing fine distinctions concerning the acceptability of substitutes would be extremely difficult given the variability in how each substitute can be used within a specific application and the resulting uncertainties surrounding potential health and environmental effects. The Agency also does not want to intercede in the market's choice of available substitutes, unless a substitute has been proposed or is being used that is clearly more harmful to human health and the environment than other alternatives. (4) Evaluate risks by use. Section 612 requires that substitutes be evaluated by use. Environmental and human health exposures can vary significantly depending on the particular application of a substitute. Thus, the risk characterizations must be designed to represent differences in the environmental and human-health effects associated with diverse uses. (5) Provide the regulated community with information as soon as possible. The Agency recognizes the need to provide the regulated community with information on the acceptability of various substitutes as soon as possible. Given this need, EPA has decided to expedite the review process by conducting initial risk characterizations for the major substitutes now known to the Agency. The results of the risk characterizations will be used, as discussed in the previous section, to propose determinations regarding the acceptability of the substitutes. (6) Do not endorse products manufactured by specific companies. While the goal of the SNAP program is to identify acceptable substitutes, the Agency will not issue company-specific product endorsements. In some cases, the Agency may base its analysis on data received on individual products, but the addition of a substitute to the approved list based on that analysis does not represent a preference for that company's product over comparable products offered by other manufacturers. (7) Defer to other environmental regulations when warranted. In some cases, EPA and other federal agencies have developed extensive regulations under other statutes or other parts of the CAA that address any potential cross- or inter-media transfers that may result from the use of alternatives to Class I and II substances. For example, ceasing to use an ozone-depleting compound may in some cases entail increased use of chemicals that increase tropospheric air pollution. These chemicals, such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), are already regulated under other sections of the CAA, and determinations under the SNAP program will take these existing regulations into account. Where necessary, the Office of Air and Radiation will confer with other EPA program offices or federal agencies to ensure that any regulatory overlap is handled efficiently. C. Implementation Strategy Implementation of the SNAP program is directed towards fulfilling the general policy contained in section 612 of identifying substitutes that can serve as replacements for ozone-depleting substances, evaluating their effects on human health and the environment, and encouraging the use of those substitutes believed to present low risks to human health and the environment. Implementation of this policy involves three key activities. The first is to develop, promulgate, and administer a regulatory program for identifying and evaluating substitutes. The second activity is to undertake a review of the existing substitutes based on criteria established for the program and then to publish a list of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes by application. The third activity is to review additional substitutes as they are developed to allow their timely introduction into the marketplace. To expedite implementation of the SNAP program, EPA has developed not only a process for examining the alternatives, as discussed in today's proposal, but has completed an initial analysis of many key substitutes based on the criteria being proposed. Section IX summarizes the results of this initial assessment. More detail on the steps leading up to today's proposal and the anticipated implementation of the SNAP program is given below. 1. Issue ANPRM and Request for Data In January of this year, EPA published in the Federal Register an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) and Request for Data (57 FR 1984; January 16, 1992). The ANPRM described in general terms EPA's plans for developing the SNAP program and solicited public comment on the Agency's planned approach. The ANPRM also included an appendix listing substitutes that the Agency planned to include in its initial substitute determinations. The ANPRM invited industry to submit information on these substitutes and to identify additional alternatives to be considered in the SNAP program. The Agency received approximately one hundred comments from industry, trade groups, and other federal agencies. These comments contained information on potential substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals, as well as comments on the SNAP program as described in the ANPRM. In some cases, the information provided on substitutes did not contain sufficient data for the Agency to immediately incorporate these alternatives into the risk characterizations. The Agency is working now to gather additional information on these alternatives to ensure that they can be included in the list of reviewed substitutes in the final rule. Comments on the SNAP program itself focused primarily on issues such as effective dates, small uses, the desirability of assured minimum periods of use for substitutes, how mixtures will be handled by the SNAP program, and how specific the lists of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" substances will be. These comments, and the Agency's response to them, are addressed in later sections of today's proposal. 2. Develop Preliminary Determinations on Substitutes To arrive at its SNAP determinations, the Agency has been collecting and evaluating information on substitutes since the President's signing of the Clean Air Act Amendments in November 1990. In some cases, this information has been furnished directly by companies manufacturing, selling, or using the substitutes. In others, the Agency has initiated its own studies to characterize, for example, worker exposures where toxicity was anticipated to present a potential problem. Response to the request for data in the January ANPRM augmented the Agency's available data, both by helping to identify substitutes that merit consideration in the SNAP program and by providing additional information on substitutes already under consideration. There are, however, still omissions in the Agency's list of substitutes under consideration. In some cases, engineering and use profile data are missing; in others, information on potential market applications may not yet be available. The Agency today is repeating the data request issued in the ANPRM, and is encouraging companies that manufacture substitutes to provide information. 3. Publish Proposed SNAP Process and Proposed Determinations This NPRM represents the third implementation step, which is to describe the proposed structure and process for administering the SNAP program and to propose determinations on the acceptability of key substitutes. The notice also contains the proposed regulatory language that will serve as the legal basis for administering and enforcing the SNAP program. EPA believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures are necessary to establish these regulations governing the SNAP program. EPA further believes that rulemaking is also required to place any substance on the list of prohibited substances, to list a substance as acceptable only under certain conditions, or to remove a substance from either the list of prohibited or acceptable substitutes. EPA requests comment, however, on the need to remove a substance from the list of acceptable substitutes through rulemaking. EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are required to list alternatives as acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do not impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior license to use a substance. Consequently, once this rule is promulgated, EPA will be adding substances to the list of acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new listings. Because EPA's SNAP regulations are not yet final, however, manufacturers and users may have additional information that could help EPA in making this first round of SNAP determinations. Recognizing this, EPA has elected to propose the list of acceptable alternatives identified in this notice, and to request public comment on these listings. This should not in any way be taken as a precedent for future listings of acceptable substitutes. Once the SNAP program regulations are finally adopted and EPA has received SNAP notices from manufacturers and users, EPA will add substances to the list of acceptable substitutes without notice-and-comment procedures. Any approvals or prohibitions on substitutes described in this notice are preliminary and will not be final until the SNAP program is promulgated. Even though they are preliminary, the Agency is issuing the SNAP decisions now because many companies are awaiting Agency guidance before switching out of ozone-depleting substances. The Agency believes that by publishing these preliminary determinations, it has met the intent of section 612 to inform the public of Class I and II substitutes believed to present minimal risks to human health and the environment. Moreover, given the accelerated pace of the phase-out of Class I compounds, the Agency wants to encourage the earliest possible shift to the alternatives identified on today's list of acceptable substitutes. The Agency may revise these decisions in the future as it reviews additional substitutes and receives more data on substitutes already covered by the program. However, EPA expects future changes to the SNAP lists to be minor, and thus not to represent an undue burden on the regulated community. The principal types of changes the Agency expects to make in the future would be to add new substitutes or sectors to the lists, rather than to change a substitute's approval status. Further, once a substitute has been finally placed on either the acceptable or the unacceptable list, EPA will conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking to subsequently remove a substitute from either list, as described below in Section VII. Again, the Agency requests comment on whether formal rulemaking is necessary to remove a substance from the acceptable list. 4. Issue Final Regulation As discussed above, the final rule will promulgate the SNAP process and the first set of determinations on SNAP substitutes. The final regulation will address comments that the Agency receives on today's NPRM, and will also incorporate any further data on substitutes that are received during the comment period. 5. Maintain and Update SNAP Determinations Three mechanisms exist for revising or expanding the list of SNAP determinations published in the final regulation. First, under section 612(d), the Agency will review and either grant or deny petitions to add or delete substances from the SNAP list of acceptable or unacceptable alternatives. Section VIII of this notice presents EPA's proposed method for handling petitions. The second means of revising or expanding the list of SNAP determinations is through the notifications, which must be submitted to EPA 90 days before introduction of a chemical into interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative to Class I or Class II substances. These 90-day notifications are required by section 612(e) of the CAA and by EPA regulations today proposed to be issued under sections 114 and 301 of the Act to implement section 612(c). In Section VII, this notice discusses the Agency's proposed approach for processing these notifications, including a proposed strategy for integrating the SNAP notifications with other chemical review programs already being implemented by EPA under authorities provided in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Other parts of this action also explain how the Agency will address the overlap between SNAP regulations and regulations issued under other titles of the Clean Air Act. Finally, the Agency believes that section 612 authorizes it to initiate changes to the SNAP determinations independent of any petitions or notifications received. These amendments can be based on new data on either additional substitutes or on characteristics of substitutes previously reviewed. 6. Perform Outreach and Operate Clearinghouse Outreach and the clearinghouse comprise the technical assistance component of the SNAP program. The purpose of this effort is to provide information for companies to use in selecting among the approved substitutes. Section VII.A.3.f. describes the Agency's proposed approach for establishing the clearinghouse and performing outreach. IV. Scope of Coverage A. Definition of Substitute 1. Statutory Language Based on the language of section 612(a) of the CAA, the Agency is proposing in the SNAP program to define 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. While subsequent subsections of section 612 refer only to "substitute substances" or "substitute chemicals," EPA is proposing a definition that interprets these provisions as incorporating the general definition of substitute presented in 612(a). The Agency believes that this definition is consistent with the overall intent of section 612 and is necessary to enable EPA to identify and analyze the universe of substitutes for Class I and II substances. Section 612(c) prohibits users from replacing Class I or II substances with any substitute substance which the Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health and the environment, where the Administrator has identified an alternative to such replacement that (1) reduces overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is currently or potentially available. EPA believes that in addition to authorizing the Agency to ban the use of a given substitute substance, section 612 confers the legal authority to allow the use of a substance only under certain use conditions, such as with mitigation measures. EPA only intends to use this authority where a viable substitute exists, but would otherwise have to be disallowed because of risk associated with its uncontrolled use. EPA anticipates imposing use conditions only in the rare instances where clear regulatory gaps exist, and where an unreasonable risk exists in the absence of any condition. In imposing conditions, EPA does not intend to preempt other regulatory authorities, such as those exercised by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or other standard setting bodies. Rather, EPA hopes to fill existing regulatory gaps during the interim period of substitution away from ozone-depleting compounds, and provide the needed margin of protection to human health and the environment until other regulatory controls or standards are developed under appropriate authorities. Once existing gaps are filled, EPA will rescind any conditions which have become redundant. The mechanism for informing the public of this change will be the quarterly Federal Register notices updating the status of the SNAP lists. These are discussed further below in section VII.A. The Agency, however, requests comment on the general issue of the need for use conditions. In particular, EPA requests comment on whether section 612 in fact confers upon the Agency the authority to go beyond the listing of acceptable and unacceptable alternatives and to set such use conditions. Further, EPA requests comment on the capability and practicality of EPA enforcing use conditions which may, for example, closely resemble workplace safety standards, which are typically within the enforcement purview of other regulatory authorities. EPA also requests comment on whether, when an unreasonable risk might exist due to a gap in regulatory coverage, the appropriate means to address these risks is through the existing regulatory framework of other federal authorities. For example, rather than using EPA's use conditions to address existing gaps in workplace safety standards, EPA could refer the matter to the appropriate OSHA authorities and request appropriate action to mitigate an otherwise unreasonable risk.{1} ³{1} 29 U.S.C. 654, OSHA General Duty Clause, requires ³that each employer "shall furnish to each of his employees ³employment and a place of employment which are free from ³recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to ³cause death or serious physical harm to his employees. ³* * *" Alternatively, where the length of time required to address a problem under another authority may be unacceptably long given the nature of the risk, there may be cases in which EPA would simply consider unacceptable the use of a given substitute, pending the development of a regulatory framework to control the risk it poses in its use as a substitute for an ozone-depleting compound. Section 612(e) makes clear that a chemical can be a substitute whether it is existing or new. Also, the language in section 612(c) clearly states that a substitute may be "currently or potentially available." The Agency is proposing to define as potentially available any alternative that the Agency reasonably believes to be technologically feasible and economically viable, even if not all testing has yet been completed and it is not yet produced and sold in commercial quantities. EPA solicits comment on this approach. The language included in section 612 is written broadly to allow for an all-encompassing evaluation of substitutes that will be introduced as replacements for ozone-depleting chemicals. However, additional clarification is presented below to further explain the Agency's definition of a "substitute" based on section 612. 2. Additional Clarification a. Chemicals Already Listed as "Existing" under TSCA. Many commenters have expressed the view that any compound already existing (e.g., listed on the TSCA inventory, either through the grandfathering provisions or by undergoing new-chemical review under section 5 of TSCA) is not subject to review under section 612. Nothing on the face of section 612(c), however, suggests that any "new" compound can be considered a substitute for purposes of that subsection. Moreover, section 612(e) explicitly requires producers of chemicals, both "new and existing," to notify the Agency before introducing such chemicals into interstate commerce for significant new uses as Class I alternatives. In addition, section 612(c) requires the Agency to produce lists of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes, without regard to the status of each chemical, whether new or existing. These interrelated provisions of section 612 serve as the basis for the Agency's belief that all substitutes, whether "new or existing" chemicals, are subject to SNAP review. This regulatory purview would thus necessarily extend to those chemicals already listed on the TSCA inventory. EPA believes SNAP review is critical given the differing statutory objectives of TSCA and the CAA, and the new and expanded applications of many existing chemicals as Class I and Class II replacements, which could alter existing release and exposure profiles. b. Expanded Use of Existing Alternatives. There has also been some question regarding whether an existing alternative already being sold commercially (e.g., use of semi-aqueous cleaners in the electronics industry) would be subject to review under section 612. The Agency believes that they would. Because of the phase-out, uses of existing substitutes can be expected to increase significantly beyond current consumption. This increased use could translate into greater releases and risks, and existing substitutes are therefore subject to SNAP approval where their use could significantly expand to new users or product lines. Users should note that preliminary SNAP determinations discussed in Section IX of this action demonstrate that with few exceptions, all substitutes already on the market meet the conditions for SNAP approval. c. Authority to Review Substitutes for Class II Compounds. Section 612(c) authorizes the Administrator to prohibit the use of substitutes for Class II, as well as Class I substances, and requires the Agency to compile lists of substitutes for Class II as well as Class I compounds upon making the requisite findings. This is in part because of the considerable overlap in sectors that use Class I and II substances. More importantly, this mirrors the statute's general emphasis on moving away from Class I compounds in a way that does not create new and unintended environmental problems. Clearly, for the same reasons Class I substitutes require review, Class II substitutes should also be reviewed. To obtain the data necessary to analyze Class II substitutes, the Agency is proposing to use statutory authority provided in sections 114 and 301 of the CAA with 612(c). These sections together authorize the Administrator to promulgate regulations needed to require companies to provide information EPA may reasonably require to identify acceptable and unacceptable substitutes for Class II substances. EPA proposes to exercise this authority so that Class I and Class II substitutes are subject to the same information reporting requirements and listing process. d. Designation of Class I and Class II Chemicals as Substitutes. EPA believes that the review authority under section 612 extends also to use of Class I and Class II chemicals as substitutes, even though these chemicals are subject to the phase-out provisions of the CAA. While some comments received by the Agency in response to the ANPRM question EPA's authority under section 612 to review Class I and Class II chemicals as substitutes (e.g., methyl chloroform used to replace CFC-113), it is clear that these compounds can be used as substitutes for other Class I and II substances in certain applications. Since section 612 authority extends to "any" substitutes, they are subject to review under the SNAP program just as any other substitute. Given the potential for the Class I and Class II chemicals to continue depleting stratospheric ozone and thus affect human health and the environment, a close examination of these alternatives in the context of both their effect on the environment and the availability of other substitutes for particular uses is warranted under section 612. e. Alternative Substances and Manufacturing Processes. Section 612(c) broadly charges EPA to identify alternatives to ozone- depleting substances. For example, EPA believes that alternative substances can include no-clean fluxes for solvent cleaning, substituting for solvents using Class I or II compounds. Several commenters disagree with this interpretation of the language in section 612. However, EPA believes it appropriate to consider substitute substances in its reviews under the SNAP program, since many of these alternatives are viable substitutes and could reduce overall risks to human health and the environment. Similarly, new production techniques and/or processing equipment are important developments that can minimize environmental releases. Accordingly, alternative manufacturing processes will also be examined under section 612 in the context of use and emissions of substitutes. Section 612's reference to "alternative", instead of "alternative substance", or "alternative chemical", implies a statutory intent that "alternative" be read broadly. EPA will encourage, where appropriate, alternative processes that reduce environmental and human health effects. In many applications, reliance on alternative processes and/or equipment may be associated with the use of substitute chemicals. In these instances, EPA encourages the filing of joint submissions where information is provided by both the chemical manufacturer and, for example, an equipment manufacturer. Such joint filings will provide the most comprehensive data on an alternative and its effect on human health and the environment. f. Feedstock Substitutes. Other commenters have questioned the applicability of section 612 to substitutes that could replace Class I chemicals which are used solely as intermediates in the production of other chemicals. To the extent that any feedstock substitutions occur, the Agency believes that there will be no incremental risk to human health and the environment. This is because intermediates are used as inputs in production of other compounds, and as a result are largely consumed in the chemical manufacturing process. For instance, in analyzing uses of carbon tetrachloride as a feedstock, the Agency determined that greater than 99 per cent of this chemical was consumed in the production process. The Agency is therefore proposing that feedstock substitutes be exempt from reporting and review under section 612. g. Second-Generation Substitutes. A key issue is whether there exists a point at which an alternative should no longer be classified as a Class I and Class II substitute as defined by section 612. The Agency believes that as long as Class I and Class II chemicals are being used, any first-generation substitute designed to replace these applications is subject to the regulatory provisions implemented under section 612. However, the Agency is proposing today that second-generation replacements, if they are replacing non-ozone depleting first- generation alternatives, are exempt from reporting requirements under section 612. Other regulatory programs (e.g., other sections of the CAA, or section 6 of TSCA) exist to ensure protection of human health and the environment in these situations. Several commenters agreed with the need to exempt second- generation substitutes. On the other hand, EPA is proposing that second-generation substitutes replacing first-generation substitutes that deplete stratospheric ozone (e.g., HCFCs) should be bound by the same notification and review requirements under section 612 as first-generation substitutes. For example, if a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) is introduced as a first-generation refrigerant substitute for either a Class I (e.g., CFC-12) or Class II chemical (e.g., HCFC-22), it is subject to review and listing under section 612. However, future substitutions to replace the HFC would be exempt from reporting under section 612 because the first-generation alternative did not deplete stratospheric ozone. However, if a Class I (interim only) or Class II chemical is used as a first-generation substitute (e.g., use of HCFC-141b as a transitional replacement in foam blowing), the second-generation substitute is still subject to review under section 612 because it is replacing a Class I or II chemical. h. Formulation Changes Accompanying the Use of Class I and Class II Substitutes. In general, the Agency believes that changes in formulation needed to accommodate replacement of Class I and II compounds are not subject to the provisions of section 612. Such auxiliary changes may be necessary, for example, when a new blowing agent in foam blowing necessitates the replacement of the catalyst formerly used in conjunction with the Class I blowing agent. This position was also supported by comments received in response to the ANPRM. However, if the potential SNAP notice submitter has reason to believe that such changes will significantly influence the environmental and human health risk characteristics associated with the use of any Class I or Class II substitute, this must be communicated to the Agency. Alternatively, if EPA has reason to suspect such concerns may exist, it may request the review of any such changes in formulation in connection with review of substitute compounds. B. Who Must Report 1. General Provisions As required by section 612(e), anyone who produces a substitute for a Class I substance must provide the Agency with that person's unpublished health and safety studies on the substitute, as well as notify the Agency at least 90 days before introducing the substitute into interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. Also, as discussed in section IV.A.2.c of this notice, pursuant to sections 114, 301 and 612(c), producers of Class II substitutes must abide by the same reporting requirements. Under the authority of sections 114, 301(a) and 612(c), EPA is proposing that in certain cases, formulators or end-users of substitutes could be considered to be producers and would therefore be subject to reporting requirements. This approach is discussed in the following section, IV.A.2.j.(2). To analyze alternative substitutes under section 612(c), the Agency finds it necessary under section 301(a) to require all producers of substitutes, whether a chemical manufacturer, formulator, or end-user, to submit information under section 114 describing such substitutes. With respect to substitutes for both Class I and II substances, EPA needs all of the types of information described below, not just health and safety studies. This is needed to allow EPA to fully analyze the overall risks to human health and the environment presented by alternative substitutes, as required by section 612(c). 2. Designated Submitters a. Chemical Manufacturers. Chemical manufacturers making a substitute for direct commercial sale are required to notify the Agency about the existence of that substitute. This requirement is especially applicable to chemical manufacturers that have developed new compounds for specific, targeted uses as substitutes for Class I or II substitutes. For instance, if a chemical manufacturer intends to market a new chemical as a substitute foam blowing agent to companies that manufacture insulation products, that manufacturer would be required to notify the Agency about the existence of the substitute. The reporting requirement would also apply to chemical manufacturers that intend to sell an existing chemical to a particular user group. b. Formulators. A formulator is a person or organizational entity engaged in the preparation or formulation of a substitute, after chemical manufacture of the substitute or its components, for distribution or use in commerce. Formulators usually only sell substitutes based on existing chemicals, since they do not ordinarily possess chemical manufacturing capabilities. Chemicals used in such substitutes are frequently in common use and have already been approved for general use through other chemical review programs such as under TSCA or FIFRA. However, to the extent that these formulators can be considered to be directly responsible for production of the substitute, for example by offering a tailored formulation or blend for an industrial cleaning process, these formulators would be subject to reporting requirements as outlined in this proposal. In such cases, the formulator is best suited in the manufacture-to-use chain to present information on how substitutes based on existing chemicals are or could be used. In cases where the manufacturer of a chemical is also the formulator, the manufacturer would then be responsible for meeting reporting requirements on the chemical. Similarly, if an end- user has developed a process to replace an ozone-depleting compound, this end-user would be required to provide EPA with information on the substitute. The simplest approach to allocating responsibility for reporting requirements would be to place the reporting burden in all cases on chemical manufacturers. However, the Agency believes that the approach outlined above provides the best correlation between burden for reporting and benefit from securing approval for a substitute. For instance, it would be inappropriate to require a manufacturer of a chemical in wide-spread industrial use to report on every possible application for that chemical as a substitute. The Agency requests comment on this aspect of the proposed reporting requirements. c. End-users. In general, end-users of substitutes will not be obligated to meet the reporting requirements discussed in this proposal, except in rare cases where the end-user and the producer of the substitute are one and the same company and the company intends to sell that substitute into inter-state commerce. While the Agency expects that this situation will occur only seldom, it has already received notice from several large companies who developed a substitute for use in their own manufacturing process and subsequently decided to offer that substitute for commercial sale. The Agency hopes that evaluating and listing such substitutes will help provide other potential end-users with information on viable substitutes, rather than stifling research and development innovations by end-users. The Agency solicits comment on this aspect of today's proposal. 3. Exemptions from Reporting The Agency has identified several situations in which notification under the provisions of section 612(e) will not be required. These exemptions from reporting are discussed below. a. Substitutes Already Listed by EPA. As part of today's proposal, the Agency has already completed a preliminary review of several Class I and Class II alternatives and has proposed that these substitutes be either acceptable or unacceptable. In preparing these proposed determinations, the Agency evaluated information either on file or supplied in response to the ANPRM published in the Federal Register on January 16, 1992. The preliminary substitutes list and the supporting risk screen are described in more detail in Section IX. No submission is needed for those substitutes and applications already proposed as acceptable in today's NPRM. Any specific comments on the proposed substitute determinations found in this action should be provided to the Agency, along with any supporting information, during the comment period. If information is not received by the Agency during the comment period, a formal submission to add substitutes will be required once the final rule is promulgated. b. Small Sector and Application Use. Most ozone-depleting substances have been or are currently used in large industrial sectors such as refrigeration or fire extinguishing. However, there are also numerous small uses of Class I or II substances that fall outside of these major use sectors. Most of these small uses of ozone-depleting compounds are for solvents in applications other than industrial cleaning operations, such as solvents used as book preservers, drilling and machining coolants, extraction or bearer media, or mold release agents. While small-use applications for Class I and Class II compounds are varied and numerous, in the aggregate these small uses do not contribute substantially to ozone depletion. The Agency estimates that across all sectors, including the solvents sector, these varied but small volume uses comprise in aggregate at most seven per cent of total U.S. consumption of ozone-depleting substances. Because the potential for adverse effects on human health and the environment is related to the aggregate amount of ozone- depleting material consumed in an end-use or sector, the Agency proposes to focus the SNAP determinations on large-volume applications in major use sectors. Given the breadth of EPA's required "overall" risk assessment, the imposition on small sectors, and on small uses within any sector, of a full SNAP submission for each small use seems unjustified by the potential for risk posed by these small uses. Moreover, a key policy interest of EPA's in designing and implementing the SNAP program is promoting the quickest possible shift from the phase-out compounds into alternatives posing lower overall risk. The speed and orderliness of this shift depends in part on clear early determinations from EPA on the acceptability of key substitutes. Focusing the SNAP program on all possible substitutes in every conceivable use could diminish EPA's ability to provide an early and clear message on those substitutes which constitute the bulk of the problem SNAP is aimed at ameliorating. Accordingly, eight major industrial use sectors are covered in today's proposal. They are refrigeration, foam blowing, fire extinguishing, solvent cleaning, adhesives, coatings, and inks, aerosols, sterilization, and tobacco puffing. Analysis of substitutes in a ninth sector, pesticides, will be completed, and the resulting decisions will be added to the SNAP determinations in the final rule. EPA does not plan to add sectors other than the nine principal sectors listed above to the formal analyses performed under SNAP, unless the Agency in future receives additional data indicating that inclusion of additional sectors is warranted based on the potential for high risks to human health and the environment. Further, the Agency does not plan individual analyses of all small uses within major industrial sectors. Specifically, EPA is today proposing not to review any uses of substitutes of less than 10,000 lbs per year within a sector as defined in the SNAP determinations. Companies producing, formulating or using substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds in annual quantities under 10,000 lbs per year need not notify EPA of their activities under SNAP. However, the Agency encourages companies to maintain documentation describing the basis for their view that any substitute being used meets this small use definition. This documentation could be necessary in the event the Agency receives a petition to add such substitutes to its evaluation. The Agency's decision to focus the SNAP program on high-volume sectors does not imply the complete absence of any risk from use of substitutes in small use applications. Instead, the Agency believes that focusing the listing decisions on the largest sectors and uses will allow the Agency to target its regulatory efforts to those applications that offer the maximum risk reduction potential. If other sectors are subsequently added to the Agency's analysis, the Agency will provide notice in the Federal Register of the need to furnish the Agency with data on substitutes. The Agency requests comment on this approach to small sectors and small uses within all sectors of substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds. In particular, EPA requests comment and data on risks associated with small sector and small volume uses. c. Test Marketing. Use of alternatives for the sole purpose of test marketing is exempt from any reporting requirements under section 612. However, once a company decides to sell an alternative as a Class I or II substitute, it must provide the Agency with notification at least 90 days prior to the introduction of the substitute into interstate commerce for significant new use as a substitute for a Class I or Class II chemical. For new substitute chemicals that are being test marketed, the producer must abide by the provisions of section 5(h)(1) of TSCA, which authorizes the EPA, upon application, to grant exemptions from TSCA-reporting requirements, provided that test marketing will not present an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. When submitting the TSCA application, it would also be advantageous if the producer would notify EPA's Office of Air and Radiation; however, such notification is not mandated under section 612. d. Research. Substitutes manufactured or imported solely for research and development are exempt from notification requirements under section 612. Several commenters, including Federal agencies involved in research on CFC-related substitutes, support this exemption. Amounts used in research are assumed to be the minimum necessary for reasonable scientific experimentation. For new chemicals, the provisions of section 720.36 of the PMN rule (40 CFR Part 720) are in effect. The Agency solicits comment on appropriate use levels to allow in research applications. e. Second-Generation Substitutes. As discussed in section IV.A.2.h., substitutes replacing first-generation alternatives that are not ozone-depleting chemicals are exempt from any additional reporting and review under section 612. However, if the second- generation substitute is replacing a compound that contributes to stratospheric ozone depletion (e.g., a HCFC), information must be submitted to the Agency for review under the SNAP program. f. Formulation Changes. As discussed in section IV.A.2.i., the Agency is proposing that changes in formulation that accompany the use of substitutes for Class I and Class II substances need not be reviewed under section 612. The Agency believes that other regulatory mechanisms (e.g., TSCA) are available for examining and controlling, as needed, any adverse environmental and human health effects associated with subsequent formulation modifications. However, the manufacturer overseeing the formulation change is required to notify the Agency if these modifications may significantly influence the environmental and human health risk characteristics associated with the Class I or Class II substitute. Also, the Agency reserves the right to examine formulation changes if a problem appears to exist. g. Substitutes Produced for Export. Substitute manufacturers producing solely for export and use by non-U.S. entities outside the U.S. are not subject to the requirements of section 612. EPA believes that its authority under section 612 extends only to use of substitutes in areas under the jurisdiction of the United States government, regardless of their place of manufacture. This exemption does not apply to substitutes introduced as replacements for Class I and II chemicals offered for sale or use at offshore U.S. installations (e.g., U.S. military bases located in foreign countries) that are subject to the legal provisions of section 612, since 612(c) applies to use rather than to manufacture of substitutes. h. Substitutes Used as Feedstock. The Agency is proposing to exempt substitutes used as feedstock from the reporting and review requirements of section 612. Because feedstock chemicals are largely consumed as intermediates, except for trace amounts, the Agency does not believe that such substitutions would cause any increase in ozone depletion or other adverse effects on human health and the environment. V. Information Submission A. Overview To develop the list of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes as required by section 612(c), the Agency must assess and compare the "overall risks to human health and the environment" posed by use of substitutes, and this assessment must be performed in the context of particular applications. This "overall" examination will consider a wide range of health and environmental factors. In the section that follows, the Agency presents information that will be required in the SNAP program notice to help EPA evaluate Class I and Class II substitutes. A copy of the notification form can be obtained from the SNAP coordinator at the address listed in the beginning of this action. B. Information Required 1. Name and description of the substitute. The substitute should be identified by its (1) commercial name, (2) chemical name, (3) trade name(s), (4) identification numbers (e.g., Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) registry, National Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (NIOSH RTECS), EPA hazardous waste identification number, OHM- TADS, DOT/UN/NA/IMCO shipping, HSDB, National Cancer Institute (NCI), (5) chemical formula, and (6) chemical structure. 2. Physical and chemical information. Key properties needed to characterize the substitute are: molecular weight; physical state; melting point; boiling point; density; odor threshold; solubility; partition coefficients (Log Kow, Log Koc); vapor pressure; and Henry's Law Constant. 3. Substitute applications. Identification of the applications in which the substitutes are likely to be used is required. It is essential to provide a complete list of potential uses because the substitute listing required by section 612(c) is specific to application. 4. Process description. For each application identified, the Agency requires descriptive data on processing, including in-place pollution controls. Such information will be used to characterize workplace and environmental releases and exposures. 5. Ozone depletion potential. The predicted ozone depletion potential (ODP) of substitute chemicals is required. The submitter should also provide sufficient supporting documentation-either a citation or the background information used to develop the ODP. For purposes of calculating ODP, the Agency recommends the methodology used in the most recent Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1991, which was prepared for the United Nations Environment Programme. [1] 6. Global warming potential. The Agency requires data on the total global warming potential (GWP) of the substitute in its particular application (e.g., as a refrigerant, foam blowing agent, etc.). The total GWP considers both direct and indirect effects. Direct effects means the direct global warming effects of using a substitute. The Agency is requesting that all GWPs be referenced to CO2 using the methodology recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC).[2] Indirect effects explicitly consider the effect on global warming arising from changes in energy consumption associated with the use of a substitute (e.g., an alternative refrigerant). This latter measure can be identified as changes in energy efficiency or demand resulting from use of the substitute relative to that of the substance being replaced. 7. Toxicity data. To assess the overall risks to human health and the environment, information is required on the acute and chronic toxicity effects of a substitute chemical, its impurities, and its degradation products on any organism (e.g., humans and other mammals, fish, wildlife, and plants). To characterize the risk to humans, the Agency is requesting a minimum submission of the following mammalian tests: a range-finding study that considers the appropriate exposure pathway for the specific use (e.g. inhalation, oral, etc.), and a 90-day subchronic repeated dose study in an appropriate rodent species (for example, rats or mice). For substitutes that are being evaluated as fire suppressants, a cardiotoxicity study, usually in the dog, is also required. Additional mammalian toxicity tests will be identified by EPA on a case-by-case basis depending on the particular substitute and application being evaluated. To sufficiently characterize aquatic toxicity, both acute and chronic toxicity data for a variety of species are required. The Agency is proposing a minimum aquatic data set to be submitted as described in "Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses," which is available through the National Technical Information Service (#PB 85-227049). Other relevant hazard information and data summaries, such as the Material Safety Data Sheets, must also be submitted. Submission of the actual toxicity studies is recommended; however, it is not necessary to submit these reports if they have been supplied to the Agency as part of other regulatory submissions. If the actual studies are not submitted, however, the submitter must provide sufficiently clear references or citations that the Agency can locate the studies without delay. As discussed below in Section V.C.3., data concerning the objectives, methodology, results or significance of any toxicity, metabolism, translocation, or persistence test for a substitute and its degradation products cannot be held as CBI where such data are also submitted under TSCA and FIFRA. The Agency is proposing that submitters providing information on new chemicals for joint review under the TSCA and SNAP programs adhere to the TSCA minimum testing requirements described in TSCA section 4. 8. Environmental Fate and Transport. Where available, EPA requests information on the environmental fate and transport of substitutes. Such data shall include information on bioaccumulation, biodegradation, adsorption, volatility, transformation, and other data necessary to characterize a substitute's movement and reaction in the environment. 9. Flammability. Data on the flammability of a substitute chemical or mixture are required. Specifically, data on flash point and flammability limits are needed, as well as information on the procedures used for determining the flammability limits. For substitutes that will be used in consumer applications, documentation of testing results conducted by independent laboratories (e.g., Underwriters Laboratories) should be submitted where appropriate. Detail on any suggested abatement techniques to minimize the risks associated with the use of flammable substances or blends should also be provided. The Agency recognizes that many promising alternatives may be considered marginally flammable, but can be used safely and effectively. 10. Exposure data. The submitter must provide modeling or monitoring data on exposures associated with the manufacture, formulation, transport, and use of a substitute. Descriptive process information for each substitute application, as required above, will be used to develop exposure estimates where exposure data are not readily available. Depending on the application, exposure profiles will be needed for workers, consumers, and the general population. 11. Environmental release data. Data on emissions from the substitute application and equipment, as well as pollutant releases or discharge to all environmental media (ambient air, surface and groundwater, hazardous/solid waste) are needed to complete the risk characterization. Submitters should provide information on release locations, if known. Any information on any pollution controls that are used or could be used in association with the substitute (e.g., emissions reduction technologies, wastewater treatment, treatment of hazardous waste) and the costs of such technology is also requested. 12. Replacement ratio for a chemical substitute. The Agency also requires information on the replacement ratio for a chemical substitute versus the Class I or II substances being replaced. The term "replacement ratio" refers to how much more or less of the substitute chemical is needed to substitute for the original ozone-depleting compound being replaced. This ratio will affect the estimated incremental cost and environmental effects associated with use of the substitute. 13. Required changes in technology. Data on any changes in technology needed to use the alternative are required. Such information should include a description of whether the substitute can be used in existing equipment-with or without some retrofit- or only in new equipment. Data on the cost (capital and operating) and estimated life of the technology modifications should also be submitted. These economic data are essential to understanding the near-term potential of using an alternative. 14. Cost of substitute. The Agency requires data on the expected average cost of the alternative. The cost of the substitute can be expressed, for example, in terms of $/pound (for a chemical substitute) or as incremental capital and operating costs associated with a retrofit or new equipment. In addition, information is needed on the expected equipment life for an alternative technology. Other critical cost considerations should be identified, as appropriate. For example, it is important to understand the incremental costs associated with losses or gains in energy efficiency associated with use of a substitute relative to current experience with existing substances. 15. Availability of substitute. The Agency needs to understand the extent to which a substitute is already commercially available or the date on which it is expected to become available. The timing of availability is an important factor in assessing the overall health and environmental effects of the substitute. 16. Anticipated market share. Data on the anticipated near- term and long-term (over the next ten years) nationwide substitute sales is also required. This information can be presented in several ways, for example: a percentage of existing nationwide use of Class I or Class II chemicals in a particular application; number of units/products to be produced; or pounds of substitute sold. This information is required to assess the potential effects of a substitute related to total consumption and environmental releases. 17. Applicable regulations under other environmental statutes. The submitter is required to provide information on whether the substitute(s) are regulated under other statutory authorities, in particular the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Emergency Planning and Community Right- to-Know Act, as well as other titles of the CAA. The Agency will evaluate substitutes under the SNAP program subject to existing regulatory constraints. 18. Information already submitted to the Agency. Individuals may have already submitted information being required in the SNAP program notice to the Agency as part of past regulatory and information-gathering activities. In this case, to minimize reporting burden, the submitter should provide the following information to help EPA locate the data already maintained at EPA: type of information submitted; the date of submission; the EPA office to which the data were sent; description of the regulatory program; and a document-control number, if assigned (e.g., a PMN number). If the submitter cannot provide references for data sent previously to the Agency, he or she should include all required information in the SNAP notice. To facilitate review, reports already submitted to the Agency as part of other regulatory submissions should be resubmitted if the original information was claimed as CBI. 19. Information already available in the literature. If any of the data needed to complete the SNAP program notice are available in the literature, the submitter should provide the Agency with references for such information. Failure to provide the Agency with an accurate and complete citation may delay review of the notice. Additionally, submitters are encouraged to provide copies of any literature to expedite review, particularly if the citation is from a source not readily available. Any references from sources in foreign languages should be translated into English prior to submission. All submissions must be provided in three complete identical copies. If information is to be claimed as confidential, all confidential information must be excised from the third copy, which will be placed in the public docket. When portions of a submission are claimed as confidential, the first two copies will include the confidential material. If no claims of confidentiality are made for the submission, the third copy should be identical to the other two. (See below, as well as Appendix C, for further guidance on handling of confidential information under SNAP.) C. Submission of Confidential Business Information 1. Clean Air Act Provisions Anyone submitting information for which Confidential Business Information (CBI) status is requested must assert a claim of confidentiality at the time of submission. Failure to assert a claim of confidentiality at the time of submission may result in disclosure of the information by the Agency without further notice. Further, it should be noted that information which is publicly available (e.g., in journals, trade magazines, product literature, etc.) cannot be claimed as CBI. Therefore, requesting CBI status for such information could delay review under section 612. All claims of confidentiality will be treated in a manner consistent with 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 2. Substantiation of Confidentiality Claims At the time of submission, EPA requires a substantiation of any confidentiality claims. In making these claims, the following provisions apply: -The specific information to which the claim applies must be clearly marked in the body of the study as subject to a claim of confidentiality; -A Supplemental Statement of Data Confidentiality Claims must be submitted, identifying each section claimed confidential and describing in detail the basis for the claim. (A list of points to address in such a statement is included in Appendix C); -The Supplemental Statement of Data Confidentiality Claims must be signed and dated and must include the typed name and title of the official who signed it. The submitter should be advised that under the Clean Air Act section 114(c), emissions data may not be claimed as confidential. Moreover, there are further instances in which confidentiality assertions may later be reviewed even when confidentiality claims are received. These are provided in the provisions of 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The submitter will be contacted as part of this evaluation process. However, if required substantiation is not provided along with the submission of information claimed as confidential, EPA may make the complete submitted information available to the public without further notice to the submitter. 3. Confidential Provisions for Toxicity Data In the event that toxicity or health and safety studies are listed as confidential, the submitter should be advised that this information cannot be maintained as confidential where such data is also submitted under TSCA or FIFRA, because of specific disclosure provisions in those statutes. However, any information other than emissions data contained in the toxicity study that is not relevant to the effects of a substance on human health and the environment (e.g., discussion of process information, proprietary blends) can be maintained as confidential subject to the provisions of 40 CFR, part 2, subpart B. The Agency is therefore requesting that submitters not identify the following information as confidential when submitting information under TSCA or FIFRA: all information concerning the objectives, methodology, results, or significance of any toxicity test or experiment performed on or with a substitute or its degradation products; any information concerning the effects of the substitute on any organism (e.g., fish, wildlife, humans and other mammals) or the environment (e.g., studies related to persistence, translocation, and fate); and pharmacokinetics/metabolism studies. 4. Federal Register Requirements As discussed below in Section VII.A.3., the Agency intends to publish quarterly notices in the Federal Register updating the list of acceptable and unacceptable alternatives. The Agency is proposing that if the name of a specific chemical contained in any studies supporting such notices must be maintained as confidential, the submitter and the Agency will together develop a generic name that will protect the proprietary nature of the chemical, but will provide sufficient detail for the public to evaluate the health and safety studies. If appropriate, the submitter may reference any generic names identified for use in the PMN program. VI. Effective Date of Coverage A. General Provisions In general, EPA's rules listing substitutes as unacceptable become effective thirty days after final rulemaking. However, EPA is authorized to permit the continuation of activities otherwise restricted where the balance of equities supports such grandfathering. Consequently, where appropriate, EPA may grandfather uses of particular substitutes by setting the effective date of unacceptability listings at some future date. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit has established a four-part test to judge the appropriateness of Agency grandfathering (see Sierra Club v. EPA, 719 F.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). This test involves balancing the results of four analyses, including whether the new rule represents an abrupt departure from previously established practice, the extent to which a party relied on the previous rule, the degree of burden which application of the new rule would impose on the party, and the statutory interest in applying the new rule immediately. In each rulemaking listing a substitute as unacceptable where grandfathering seems appropriate, EPA will conduct these four analyses and weigh their results. Where the balance of equities favors grandfathering, EPA will set a delayed effective date for such listings. In keeping with the discussion above, then, for restrictions on use of unacceptable substitutes, the Agency will in selected cases set the effective date differently for each banned substitute. The effect of this will be in these selected cases to tailor the implementation dates to individual applications. EPA will establish these effective dates in the rulemakings on each substitute to be banned. Setting effective dates for specific chemicals and uses will allow the Agency to avoid penalizing those who in specific applications may have already invested in good faith in alternatives the SNAP program ultimately prohibits. For example, the Agency in this action is proposing to find unacceptable the use of HCFC- 141b in certain solvent applications. New information on stratospheric ozone depletion has increased concern over possible adverse human health and environmental effects, and the Agency's unacceptable determination in the case of HCFC-141b reflects these increased concerns. However, the Agency recognizes that some solvent users may have switched to HCFC-141b in good faith, expecting that this substitute would sufficiently lower the risk of ozone depletion relative to earlier materials. To provide for these users, the Agency is today proposing a tailored effective date for certain uses of HCFC-141b. See the listing determination narrative discussion in Section IX, as well as the listing tables in Appendix B, for a full discussion of HCFC-141b and associated effective dates. Finally, to balance the desire not to penalize those who switched early in good faith with the need to avoid creating an incentive for continued investment in alternatives the Agency wishes to discourage, the longer-term effective dates discussed above will affect only existing equipment. Until the Agency reaches a final decision restricting the use of a substitute, vendors are not barred from selling such substitutes. However, manufacturers, formulators, users or other individuals involved in sale or use of a substitute are still required to notify the Agency of any sale or use of a Class I or Class II substitute as required by the SNAP program. This action includes a proposed list of acceptable substitutes and a proposed list of banned substitutes. The list of restricted substitutes becomes binding 30 days after the date of publication of the final rule. In contrast, the list of acceptable substitutes is not binding, but rather is furnished for the purpose of assisting users in understanding the full range of available, acceptable substitutes in each application. Before issuing the final rule, the Agency hopes to supplement the list of acceptable substitutes with substitutes not yet on the proposed list. As noted above, the Agency does not believe determinations that substitutes are acceptable need be made through rulemaking. Consequently, EPA believes that it is within its discretion to supplement the list of acceptable substitutes upon making determinations consistent with the criteria to be established in this rulemaking. In the interest of informing users as soon as possible of acceptable substitutes, EPA expects to add to the list of substitutes those substitutes for which it can make such a determination during the pendency of the rulemaking, consistent with the criteria promulgated. The Agency therefore encourages vendors and users of substitutes to use this opportunity to provide EPA with information necessary to issue a SNAP determination. Many potential users of substitutes have asserted that they want the benefit of EPA's SNAP determinations when transitioning out of Class I and Class II compounds. In addition, vendors of substitutes have also claimed they will derive significant benefits from having their substitutes added to the SNAP lists of approved substitutes, where possible. VII. Notice, Review, and Decision-Making Procedures The purpose of this section is to summarize the proposed procedures for submitting the required information to the Agency, and the steps EPA will take in reviewing SNAP program submissions, and making determinations based on them. This section focuses on three procedures, summarized in Exhibit 1, depending on the nature of the submission received by the Agency. Some substitutes may already have received approval or may not need approval under other environmental statutes, especially TSCA and FIFRA. These substitutes, in consequence, would only require review under the SNAP program. Section VII.A. discusses the submission and review process for alternatives that fall into this category in greater detail. In other cases, a substitute will require approval under section 612 as well as relevant provisions of TSCA and FIFRA. In these cases, any substitute that is a new chemical (i.e., not currently listed on the TSCA inventory) must be submitted to the Agency for review under the SNAP program, as well as the PMN program. Section VII.B. describes steps for this review in more detail. For alternatives to Class I and Class II chemicals that will be used in pesticide products, the substitute manufacturer will need to file notification jointly with EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) and EPA's SNAP program. Section VII.C. discusses the latter procedure. EPA has coordinated closely with each of these regulatory programs to establish a joint review process that will ensure consistency in the final decisions, while minimizing the time for review, the reporting burden, and the costs for the submitter and the Agency. A. Substitutes Reviewed Under SNAP Only 1. Applicability Sections IV and V describe the conditions dictating review under the SNAP program only and the general reporting requirements under section 612. If any of these conditions are met and the substitutes are not exempt from the process as described in section IV.B.3., Exemptions from Reporting, a SNAP notice must be submitted. See the accompanying hardcopy volume for non-machine-readable data that appears at this point. 2. Pre-Notice Communication Prior to submitting the SNAP notice, each submitter is encouraged to contact EPA's SNAP Coordinator to discuss the notification process. Among other things, the SNAP Coordinator will: (1) assist the potential submitter in determining whether a SNAP notice is needed; (2) answer questions regarding how to complete a submission; (3) provide all necessary forms and guidance manuals; (4) serve as the initial point of contact when the notice is submitted; and (5) assign a SNAP program tracking number to the notice once it is received by the Agency. A copy of the SNAP program notice may be obtained from the SNAP Coordinator. Specific data requested are described in Section V. 3. Processing of Completed SNAP Submission a. 90-Day Review Process. As required under section 612(e), a manufacturer of a substitute for a Class I chemical must provide the Agency with notification at least 90 days prior to introducing into commerce any new or existing chemicals for significant new uses as Class I alternatives. The same requirements apply to manufacturers of substitutes for Class II substances, although in this case the Agency is drawing on general authorities contained in sections 114 and 301 in order to fulfill the purpose of section 612(c). EPA intends to review these chemicals within a 90-day period to ensure prompt response for manufacturers initiating production of substitutes. EPA's 90-day review period for SNAP submissions will begin once EPA receives a submission that includes data that are adequate, as described in Section V.B. above. If a submission does not include adequate data, EPA may return the submission to request specific additional information. Section 114 and in the case of petitions section 612(d) authorizes EPA to require manufacturers to support their SNAP submissions with data adequate to facilitate EPA's review. b. Initial Receipt of the SNAP Submission. (1) Letter of Receipt. The SNAP Coordinator will send a letter of receipt to the submitter once the Agency receives the SNAP submission. (2) Initial Review of Submission. Once received, the SNAP Coordinator will review the notice to ensure that basic information necessary to process the submission is present (i.e., name of company, identification of substitute, etc.). A more detailed review of supporting technical data will then ensue, as well as an examination of the substantiation provided for any claim for confidentiality of information. The 90-day review period will not commence until EPA judges the submission complete, although manufacturers may begin marketing chemicals 90 days after submitting their notification to EPA. Once the data supporting the SNAP notice are deemed adequate, the SNAP Coordinator will assign to the SNAP notice a tracking number, and EPA's formal 90-day review period will begin. c. Determination of Data Adequacy. As mentioned above, as part of reviewing the SNAP submission, the Agency will complete a determination of the scientific and technical adequacy of the data supporting the application. The Agency will issue this determination within 15 working days after receipt of the application. Any time information is not adequate to allow the Agency to reach a SNAP determination, EPA will contact the submitter and request the missing data. EPA believes it appropriate and authorized under section 114 to place the burden on the submitter to provide all data needed to complete the review of the SNAP notice. Depending on the type of information needed and the time necessary to compile and submit the requested data to the Agency, EPA may suspend or extend the review period. This will not affect the ability of a manufacturer to begin marketing a chemical 90 days after notifying the Agency. In a few cases, the Agency and the submitter may disagree on a schedule for furnishing additional data EPA deems necessary to determine the acceptability of the substitute. If in these cases EPA has reason to believe that such substitute may be unacceptable, the Agency may exercise the option of proposing to list the substitute as unacceptable until the necessary data are provided, due to the uncertainty of the risks associated with use of the substitute. d. Availability of New Information During Review Period. If critical new information becomes available during the review period that may influence the Agency's evaluation of a substitute, the submitter must notify the Agency about the existence of such information within ten days of learning of such data. The submitter must also inform the Agency of new studies under way, even if the results will not be available within the 90-day review period. The Agency may extend or suspend the review period depending on the type of information at issue and the stage of review. e. Completion of Detailed Review. Once the submission is found to be supported by adequate data, the Agency will commence a detailed evaluation of the notice. As this review proceeds, the Agency may contact the submitter for additional information to assist in the evaluation. This will ensure that the review is completed quickly and that it reflects the best available information. Final decisions will be based on the detailed analysis completed during this stage of review. f. Vendor Lists. The Agency will use the SNAP determinations to compile a list of vendors for the convenience of potential users. Companies could then ask EPA to review their specific substitute, to ensure that it is covered by the listing decisions on approved substitutes, and to add the company to the vendor list. The Agency believes that specific information on vendors of acceptable substitutes would be useful to companies switching out of Class I and Class II compounds. The Agency solicits comment on this aspect of today's proposal. g. Communication of SNAP Determination. (1) SNAP Determinations on 90-Day Notifications. EPA's determinations on SNAP submissions that come as a result of the 90-day notification requirement will take the form of either adding substances to the list of acceptable substitutes or of proposing to add them to the list of unacceptable substitutes. The former, as discussed in greater detail below, will be listed in a quarterly update of SNAP determinations which EPA will publish in the Federal Register. The latter will be made final through rule-making under section 307(d). (2) Communication of SNAP Determination to the Submitter. Once review has been completed, the submitter will be notified in writing of the determination under SNAP. At this time, the submitter will also be informed if any conditions are attached to the approval of a substitute. Companies may continue uninterrupted sale or manufacture of their substitutes until the Agency places a substitute on the list of unacceptable substitutes as a result of rulemaking. Sale or manufacture may continue if the Agency fails to reach a decision or notify the submitter of that decision within 90 days of initial notification of EPA. (3) Communication of SNAP Determination to the Public (a) Federal Register Notice To provide the public with updated information on SNAP determinations, the Agency is proposing to publish in the Federal Register a complete list of the acceptable and unacceptable alternatives that have been reviewed to date. This list will be published four times each year and will include recent decisions made under the SNAP program. In addition to the quarterly publications, the Agency will communicate decisions through a clearinghouse and various outreach programs, as discussed in the next section, as well as through the stratospheric ozone program hotline, which the Agency has already established. (b) Outreach and Clearinghouse Section 612(b) requires the Administrator to assist users in identifying alternatives to Class I and II compounds. The Agency has long operated an outreach program for users of ozone- depleting compounds, and this new mandate along with the accelerated phase-out of Class I and II substances adds impetus to these efforts. Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to maintain a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are available as replacements for Class I and Class II chemicals. The clearinghouse will distribute information on those substitutes that are approved under the SNAP program. For the convenience of companies wishing to identify substitutes with low relative environmental risks, the Agency will maintain a list of vendors selling substitutes that meet EPA's criteria for approval, as discussed in section VII.A.3.f. In addition, the Agency is proposing to enter data on substitutes into the Pollution Prevention Information Exchange System (PPIES) database, which is maintained by EPA's Office of Research and Development. This database contains information on numerous pollution prevention options for a wide variety of industrial sectors and chemicals. PPIES can also be accessed from a variety of other pollution prevention databases maintained by other Federal agencies and industry. The Agency requests comment on this proposed approach to providing the public with information on available alternatives. 4. Decision-Making Framework a. Decisions by Substitute and Use. As required by section 612(c), the Agency must publish a list of substitutes prohibited under the SNAP program and a list of acceptable alternatives for particular applications. Given that environmental exposure and risk profiles can change significantly from one application to the next, it is essential to evaluate and list substitute decisions in the context of their intended use. The Agency has initially identified a number of use sectors by which to list substitutes, and Section IX provides preliminary risk management decisions for many substitutes in each of the principal use sectors. Other substitutes in each of these sectors exist as well, and these substitutes will be covered in subsequent analyses undertaken in the SNAP program. In listing the substitutes, the Agency will be as specific as possible, by providing exact chemical names of substitutes. The Agency anticipates two possible exceptions to this practice. The first is where release of the chemical identity of a substitute constitutes release of proprietary information. In that event, the Agency will report generic chemical names based on chemical classes as described in Section V.C. The other exception would be in cases where the Agency believes that a more general categorization is needed to account for the diversity of possible chemicals used in a particular set of substitutes. For example, in the solvents cleaning sector, many substitutes are formulations composed of compounds drawn from several categories of chemicals. In this case, the toxicity profile of each chemical is similar to those of other chemicals in that class. Yet for most substitutes, a broad chemical classification (e.g., aromatic hydrocarbons, or HCFCs) is not specific enough because of differences among chemicals belonging to each of these groups. Thus, where appropriate, EPA will provide a more specific description of the substitute by application. b. Decision Categories. Under section 612, the Agency has considerable discretion in the risk management decisions it can make in SNAP. The Agency has identified several possible decision categories, as described below. However, these types of risk management decisions should not be construed as comprising all possible options that the Agency will exercise under section 612. Depending on the particular characteristics of the submission, alternative approaches may be warranted. (1) General Acceptance. Where the Agency has reviewed a substitute and found no reason to prohibit its use, it will list the alternative as acceptable for the applications listed. Where appropriate, the Agency may provide some additional comment (e.g., general recommendations encouraging recapture and recycling). However, these comments are not conditions for use of the substitute. (2) Approval Subject to Conditions. After reviewing a notice, the Agency may determine that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions are met. The Agency cannot predict at this time all necessary restrictions, but already anticipates some conditions based on substitute reviews already completed. For example, the Agency may impose conditions on the use of a substitute and require recycling equipment to limit workplace and ambient releases or require use of other control practices within a certain application. Alternatively, EPA may approve a compound not for general use, but for use only in certain narrow applications. Clearly, any limitations imposed will depend on the risks involved and the substitute and application in question. To provide adequate opportunity for comment by the regulated community, EPA will complete notice-and-comment rulemaking before promulgating any finding to approve a substitute subject to a condition on use. In implementing its use of conditions, the Agency has sought to avoid overlap with other existing regulatory authorities. EPA has taken a number of steps to mitigate this potential for duplication. First, EPA intends to limit the use of conditions to cases in which clear regulatory gaps exist. Second, these existing regulatory gaps must render the use of a substitute an unreasonable risk in the absence of any additional controls. Third, in the limited cases in which conditions may be necessary, the Agency will impose them only after going through formal notice-and-comment rulemaking. Finally, the Agency intends to withdraw existing conditions when they are superseded by appropriate regulatory controls under other authorities. The Agency, however, requests comment on the general issue of the need for use conditions. In particular, EPA requests comment on whether section 612 in fact confers upon the Agency the authority to go beyond the listing of acceptable and unacceptable alternatives and to set such use conditions. Further, EPA requests comment on the capability and practicality of EPA enforcing use conditions which may, for example, closely resemble workplace safety standards, which are typically within the enforcement purview of other regulatory authorities. EPA also requests comment on whether, when an unreasonable risk might exist due to a gap in regulatory coverage, the appropriate means to address these risks is through the existing regulatory framework of other federal authorities. For example, rather than using EPA's use conditions to address existing gaps in workplace safety standards, EPA could refer the matter to the appropriate OSHA authorities and request appropriate action to mitigate an otherwise unreasonable risk.{2} ³{2} 29 U.S.C. 654, OSHA General Duty Clause, requires ³that each employer "shall furnish to each of his employees ³employment and a place of employment which are free from ³recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to ³cause death or serious physical harm to his employees. ³* * *" Alternatively, where the length of time required to address a problem under another authority may be unacceptably long given the nature of the risk, there may be cases in which EPA would simply consider unacceptable the use of a given substitute, pending the development of a regulatory framework to control the risk it poses in its use as a substitute for an ozone-depleting compound. For example, in this action, EPA has proposed conditions on the acceptability of certain halon substitutes when used as total flooding agents in normally occupied areas. EPA has imposed these conditions because of the risk of cardiotoxic levels of exposure to personnel in areas where substitute agents may be discharged in the event of fire. Existing OSHA standard 1910.160 applies certain general controls to the use of fixed extinguishing systems in occupied workplaces, whether gaseous, dry chemical, water sprinklers, etc., and EPA has not reproduced those. These include, for example, the requirements for discharge and pre-discharge alarms, and availability of Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for emergency entry into an area where agent has been discharged.{3} ³{3} 29 CFR 1910.160(b) includes general provisions to ³ensure the safety of all fixed extinguishing systems. ³Paragraph (c) stipulates requirements for systems with ³"potential health and safety hazards to employees" such ³as might be posed by gaseous agents. ³ (b)(3) ``The employer shall provide a distinctive alarm ³or signaling system * * * capable of being perceived ³above ambient noise or light levels * * * to indicate ³when the extinguishing systems is discharging. Discharge ³alarms are not required on systems where discharge is ³immediately recognizable.'' ³ (b)(4) ``The employer shall provide effective safeguards ³to warn employees against entry into discharge areas ³where the atmosphere remains hazardous to employee safety ³or health.'' ³ (b)(5) ``The employer shall post hazard warning or ³caution signs at the entrance to, and inside of, areas ³protected by fixed extinguishing systems which use agents ³in concentrations known to be hazardous to employee safety ³and health.'' ³ (b)(6) ``The employer shall assure that fixed systems ³are inspected annually * * * to assure that the system ³is maintained in good operating condition.'' ³ (b)(10) ``The employer shall train employees designated ³to inspect, maintain, operate, or repair fixed extinguishing ³systems. * * *'' ³ (b)(17) ``The employer shall provide and assure the ³use of personal protective equipment needed for immediate ³rescue of employees trapped in hazardous atmospheres ³created by an agent discharge.'' ³ (c)(3) ``On all total flooding systems the employer ³shall provide a pre-discharge employee alarm * * * which ³will give employees time to safely exit from the discharge ³area prior to system discharge.'' While section 1910.162 can apply generally to gaseous agents, it includes cardiotoxic levels specific to Halon 1301. Section 1910.162 paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) provide alternative workplace requirements based on specific design concentrations of Halon 1301. (These design concentrations are not identified as the cardiotoxic NOAEL or LOAEL, so one cannot generalize a rule for use with alternative agents.) For this reason, EPA is concerned that halon substitute agents could be used in the absence of enforceable compound-specific cardiotoxic exposure levels. Should OSHA create compound-specific cardiotoxicity values to be applied to the use of halon substitutes as gaseous total flooding agents in occupied spaces, these conditions would no longer be necessary and EPA would rescind them. However, EPA is also aware that existing OSHA regulations may provide adequate coverage against exposure to toxic levels of agents or their decomposition products. Section 1910.162 (b)(3) states, "(t)he employer shall assure that employees are not exposed to toxic levels of gaseous agent or its decomposition products," and paragraph (b)(4) states, "(t)he employer shall provide a distinctive pre-discharge employee alarm * * * when agent design concentrations exceed the maximum safe level for employee exposure." EPA invites comment on the adequacy of 1910.162 (b)(3) to provide workplace protection against toxic exposures to agents that differ from Halon 1301. (3) Substitutes Pending Completion of Review. The Agency will describe submissions for which it has not yet reached a final decision as pending. For all substitutes in the pending category, the Agency will contact the submitter to determine a schedule for providing the missing information if the Agency needs to extend the 90-day review period. EPA will use the authority under section 114 to gather this information, if necessary. (4) General Prohibition. The Agency has the authority under section 612(c) to prohibit the use of a substitute believed to present adverse effects to human health and the environment where alternatives that reduce overall risk are available. The Agency will only use this provision where it has identified other substitutes that are currently or potentially available and that have lower overall risks. Substitutes will be listed as unacceptable through the rulemaking process. (5) Prohibition with Limited Exemptions for Critical Uses. In some applications, even though the Agency restricts the use of a substitute based on the potential for adverse effects, it may be necessary to grant a limited number of exemptions because of the lack of alternatives for specialized uses within the general application area. The Agency will refer to such exemptions as "critical use exemptions." For example, the Agency could list a substitute as generally unacceptable for solvent applications, but allow for limited exemptions for critical uses within the sector of solvent cleaning. These critical use exemptions will be granted only for the period necessary to develop and implement alternatives not yet available. At this time, the Agency cannot know and list all critical use applications that will be exempted. Section VIII.F. discusses the petition process for critical use exemptions in more detail. Critical use exemptions will be granted through notice-and-comment rulemaking. c. Time Certainty of Decisions. In response to the ANPRM, several comments suggested that the Agency establish assured minimum periods of use for substitutes listed as acceptable. For example, one commenter recommended that the Agency consider any substitute decision, once made, valid for a minimum of fifteen years before making any changes. Clearly, there are advantages to having a guaranteed period within which a substitute can be used without concern for future changes in the acceptability of a substitute. In particular, such certainty would encourage reduced reliance on Class I chemicals in the near term. Despite this benefit, the Agency believes that providing time certainty to its decisions on balance could discourage continued research on substitutes. In addition, the Agency believes that in certain limited cases, new data on previously approved or disapproved substitutes may warrant changes to an existing SNAP determination. Such changes, however, will only be considered in cases where new information indicates a need to reassess the risk of a previously evaluated substitute. For example, new toxicity data may become available that point to a dramatically different hazard profile for a chemical, and which changes the risk the substitute poses to human health and the environment relative to other substitutes. Similarly, if the Agency previously listed a high-risk substitute as acceptable only because no other alternative exists for a specific end-use, this determination may be subject to change if a new substitute with demonstrably lower overall risks becomes available. In such instances, which the Agency expects will occur infrequently, EPA will provide consideration for companies who earlier made a switch to a substitute believed to be acceptable. In particular, the Agency proposes to examine capital expenditures made by affected industries to manufacture and use a substitute when it evaluates whether the availability of another alternative should render the first alternative unacceptable. d. Implications of Other Regulatory Requirements. The Agency is proposing that the SNAP program in evaluating substitutes take into consideration the regulatory requirements of other environmental and health protection statutes (e.g., the Clean Water Act or the Occupational Safety and Health Act). By considering existing regulatory constraints, the Agency's evaluation of alternatives will explicitly recognize compliance with provisions designed to reduce workplace and environmental releases. However, it will not be possible to factor in regulatory requirements that are still under development (e.g., more stringent requirements to control volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants under Title I and Title III of the CAA). Clearly, in these instances, a substitute, although approved, must comply with all future regulations. Should future regulations severely limit the availability of the only substitute for a prohibited substance, EPA would reconsider the advisability of keeping that substance on the list of unacceptable substitutes. Several commenters felt that the goal of section 612 was to encourage use of substitutes for Class I and Class II chemicals by relaxing regulatory requirements in other areas. The Agency does not believe that it was the intent of Congress to use the authority under section 612 to compromise existing regulatory requirements. Instead, EPA intends to evaluate substitutes in the framework of protection provided by current regulatory standards. 5. EPA-Generated Review of Substitutes In addition to notices received under section 612 for substitute review, the Agency is authorized by section 612(c) to add or delete alternatives to the list of reviewed substitutes on its own initiative. EPA has many efforts under way to identify and communicate the availability of promising new alternatives. These include support for research efforts to study and focus attention on future substitutes, involvement in the United Nations Environment Programme biannual assessment of technologies for key sectors currently using ozone-depleting chemicals, and technology transfer projects with industry, other Federal agencies, and developing nations. Based on information available through these activities, EPA may initiate review of new substitutes under section 612. In each case, the next planned quarterly Federal Register notice updating the status of SNAP determinations will inform the public that EPA is initiating a review, subject to the provisions discussed in this proposal. Similarly, determinations ultimately reached as a result of these internally-generated reviews will be publicly noticed every three months. B. Joint Review of New Substitutes under SNAP and TSCA PMN 1. Applicability Any potential SNAP submitter who intends to introduce a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not currently included in the TSCA inventory) as an alternative for a Class I or Class II chemical must undergo review not only under section 612, but under section 5 of TSCA (the Premanufacture Notice program) as well. Because of the overlap in statutory authority, the Agency has established a joint review process between the SNAP and TSCA Premanufacture Notice (PMN) programs. This process has been structured to minimize reporting burden and to ensure consistency in decisions between the two programs. The following sections describe the joint review and decision-making process in more detail. 2. Data Submission Requirements and Process a. SNAP and PMN Forms. The Agency has reviewed the data submission needs for the SNAP and PMN programs and found significant overlap. In general, the Agency has identified only a few additional data elements beyond those already required by the PMN program that should be included for review under the SNAP program. These elements are: Ozone depletion potential. Global warming potential. Explicit quantification of the cost of using the substitute, including: -Chemical replacement data -Chemical cost data -Incremental equipment expenditures (either new or retrofit) needed to use substitute -Information on the cost implications of changes in energy consumption (e.g., from the use of a less or more energy-efficient refrigerant) Documentation of testing results, where available, regarding the flammability of substitutes that will be used in consumer applications. Given this overlap, the Agency is proposing that a submitter requesting a review under both the SNAP and PMN programs provide the above information by following these steps: Complete the PMN form (EPA Form 7710-25) following the Instructions Manual currently available through the TSCA Assistance Information Service. Indicate on page 11 of the PMN form, "Optional Pollution Prevention Information," that the chemical to be reviewed is also to be considered under the SNAP program. Complete a SNAP addendum that requests information only on those items listed above. (The addendum can be obtained from the SNAP Coordinator.) The completed PMN form (EPA Form 7710-25) will remain the basis for all information needed to complete review of the new chemical under section 5 of TSCA. The completed PMN form and the SNAP addendum together will comprise the data submission for section 612 review and listing decisions for new chemicals. This approach is intended to minimize the reporting burden on submitters. The Agency will modify the PMN Instructions Manual in the future to provide more explicit direction on how to complete the SNAP addendum. A SNAP submitter may also consult the SNAP Guidance Document, which will be available for potential submitters at the time the SNAP program is promulgated. Any questions regarding the completion of these forms can be directed to either the PMN pre-notice coordinator or the SNAP Coordinator. b. Submission of Completed Forms. Both the PMN and SNAP programs have a review period of 90 days, subject to suspensions and extensions described in Section VII.A. for the SNAP program and in the Preamble to the PMN final rule (40 CFR 720.75). To ensure that new chemical submissions are reviewed and decided on jointly, the Agency encourages submitters to provide both the PMN form and SNAP addendum to the PMN and SNAP coordinators. Failure to provide both programs with the requested information at the same time could result in delays in the review of a submitter's notice seeking approval of a new chemical as a CFC substitute approved by EPA where it would result in delay of EPA's approval under the PMN program. c. Procedures for Handling Confidential Business Information. The Agency recognizes that, where appropriate, information submitted to the PMN and SNAP programs may need to be confidential. EPA is proposing that all CBI submitted as part of the joint PMN/SNAP review be maintained and treated in a manner consistent with TSCA requirements. Confidentiality claims will be processed and may be reviewed in a manner consistent with 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. This approach is being proposed because the majority of data provided to SNAP under the joint review process will come from the PMN form. Submitters should note that while TSCA and CAA may have different language describing CBI handling procedures, there is no substantive difference in how CBI is maintained under the two statutes. 3. Joint Review of New Substitutes Under PMN and SNAP a. Preparation of Public Docket and Federal Register Notices. Once the letter of receipt has been issued, the PMN program will prepare a public docket and Federal Register notice, as described in the Preamble to the final rule for the PMN program (40 CFR 720. 75). The PMN program manager will consult with the SNAP Coordinator in preparing the notice. The Agency is proposing this approach for joint PMN/SNAP reviews because it believes it will reduce the reporting burden imposed on manufacturers. b. Joint Review Process. EPA is proposing to complete joint evaluations of new chemicals serving as Class I or Class II substitutes under section 5 of TSCA and section 612 of the CAA. This joint review process will be coordinated to ensure that there is consistency in the final decisions made under the PMN and SNAP programs. To ensure agreement in the decisions, Agency offices will work in concert to develop toxicity, exposure, and risk profiles for those substitutes and applications that come under joint TSCA and CAA review authority. The Agency will also coordinate its review of the completeness of the information supplied and subsequent data requests to minimize the reporting burden on the submitter. Submitters should note that Agency decisions to restrict production of particular chemicals under TSCA will, in the case of joint PMN/SNAP applications, also have the effect of restricting production of substitutes undergoing review under the SNAP program. However, companies that produce substitutes only being reviewed under the SNAP program are not required to cease production during the SNAP review period. As part of the review, the PMN and SNAP programs will work to arrive at a consistent decision regarding the new chemical under review. Consequently, listing decisions under SNAP will reference any conditions also incorporated into the PMN review (e.g., submission of additional toxicity information, restrictions on use, etc.). If a substitute meets the conditions for general PMN approval but not for SNAP approval, the company may produce and market the substance in question. However, EPA will commence a rulemaking to prohibit as unacceptable the description or use of the substitute as an EPA-approved Class I or II substitute. If the chemical fails to meet the conditions for PMN approval, the submitter is barred from producing the chemical and consequently also from marketing the product as a CFC substitute. Submitters should note, however, that the CAA section 612 places considerable emphasis on identifying and promoting the use of substitutes which, relative to others, reduce overall risks to human health and the environment. To the extent a substitute offers such risk reduction, EPA under the CAA will make every effort to facilitate production and use of that alternative. c. Communication of Decision. The PMN program will use the existing TSCA regulatory framework for communicating decisions to submitters of the decision on the new substitute. The SNAP program will provide public notice of decisions regarding the acceptability or unacceptability of a substitute following the process described in Section VII.A.3.h. EPA will contact the submitter to determine how best to list the substitute under the SNAP program if necessary to protect the confidentiality of the alternative. C. Joint Review of Substitutes Under SNAP and FIFRA 1. Background on Use of Ozone-Depleting Chemicals in Pesticides Certain pesticides are formulated with Class I and Class II chemicals. The most prominent example is the use of methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane) as an inert ingredient. Pesticide products that contain Class I and Class II compounds must be reformulated as these chemicals are phased out of production under the Clean Air Act. This section describes how the Agency proposes to handle reviews of these changes. 2. Applicability Any new pesticide or amendment of an existing formulation is already subject to Agency approval under current provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), P.L. 100-460, 100-464 to 100-526, and 100-532. However, as of the effective date of the SNAP program, new pesticides or formulation changes based on Class I or Class II substitutes will also be subject to review under section 612 of the CAA. These authorities apply in all cases where a manufacturer amends a pesticide product to replace chemicals being phased out under section 602. Similarly, registrations of new pesticide products will also be subject to SNAP review if the new formula contains chemicals functionally replacing Class I or II compounds. 3. Review Responsibilities Under FIFRA and CAA/SNAP In general, review responsibilities for pesticide products under the CAA SNAP program will focus on a substance's ozone depletion and global warming potential. The FIFRA reviews will address factors commonly examined during pesticide amendments and registrations. The two program offices responsible for these reviews will coordinate their efforts at critical junctures and share pertinent data to ensure appropriate technical consideration of the substitute. 4. Data Submission Requirements and Process a. Preparation of Applications. The Agency has reviewed the data submission needs for the SNAP and FIFRA pesticide amendment/registration process and found no significant overlap. Because there is so little overlap, the Agency is proposing that a submitter requesting review under both SNAP and the Office of Pesticide Programs' pesticide amendment/registration process submit all information ordinarily required for the OPP process as well as a fully completed SNAP submission form. A copy of the FIFRA form should be submitted to the OPP, and a copy of the SNAP form should be submitted to the SNAP Coordinator. The SNAP form can be obtained from the SNAP Coordinator. For further guidance, SNAP submitters may also consult the SNAP Guidance Document, which will be available for review at the time the SNAP program is promulgated. If a registrant is submitting an amendment to a product registration under FIFRA that currently contains a Class I or II substance, he or she should note in Section II ("Amendment Information") of the FIFRA form that the amendment was prompted by the CAA production phase-out. Similarly, if a registrant is submitting an application for a new pesticide registration that would otherwise have been based on a Class I or II compound, he or she should note in Section II of the FIFRA form that the registration includes a Class I or II substitute. The submitter should also identify in Section II both the substitute chemical and the Class I or II compound it is replacing. Further, if a registrant is aware that a particular chemical intended for use as a Class I or Class II substitute in a pesticide formulation has already been approved through earlier SNAP/FIFRA determinations, the registrant should also reference the relevant part of the prior review. This additional information will allow EPA to identify quickly those registrants whose proposed substitutes have already been the subject of listing determinations under SNAP, and thereby streamline the SNAP review. b. Review of Applications. When the Agency receives the FIFRA application and SNAP submission, it will log each into the relevant tracking systems: the Office of Pesticide Program's (OPP) tracking system for the FIFRA application and the SNAP tracking system for the SNAP submissions. If the FIFRA application is identified in Section II as a Clean Air Act substitution, the FIFRA program coordinator will contact EPA's SNAP coordinator to establish whether the substitute has been the subject of any prior SNAP reviews. If the registrant's substitute is on the list of unacceptable substitutes, EPA will notify the registrant that the amendment request cannot be granted. If the registrant's substitute is on the list of acceptable substitutes, EPA will proceed with the standard FIFRA application review. If a chemical substitute is not listed under existing SNAP determinations but is a substitute for an ozone depleting compound, EPA will inform the registrant of the need for a SNAP review. 5. Communication of Decision. Once the EPA review is complete, the Agency will notify the registrant whether the new formulation or proposed formulation change is acceptable. At the same time, the Agency will amend the SNAP determinations to reflect these findings and will publish the revised determinations in the next quarterly Federal Register notice. Submitters should note that, because of the shared authority to review substitutes under both SNAP and FIFRA, formulators may not sell amended or new formulations until they have received FIFRA approval. D. Shared Statutory Authority With the Food and Drug Administration The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 321, provides for the safety and effectiveness of drugs and therapeutic devices, the purity and wholesomeness of foods, and the harmlessness of cosmetics. Under this statute, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the packaging of food products and incidental additives and requires predistribution clearance of medical devices. As defined in the FDCA, medical devices can include any devices, diagnostic products, drugs, and drug delivery systems. Devices covered under this jurisdiction are subject to review under the FDCA. Some medical devices and food packaging currently contain Class I or II compounds. The Agency is proposing that such products be exempt from further review for human health effects under the SNAP program where FDA approval of such effects is required before a product can be introduced into commerce. EPA will rely in its SNAP determination on FDA's conclusions regarding health effects. The Agency believes this exemption is justified because of the higher burden of proof placed on submitters under the FDCA. However, the Agency will continue to evaluate all other environmental effects of the proposed substitute, and will consult with the FDA to determine the appropriate course of action. VIII. Petitions A. Background 1. Role of Petitions Section 612(d) in the CAA explicitly states that "any person may petition the Administrator to add a substance . . . or to remove a substance from either of such [prohibited or safe use] lists." The petition provision serves two principal needs. The first is to permit the appeal of existing Agency determinations under the SNAP program. The second is to provide a mechanism for individuals and organizations to bring to the Agency's attention new information on substitutes that could affect existing listing determinations or result in new ones. The opportunity for outside parties to comment on existing listing decisions is an important aspect of the petition process. As discussed in the section on notifications, companies that produce substitutes must submit specific data on the substitutes to the Agency for review. However, organizations and private citizens other than those required to submit SNAP notices may have additional information about existing substitutes or information on new substitutes not yet reviewed by the Agency. To ensure that the SNAP determinations are based on the best information on substitutes, it is essential that the Agency offer a means for such information to be incorporated into the SNAP analyses on a continuing basis. Before individuals, organizations, or companies may initiate court action against EPA for the purpose of changing the lists of acceptable or unacceptable substitutes, they must first exhaust all administrative remedies for receiving such relief, including remedies like the petition process described in this section. 2. Types of Petitions Four types of petitions exist: (1) Petitions to add a substitute not previously reviewed under the SNAP program to the approved list; (2) Petitions to add a substitute not previously reviewed under the SNAP program to the prohibited list; (3) Petitions to delete a substitute from the approved list and add it to the prohibited list; and (4) Petitions to delete a substitute from the prohibited list and add it to the approved list. Petitioners should note that the first type of petition is comparable to the 90-day notifications, except that the latter are submitted by substitute producers prior to the introduction into interstate commerce of the substitute for a significant new use as a Class I or Class II substitute. The first type of petition, by contrast, would be initiated by entities other than the company responsible for the substitute. Companies that manufacture, formulate, or use a substitute themselves and want to have their substitutes added to the approved list should submit information on the substitute under the 90-day review program. 3. Basis for Petition A petitioner may submit a petition for several reasons, including: Availability of information on substitutes or applications not covered in the existing SNAP determinations; New toxicity data on a substitute; New technologies or practices that reduce exposures to a substitute previously prohibited under SNAP due to toxicity concerns; or Requests for approval for specialized uses for a prohibited substitute where no other technologically viable substitute can be found in a particular niche use. All of the above are examples of valid justifications for submitting a petition. Other bases for petitioning the Agency may exist as well, and all petitions with adequate supporting data will receive equal consideration under the SNAP program. 4. Nature of Response The Agency will only review and grant or deny petitions based on the industrial use category identified in the petition. For example, simply because the Agency ultimately deletes a substitute from the list of approved substitutes for solvents cleaning does not mean the substitute is from then on prohibited for use as a refrigerant. A similar caveat applies for petitions on uses within industrial sectors. If a substitute, for instance, is approved for a specific application within a use sector, it will not automatically be approved for all other applications in that sector. B. Content of the Petition A petition must contain the information described in Section V.B. of this notice, which lists the items to be submitted in a 90-day notification. Information requirements for petitions and 90-day notifications are the same, since the Agency will be applying equal rigor to analyses of petitions submitted by outside parties as to notifications received from the producing companies themselves. As with SNAP submissions, the Agency will issue a determination on the completeness of the petition within 15 days of receiving the petition. For petitions, the Agency also requires the following information: Action requested: A brief statement describing the type of petition; and Rationale: A brief summary of the basis for the petition and the data that support the petition. Specifically for petitions that request approval for substitutes on "critical use" grounds, the Agency proposes to require additional information documenting a company's efforts to find and implement substitutes. This information is discussed below. For petitions that request a re-examination of a substitute previously reviewed under the SNAP program, the submitter may reference the prior submittal rather than submitting separate information. In this case, the petitioner should specifically summarize in the rationale for the petition any new or additional data. C. Sufficiency of Data Petitioners should be aware that insufficient data may prevent the Agency from reaching a speedy decision on whether to grant or deny a petition. EPA will not consider a petition "received" for the purposes of triggering the 90-day review prescribed by section 612(d) until the submission includes as much of the information needed to rule on the petition as the petitioner can reasonably be expected to obtain. As provided in section 612(d), any petition must "include a showing by the petitioner that there are data on the substance adequate to support the petition." Petitioners may provide citations to scientific literature, where appropriate. However, submitters are advised that furnishing copies of supporting articles, reports, or letters will expedite the review process. Any time the Agency receives a petition with insufficient data, EPA will not commence review until the petitioner submits the missing information to the best of the petitioner's ability. To the extent the petitioner does not have the required information, EPA may also seek data from sources other than the petitioner, including manufacturers or users of products that contain the substitute. As with the 90-day SNAP notices, EPA may also decide, based on preliminary information, to propose to list the substitute in question as unacceptable pending the receipt of additional data. In such cases, section 612(d) explicitly provides that "the Administrator shall use any authority available to the Administrator, under any law administered by the Administrator, to acquire such information." These authorities include section 114 of the CAA as well as information collection provisions of other environmental statutes. Where EPA cannot obtain sufficient data, the Agency may deny the petition for lack of adequate technical support. D. Criteria for Evaluating Petitions In evaluating petitions, the Agency will follow the same criteria as for review of pre-commercialization notices. This will ensure that both petitions and notifications are judged by the same standards. E. Petition Review Process 1. Petition Submittals. Today's proposal describes a generic petition process. Petitions should be sent to the docket number listed in the beginning of this action as well as to the SNAP staff. 2. Petition Reviews When the Agency receives a petition, it will log the petition into the SNAP petition tracking system. If the petition concerns a substitute previously either approved or restricted under the SNAP program, the Agency will as a courtesy contact the manufacturer of that substitute. Decisions to remove any substitutes from either list will be made as a result of notice-and-comment rulemaking. The Agency requests comment on whether notice-and- comment rulemaking procedures are required when removing a substitute from the acceptable list. As explained above, the Agency will grant or deny the petition within 90 days of receiving a complete application. If the Agency grants a petition to either add a substance to the list of unacceptable substitutes or remove a substance from this list, this decision will be formally promulgated as a rulemaking. Otherwise, responses to petitions including explanations of petition denials will be noticed in the next 3-month Federal Register notice updating the SNAP determinations. Regardless of the nature of the final determination, the Agency will inform petitioners within 90 days whether their request has been granted or denied. If a petition is denied, the Agency will publish in the Federal Register an explanation of the determination. If a petition is granted, the Agency will publish the revised list incorporating the petition decision within 6 months of reaching a determination. Where EPA must complete rulemaking to alter the lists, the statute requires EPA to propose, take comment on, complete final action, and publish the revised lists within six months of the grant of the petition. F. Critical Use Exemption Petitions In some cases, it may be necessary to allow limited exemptions for specialized uses of a substitute that has been designated as an unacceptable for a broad application within a sector. For example, even though the Agency may restrict the general use of a compound, it could still grant exemptions for use of that compound in specific applications where it can be demonstrated that no other substitute exists. The Agency will refer to such petitions as critical use exemptions. EPA believes that it will receive few such requests for exemptions, since the Agency is not proposing broad restrictions unless other alternatives exist for the application in question. These petitions are in a special category, since they are based on a claim that a particular substitute should be exempted from broad regulatory restrictions because no other substitute exists that meets performance or safety standards. The Agency can either grant the critical use exemption based on information independently collected, or it can base the exemption on a petition from a vendor or end user. Any exemptions will be granted for specific uses, and companies will not have to apply for exemptions on a company-by-company basis. Section 612 provides the Agency with the authority to grant such exemptions. In section 612(c), the Clean Air Act states that "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, where the Administrator has identified an alternative to such replacement that-(1) reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment; and (2) is currently or potentially available." As a result, the Agency is not authorized to restrict use of a substitute if that substitute is the only currently or potentially available alternative to the Class I or Class II substance. However, in publicizing critical use exemptions for niche applications, the Agency will encourage other companies or vendors to challenge each critical use exemption. It is EPA's hope that this may bring to light new alternatives or processes of which the petitioner and EPA are unaware, and that these new alternatives may pose lower overall risks than the substances which have been the subject of the critical use exemption. If an exemption is revoked based on the availability of a new, lower-risk alternative, companies that have made investments in technology which was earlier deemed a "critical use" may be granted permission to extend their use for a limited period of time. If this approach to critical use exemption petitions is adopted in the final rule, the Agency will issue guidance describing additional documentation petitioners should include. This information could include descriptions of: Substitutes examined and rejected; Process or product in which the critical use substitute is needed; Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. In addition to this basic information, the guidance will also include specific data for critical use petitions in each sector. For example, to evaluate critical use applications for solvent cleaning substitutes, the Agency will also need information on the soils to be removed, the substrate, and the type of part being cleaned. This information is requested not only to aid the evaluation of the petition, but also so that the Agency can help the petitioner identify other potential alternatives. As noted previously, critical use exemption petitions will be processed through notice-and-comment rulemaking. IX. Preliminary Listing of Substitutes A. Overview This section presents EPA's proposed listing decisions for Class I chemical substitutes in the following applications: refrigeration, foam blowing, solvent cleaning, fire extinguishing, sterilants, aerosols, tobacco expansion and adhesives, coatings and inks. Parts D through J below present a detailed discussion of the proposed substitute listing determinations for each of the major use sectors. Tables that summarize the key proposed listing decisions in this section are included in Appendix B. As discussed earlier in this action, the Agency is proposing to exclude substitutes in other applications from the listing decisions. To develop the lists of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes, EPA conducted screens of health and environmental risks posed by various substitutes for Class I compounds in each use sector. These screens are presented in individual background documents entitled "Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances" for each use sector. Based on these analyses, EPA classified as "unacceptable" only uses of substitutes that pose significantly higher human health and environmental risks than those risks that would accrue through either continued use of the Class I substances themselves or through use of other available substitutes. The assessments presented in the background documents are screens of the comparative risks posed by use of substitutes, not assessments or rankings of the absolute risks associated with use of each substitute. Designating a substitute as "acceptable" does not imply the absence of risks for that substitute, but rather that the substitute in question is believed to present lower overall risks than the Class I compound it is replacing. For instance, in some cases, ozone-depleting substances can be replaced by chemicals with known toxicity or ability to contribute to ground-level ozone formation. The Agency's risk screen analyzes these effects, and the SNAP determinations describe as "acceptable" those substitutes for which any risks from replacements would be small compared to aggregate risks from other existing, similar sources or for which such risks could be managed by developing and implementing appropriate regulatory controls. The risk characterization does not at present include assessment of the environmental transformation products of the substitutes. Research efforts of the Agency in cooperation with the Alternative Fluorocarbons Environmental Acceptability Study (AFEAS) are in progress and are intended to define the chemical, biological and photochemical sinks for these substances in the biosphere. Ultimately, these research activities will contribute to the development of ecological risk assessment for substitutes. Additionally, in cases where the Agency has proposed listing a substitute as unacceptable, it has assessed-as required in section 612-the availability of other substitutes and concluded that alternatives were currently or potentially available. This assessment includes a review of the affordability of other available substitutes. As a rule, the Agency did not evaluate the technical performance of a substitute, since the purpose of the SNAP program is to examine environmental effects of substitutes identified as being of commercial interest regardless of technical acceptability. However, in certain sectors, performance of the substitute does pertain directly to environmental or health effects. For example, in refrigeration, the ability of a refrigerant replacement to serve as a coolant will directly influence the substitute's energy efficiency, which in turn will affect the substitute's environmental effects. Similarly, in fire extinguishing, the ability of a substitute to put out fires and thereby save human lives will directly affect a substitute's health effects. Further, in the case of critical use exemption petitions, the Agency's decision to grant or deny such a petition may hinge on questions of technical performance. For example, in the case of certain specialized solvents, some substitutes otherwise considered unacceptable may require critical use exemptions because they are the only available substitute offering performance characteristics deemed essential in a certain application. In cases such as these, the SNAP analyses do consider the performance of a substitute. EPA's evaluation of each substitute in each end use is based on the following types of information and analyses: Atmospheric effects are assessed by predicting ozone depletion and global warming. Ozone depletion is based on market penetration of a substitute and is measured in terms of cumulative Clx loadings and its effect in terms of increased incidence of skin cancer cases and skin cancer mortalities. Changes in global temperatures may result from releases of the substitutes themselves or from changes in fossil fuel use due to increases or decreases in energy efficiency resulting from production or use of the substitutes. The model used by the Agency to determine these effects-the Atmospheric Stabilization Framework model-has been used by the Agency in calculating the benefits from the phase-out of Class I substances. This model was peer-reviewed in connection with this earlier analysis. Although scientific studies have pointed to the possibility of ecological effects due to ozone depletion, such as crop damage, the scope of existing studies is limited and therefore these effects were not considered as part of this analysis. As the sophistication of analyses on this topic advances, the Agency will include estimates of ecological effects in its modeling of atmospheric impacts. Exposure assessments are used to estimate concentration levels of substitutes to which workers, consumers, the general population, and environmental receptors may be exposed, and over what period of time. These assessments are based on personal monitoring data or area sampling data if available. Otherwise, exposures are assessed using measured or estimated releases as inputs to mathematical models. Exposure assessments may be conducted for many types of releases, including releases in the workplace and in homes, releases to ambient air and surface water, and releases from the management of solid wastes. Toxicity data are used to assess the possible health and environmental effects from exposure to the substitutes. If Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-approved or EPA-wide health-based criteria such as Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs; for occupational exposure), inhalation reference concentrations (RFCs; for noncarcinogenic effects), or cancer slope factors (for carcinogenic risk) are available for a substitute, exposure information is combined with this toxicity information to determine whether there is reason for concern. Otherwise, toxicity data are used in conjunction with existing EPA guidelines to develop health-based criteria for interim use in these risk characterizations. Flammability is examined as a possible safety concern for workers and consumers. EPA assesses flammability risk using data on flash point and flammability limits (e.g., OSHA flammability/combustibility classifications), test data on flammability in consumer applications conducted by independent laboratories (e.g., Underwriters Laboratories), and information on flammability risk minimization techniques. Some of the proposed substitutes are volatile organic compounds (VOCs), chemicals that increase tropospheric air pollution by contributing to ground-level ozone formation. Local and nationwide increases in VOC loadings from the use of substitutes is also evaluated. In conducting these assessments, EPA made full use of previous analyses performed by the Agency, including the 1990 interim hazard assessments and supporting documentation. These analyses were modified in some cases to incorporate more recent data or to accommodate different analytical approaches as needed. Where possible, EPA incorporated data submitted in response to the ANPRM; EPA will continue to review data provided in these submissions between proposal and promulgation of the SNAP rulemaking. Finally, these analyses assume that the regulated community complies with applicable requirements of other statutes and regulations administered by EPA (e.g., recycling requirements promulgated under the CAA) and other Federal agencies (e.g., any enforceable occupational exposure limits set by OSHA). Where further data become available at a later date that would help characterize the risks of substitutes, the Agency will incorporate this data into its risk screens. For example, as mentioned above, the risk screen does not at present include assessment of the environmental transformation products of substitutes. Research efforts of the Agency in cooperation with the Alternative Fluorocarbons Environmental Acceptability Study (AFEAS) are in progress and are intended to define the chemical, biological and photochemical sinks for these substances in the biosphere. Ultimately, these research activities will contribute to the development of more complete ecological risk assessments for substitutes. However, the Agency generally does not believe that a more detailed characterization of risks would lead to a different listing decision for individual substitutes, since the critical comparison for policy purposes remains the adverse effects posed by continued use of a Class I compound. The Agency requests comment on its application of the proposed decision criteria in the listing determinations proposed today, which include acceptable and unacceptable substitutes by sector. EPA further solicits additional information on substitutes. However, the decisions included in today's proposal will not be final until the SNAP program is promulgated. It should be noted that the listing of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes is an on-going process. Thus, if a company is not yet able to provide the Agency with the information needed to complete a review of a substitute, a review can be completed in the future, when data become available. Once this rule is promulgated, the substitute may be submitted to the Agency for review as part of the formal SNAP program, as discussed in Sections IV through IX of today's proposal. B. Format for SNAP Determinations Sections D through J below present the proposed decisions on acceptability of substitutes that EPA has made based on available information and the proposed evaluation criteria (see Section V of today's proposal). These sections describe the application (e.g., industrial-process refrigeration), the substitutes evaluated, the proposed decision (i.e., acceptable or unacceptable) and associated rationale, conditions for use of the substitute, and any general comments. In most cases, the application descriptions have been written broadly to encompass numerous industrial uses. Based on discussions with industry, the Agency felt that this approach was preferable to listing substitutes by narrowly-defined applications, which would increase needlessly the number of SNAP notices that would be received by the Agency. The objective of section 612 is to ensure that replacements of Class I and Class II substances with available substitutes will reduce adverse effects on human health and the environment. In general, the Agency can look at exposures from very broad classifications of use (e.g., metals cleaning) and perform the screening analysis to ensure that this statutory objective is being met. It is not necessary or helpful, for example, to list acceptable substitutes by each specific type of metal being cleaned in the solvents sector. This is especially true when conservative assumptions used in the screening analysis demonstrate the acceptability of a wide range of alternatives. EPA requests comment on the descriptions of industrial applications and solicits comment and data, in particular, on those instances where more detail may be needed. Where possible, the substitutes presented in sections D through J have been identified by their chemical name. Generally speaking, EPA has not listed substitutes by product or company name in order to avoid implied endorsement of one substitute over another. However, there are two instances in which specific chemical names have not been included. First, where proprietary blends have been identified as substitutes, the Agency has worked with the manufacturers to identify generic ways in which the substitute could be listed. Before a user invests in a substitute in these categories, they may wish to contact the SNAP coordinator to confirm that the substitute they intend to use has been reviewed and approved by EPA. However, if a potential user identifies the substitute by a product name that EPA has on record, but has not included on the list for the reasons stated above, EPA will confirm the listing of the substitute without violating any proprietary business information provided in confidence to the Agency. The Agency requests comment on this proposed approach for listing and disseminating information on confidential substitutes. The second situation in which EPA does not anticipate listing specific chemicals arises in the solvent-cleaning sector, primarily for aqueous and semi-aqueous cleaners. In this area, numerous cleaning formulations exist and are comprised of a wide variety of chemicals. As discussed in the section below on solvent-cleaning alternatives (see Section IX. F.), the Agency performed its screening assessment by identifying representative chemicals. These were then used to screen a wide variety of chemicals grouped into categories of solvent-cleaning constituents (e.g., saponifiers, surfactants, etc.). Rather than require users to compare the toxicity of chemicals in the formulations they wish to use to this set of reference chemicals, the Agency is proposing to use its risk screen to establish a list of common types of chemicals found in cleaning formulations. This list could then be used by companies as guidance on the types of chemicals expected to be found in a cleaning formulation. EPA proposes this strategy for listing acceptable aqueous and semi-aqueous cleaners for several reasons. First, it should minimize the need to submit SNAP notices for blends of compounds that are combinations of the chemicals on the cleaning formulation components list. Second, it will allow EPA to avoid listing proprietary formulations. The Agency requests comment on the usefulness of this proposed approach for listing aqueous and semi-aqueous cleaners. Any conditions for use included in listing decisions are part of the decision to identify a substitute as acceptable. Thus, users would be considered out of compliance if using a substitute listed as "acceptable" without adhering to the conditions EPA has stipulated for acceptable use of the alternative. The conditions, if any, are listed when it is clear that a substitute can only be used safely if certain precautions are maintained. As noted previously, listing of substitutes as approved subject to conditions will be done through rulemaking. The comments contained in the table of listing decisions found in summary form in Appendix B are intended to provide additional information on a substitute. Since comments are not part of the regulatory decision, they are not mandatory for use of a substitute. However, EPA encourages users of approved substitutes to apply any comments in their use of these substitutes. In many instances, the comments simply allude to good 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. C. Decisions Universally Applicable Recently, the Agency has become aware of substitute mixtures that are being marketed as replacements for both Class I and Class II chemicals. In situations where these mixtures are a combination of Class I and Class II chemicals, they may serve as transitional chemicals because they offer environmental advantages in that they have a lower combined ODP than use of a Class I compound by itself. However, where EPA has identified an alternative in addition to the Class I and Class II mixture and that alternative reduces overall risk to human health and the environment, such mixtures shall be unacceptable. There have been a few instances in which mixtures of Class I and Class II chemicals have been marketed as replacements for Class II chemicals. Because the ODP of these alternatives is clearly higher than the Class II substances, the Agency is proposing to prohibit the use of any Class I and Class II mixture as a replacement for a Class II chemical. Where the Agency is aware of specific mixtures falling into this category, they are listed by individual use sector below. The remainder of this section presents the initial listing decisions for each of the following end use sectors: D. Refrigerants E. Foam Blowing F. Solvents Cleaning G. Halons H. Sterilants I. Aerosols J. Tobacco Expansion K. Adhesives, Coatings and Inks D. Refrigerants 1. Overview The refrigeration industry was the first to make widespread use of CFCs after this class of chemical compounds was discovered in the 1930s. In 1990, refrigeration and air conditioning accounted for almost 22 per cent of the total use of Class I substances in the United States. Over 500 million pieces of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment use these chemicals as the working fluids in a vapor compression cycle. Many Class I substances exhibit desirable thermophysical properties for use in refrigeration cycles. They are relatively nontoxic, nonflammable, and inexpensive to produce; all these characteristics have contributed to their appeal as refrigerants. CFC-12 is the most widely used refrigerant, with applications in mobile air conditioners (MACs), household refrigerators and freezers, various appliances, chillers, retail food refrigeration equipment, cold storage warehouses, refrigerated transport systems, and industrial equipment. CFC-11 is most commonly used to provide cooling for large buildings, while CFC-115, as a component in the refrigerant blend R-502, is used for low temperature applications. CFC-113 and CFC-114 are used in special application chillers. Of the Class II controlled substances, HCFC-22 is the refrigerant of choice in small to medium air conditioning systems, and some types of retail food and industrial process refrigeration systems. Chillers used for commercial air conditioning can be categorized by cooling capacity. The lowest cost options for capacities below 200 tons are usually reciprocating chillers operating with HCFC-22. These chillers are usually air-cooled. Water cooling requires the use of cooling towers and a ready supply of water. There is a greater range of options for air conditioners in the cooling capacity range of 150 to 1200 tons. Low-pressure centrifugal chillers using HCFC-123 are available for this capacity. In addition, screw and centrifugal chillers using higher pressure refrigerants such as HCFC-22 or HFC-134a are also available for these capacities. For chiller cooling capacities above 1200 tons, high-pressure centrifugal chillers currently dominate the market. At least two manufacturers offer factory-packaged HCFC-22 centrifugals up to roughly 2000 tons. Field-erected systems are available in larger sizes. Multiple low-pressure HCFC-123 centrifugals are also an option. Alternative substances, such as lithium bromide/water absorption chillers, are also available with cooling capacities up to 1500 tons or more. These systems use heat, usually from steam or natural gas, to power the refrigeration cycle. Ideal applications are those where waste heat above 200 degrees F is available to power the chiller. Another application is for heat recovery when a great deal of heat below 150 degrees F is required and there is a significant cooling load. Still another application, mainly for cold storage warehouses, involves lowering the pressure at which natural gas travels through pipelines at pressure drop stations to achieve cooling of a transfer medium, such as methanol/water or ethylene glycol. EPA has divided the refrigeration and air conditioning sector into the following general end uses: commercial comfort air conditioning (chillers)-centrifugal, reciprocating, and screw chillers used to provide air conditioning; residential refrigerators; residential freezers; residential dehumidifiers used to control the humidity in homes; cold storage warehouses-public and private facilities used to store meat, produce, dairy products, frozen foods, and other perishable goods; commercial ice machines-equipment used to produce ice for commercial purposes; industrial process refrigeration systems used in the chemical, pharmaceutical, petrochemical, and other manufacturing and food processing industries, as well as industrial ice machines and ice rinks; transport refrigeration, including refrigerated ship holds, trucks and truck trailers, railway freight cars, and shipping containers; retail food refrigeration, including equipment found in supermarkets, convenience stores, restaurants, hotel and institutional kitchens, and other food service establishments; mobile air conditioning used to control passenger compartment humidity and temperature in cars, trucks, buses, planes and other vehicles; residential and commercial air conditioning and heat pumps- window units, packaged terminal air conditioners, central air conditioners, direct expansion commercial air conditioners, and heat pumps. Industry has invested heavily in the search for suitable alternative refrigerants that exhibit the favorable characteristics of the controlled substances, but that do not contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion or global warming. The hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) have received the most attention, along with expanded use of traditional refrigerants such as ammonia and hydrocarbons. In some cases, the most promising solution appears to be a blend of refrigerants. The 1991 report by UNEP's Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee contains detailed information about the status of alternative refrigerants in various applications. Clearly, an important role will be played by blends of refrigerants. There are currently multiple blends in various stages of research, testing and market development, and as the search for optimal replacements continues, the number of blends will increase. Because of the impossibility of performing full SNAP analyses for all possible blends in all conceivable permutations, the Agency, between proposal and issuance of the final rule, will explore ways to streamline EPA's consideration of substitute refrigerant blends under the SNAP program. One issue which EPA will be investigating further with respect to refrigerant blends is differential fractionation which may result in flammability and energy efficiency problems. For example, in a centrifugal chiller system equipped with a flooded evaporator (liquid refrigerant is situated on the outside of tubes through which water is flowing), the evaporator may act as a distillation device for the blend. The higher-pressure components may boil first and change to vapor, while the lower-pressure components remain as a liquid. This process artificially lowers the refrigerant pressure in the evaporator which, in turn, reduces the efficiency and capacity of the chiller. Similar reductions also can occur when using a low refrigerant velocity blend shellside in a condenser. In this situation, the low-pressure components condense first, leaving the vapor "rich" in high pressure components and causing an increase in condensing pressure. The section which follows discusses specific determinations on individual substitutes by application. Appendix B at the end of this notice summarizes in tabular form the Agency's proposed determinations on substitutes in the refrigerants sector, which are presented here in narrative form. These proposed determinations are based on the risk screen described in the draft background document entitled "Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: Refrigerants". 2. Alternative Refrigerants a. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons. EPA believes that hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) have a potentially important role to play as transitional refrigerants, both in retrofit applications and in new equipment. HCFCs have the disadvantage that they contribute to the destruction of stratospheric ozone, although to a much lesser extent than CFCs. Use of HCFCs until safer alternatives are available will allow industry to move away from CFC refrigerants more rapidly. EPA believes that this approach will have environmental and health benefits over one that allows continued use of CFCs until equipment that uses other alternatives is available. HCFCs are chemically similar to CFCs except that they contain hydrogen in addition to chlorine and fluorine. Because their thermophysical properties are, in many cases, similar to CFCs, equipment designed to use CFCs can sometimes be retrofitted to operate with HCFCs. HCFC-22 has been used as a refrigerant for many years. It is the primary refrigerant used in small to medium sized air conditioners, and has found increasing application in medium temperature retail food refrigeration systems. HCFC- 123 holds promise as the primary replacement for CFC-11 in low pressure centrifugal chillers. HCFC-124 has potential applications in blends as a refrigerant in chillers and other refrigeration equipment. Because they contain hydrogen, the HCFCs break down more easily in the atmosphere, and therefore have lower ODPs. They also have global warming potentials lower than the CFCs. Production of HCFCs is controlled by the Clean Air Act and was initially scheduled to be phased out by 2030. EPA, however, is reexamining these dates in response to new data indicating greater risks of ozone depletion. Based on these new concerns, EPA may propose an earlier phase-out for some of the HCFCs, particularly those with higher ozone-depleting potentials. As noted above, EPA believes that HCFCs will play an important role as transitional refrigerants. There are clear environmental and health benefits to be gained by allowing their use until better substitutes are developed. Future EPA analysis under the SNAP program will focus on HCFC-22 applications and substitutes. b. Hydrofluorocarbons. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) do not contain chlorine and do not contribute to destruction of stratospheric ozone. HFCs have zero ODPs, but some HFCs contribute to global warming. Their general use is one or more years away in some applications; in other applications, the shift to their use has already begun. Although a few HFCs have been in use for some time (HFC-152a is a component in the azeotropic blend CFC- 500 used in smaller tonnage reciprocating equipment and large tonnage centrifugal equipment), the potential for HFCs as a replacement for CFCs has grown rapidly over the last several years. HFC-134a and HFC-152a hold the most promise as currently available replacements for Class I and Class II refrigerants and development of HFC-32 as a possible alternative has progressed. c. Hydrocarbons. Since hydrocarbons do not contain chlorine or bromine, they do not contribute to ozone depletion. They degrade in the lower atmosphere, contributing to smog, but not significantly to global warming. Propane, ethane, propylene, and to some extent butane are used as refrigerants in specialized industrial applications, primarily in oil refineries and chemical plants, where they are frequently available as part of the process stream and where their use contributes only slightly to the incremental risk of fire or explosion. These systems are designed to meet rigid requirements for reliability, durability, and safety. ASHRAE Standard 15, "Safety Code for Mechanical Refrigeration," and Standard 34, "Refrigerants," are incorporated into building codes in most of the U.S. These standards limit use of flammable refrigerants in many applications. Hydrocarbon refrigerants are also used in limited applications in some small appliances. d. Ammonia. Ammonia has been used as a refrigerant in vapor compression cycles for more than 100 years. It is by far the refrigerant of choice in the meat packing, chicken processing, dairy, frozen juice, brewery, cold storage, and other food processing and industrial applications. It is also widely used to refrigerate holds in fishing vessels. Industrial process refrigeration equipment uses rotary screw or reciprocating compressors. Ammonia is mainly used when moderate to low temperatures are required. Ammonia has a characteristic pungent odor, excellent refrigerant properties, no long term atmospheric drawbacks, and is low in cost. However, it is moderately flammable and toxic, although it is not a cumulative poison. OSHA standards specify a 15 minute short-term exposure limit of 35 ppm for ammonia. e. Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are fully fluorinated compounds, unlike CFCs, HCFCs, or HFCs. The principal environmental characteristic of concern for these compounds is that they have extremely long atmospheric lifetimes, often orders of magnitude longer than the CFCs. These long lifetimes cause the PFCs to have very high global warming potentials. Technology for containment and recycling of PFCs is commercially available and is recommended by manufacturers to offset any possible adverse environmental effects. An important advantage of the PFCs is that, unlike CFCs or HCFCs, they do not contribute to ozone depletion. In addition, these chemicals are nonflammable, essentially nontoxic, and they are exempted from Federal VOC regulations since they do not contribute to ground-level ozone formation. Under Section 612, the Agency has completed an analysis showing the global warming that might be expected from atmospheric emissions of these compounds. The Agency further anticipates that additional, more detailed analysis of the environmental effects of PFCs will show that in widespread use, these compounds would pose higher overall risk relative to other available alternatives. Due to these concerns, the Agency has found acceptable only certain narrowly defined uses of perfluorinated compounds. EPA has described these limited acceptable uses as specifically as possible. The Agency requests comment on whether further narrative is needed to adequately describe these uses. Further, users should be aware that, because of the environmental concerns detailed above, any uses of PFCs outside those described herein should be submitted for future review and approval under SNAP. f. Absorption refrigeration systems. Absorption refrigeration systems are the only major existing alternative to systems based on vapor compression cycles. Ammonia is also used in absorption refrigeration and air conditioning systems. Small ammonia refrigeration units are popular in recreational vehicles and in some household applications as they need no electrically driven mechanical compressor, relying instead on a propane flame as an energy source. Small refrigerators using absorption technology are produced for use in hotel rooms, where the focus is on their silent operation rather than the lack of a suitable supply of electricity. Small absorption systems use hydrogen to maintain a system pressure high enough to allow the ammonia refrigerant to evaporate at low pressure and temperature (and condense at room temperature), and are constructed to withstand high internal operating pressures. The absorption mechanism itself is a sealed unit, which usually needs no servicing over its operating life. Commercial ammonia absorption systems are used for air conditioning comfort cooling, particularly where waste heat is available. As with all chillers, these produce chilled water, which is circulated to the space being cooled. Lithium bromide is also used in commercial absorption systems, where it serves as an absorber. Such systems operate at very low pressure to allow water to act as a refrigerant. Lithium bromide is a relatively nontoxic, nonflammable, nonexplosive, chemically stable compound. Both types of absorption chiller systems have been traditional competitors of electrically driven CFC chillers. g. New technologies. Chlorine has been proposed as a Class I substitute refrigerant for use in chlorine liquefaction, a processing step in the manufacture of the chemical. When chilled below its boiling point, chlorine can be stored as a liquid at atmospheric pressure, a method that for safety reasons is preferable to storing the chemical as a pressured gas at ambient temperatures. Compatibility of the refrigerant with liquid chlorine is critical because of chlorine's high reactivity; CFC-12 has been widely used because it is does not react with chlorine. Chlorine compressors would be specialized units made to resist chemical attack by liquid and gaseous chlorine. Because a chlorine refrigeration system would use part of the process stream as the refrigerant, the proposed use of chlorine as a refrigerant is analogous to that of hydrocarbon refrigerants in the oil and gas industry. EPA has determined that if the refrigeration system is placed so that any leakage or losses of chlorine would be contained and neutralized by the process safety mechanisms, chlorine can be used safely in these specialized applications. 3. Preliminary Listing Decisions a. General Conditions. (1) The use of HCFCs is acceptable. This determination shall not be considered to release any user from conformance with all other regulations pertaining to Class II substances. These include: (a) the prohibition against venting during servicing under section 608, which was effective July 1, 1992; (b) recycling requirements under section 608 once they are promulgated; (c) section 609 regulations in the case of motor vehicle air conditioners; and (d) the production phase- out of Class II substances under section 605, which is currently being revised as part of EPA's efforts to accelerate the phase- out of ozone-depleting chemicals. (2) The use of HFCs is acceptable. This determination shall not be considered to release any user from conformance with the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2), which takes effect November 15, 1995, at the latest. b. Acceptable Substitutes. Substitutes are listed as acceptable by end use. Accordingly, the following list of acceptable substitutes are only approved for those end uses explicitly identified as acceptable. These substitutes are not identified as acceptable alternatives in any other end use described in this section until and unless a determination of acceptability has been made for any other end use. EPA recommends that the users of HCFCs, HFCs and any other alternative refrigerants adhere to the provisions of ASHRAE Standard 15-Safety Code for Mechanical Refrigeration, and ASHRAE Standard 34-Number Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants. (1) HCFC-123 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in centrifugal chillers, both in new equipment and in retrofits. HCFC-123 is also acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 and CFC- 500 in new centrifugal chillers. As noted above, users of HCFC- 123 should adhere to ASHRAE Standards 15 and 34. EPA worker- monitoring studies of HCFC-123 show that 8-hour TWA can be kept within 1 ppm (less than the interim OEL of 10 ppm) when recycling and ASHRAE standards are followed. (2) HCFC-22 is acceptable for use in new equipment in the following end uses: As a substitute for CFC-11 in centrifugal chillers; As a substitute for CFC-12 in centrifugal chillers, reciprocating chillers, cold storage warehouses, residential dehumidifiers, residential freezers, commercial ice machines, industrial process refrigeration equipment, refrigerated transport equipment, retail food systems, vending machines, and water coolers; As a substitute for CFC-500 in centrifugal chillers, dehumidifiers and refrigerated transport systems; As a substitute for CFC-502 in cold storage warehouses, residential freezers, commercial ice machines, industrial process refrigeration systems, refrigerated transport systems, and retail food systems. HCFC-22 is acceptable for use in existing equipment, or retrofits, in the following end uses: As a substitute for CFC-12 in cold storage warehouses, industrial process refrigeration equipment, retail food systems, and vending machines; As a substitute for CFC-502 in cold storage warehouses, industrial process refrigeration equipment, retail food systems and refrigerated transport systems. HCFC-22 is already used in a variety of air conditioning and refrigeration end uses. As a result, it is more widely available than any of the HFC substitutes. (3) HCFC-22/HFC-152a/HCFC-124 blend is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in retrofits of cold storage warehouses, residential dehumidifiers, residential freezers, residential refrigerators, commercial ice machines, industrial process refrigeration equipment, refrigerated transport systems, retail food systems, vending machines, water coolers, and mobile air conditioners. Although the blend is acceptable in these end uses, the extent to which retrofit changes are required varies by equipment. HCFC-22/HFC- 152a/HCFC-124 blend is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-500 in retrofits of centrifugal chillers, residential dehumidifiers and refrigerated transport. As with all blends, precautions must be taken during recycling to avoid mixing with other refrigerants. (4) HFC-124 is acceptable as an alternative to new and retrofit CFC-114 centrifugal chillers in all applications. (5) HCFC-22/Propane/HFC-125 blend is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-500 in refrigerated transport, both in new equipment and in retrofits. This blend is also acceptable as a substitute for CFC-502 in cold storage warehouses, industrial process refrigeration, refrigerated transport, and retail food equipment, both in new equipment and in retrofits. Flammability has been studied and shown to be controllable. As with all blends, care must be taken in recycling to avoid mixing with other refrigerants. (6) HFC-134a is acceptable for use in new equipment in the following end uses: As a substitute for CFC-11 in centrifugal chillers; As a substitute for CFC-12 in household refrigerators; cold storage warehouses, residential dehumidifiers, residential freezers, commercial ice machines, industrial process refrigeration, centrifugal chillers, reciprocating chillers, refrigerated transport, retail food, vending machines, water coolers, and mobile air conditioners; As a substitute for CFC-500 in centrifugal chillers, dehumidifiers, and refrigerated transport; and As a substitute for CFC-502 in industrial process refrigeration and refrigerated transport. HFC-134a is acceptable for use in existing equipment, or retrofits, in the following end uses: As a substitute for CFC-12 in centrifugal chillers, reciprocating chillers, cold storage warehouses, residential dehumidifiers, industrial process refrigeration equipment, refrigerated transport systems, retail food systems, vending machines, and mobile air conditioners; As a substitute for CFC-500 in centrifugal chillers and refrigerated transport systems; and As a substitute for CFC-502 in industrial process refrigeration equipment, and refrigerated transport systems. HFC-134a is potentially the most versatile substitute identified to date as it may be possible to use it in a broad range of applications. However, HFC-134a may be less energy efficient than HCFC-22 in some end uses; (7) HFC-152a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in new household refrigerators and residential freezers. (8) Ammonia is acceptable for use in new equipment in the following end uses: As a substitute for CFC-11 in centrifugal chillers; As a substitute for CFC-12 in centrifugal chillers, cold storage warehouses, commercial ice machines, industrial process refrigeration equipment, and retail food systems; As a substitute for CFC-500 in centrifugal chillers; and As a substitute for CFC-502 in cold storage warehouses, retail food systems, commercial ice machines, and industrial process refrigeration equipment. (9) Butane is acceptable for use in new equipment as a substitute for CFC-12 in industrial process refrigeration equipment. EPA recommends but does not require that butane only be used at industrial facilities which manufacture or use hydrocarbons in the process stream. (10) Chlorine is acceptable for use in new equipment as a substitute for CFC-12 in industrial process refrigeration equipment, and as a substitute for CFC-502 in new industrial process refrigeration equipment. EPA recommends but does not require that chlorine only be used at industrial facilities which manufacture or use chlorine in the process stream. (11) Propane is acceptable for use in new equipment as a substitute for CFC-12 in industrial process refrigeration equipment. EPA recommends but does not require that propane only be used at industrial facilities which manufacture or use hydrocarbons in the process stream. (12) Lithium bromide is acceptable for use in absorption refrigeration systems. It is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12 and CFC-500 in new centrifugal chillers. (13) High to Low Pressure Stepdown Process is acceptable for use in energy recovery systems as a substitute for CFC-12 in new cold storage warehouse equipment. (14) HCFC-142b is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-114 in new centrifugal chillers. c. Unacceptable Substitutes. (1) HCFC-22/HCFC-142b/CFC-12 blend is proposed unacceptable in all HCFC-22 refrigeration and air conditioning end uses. Because this blend contains CFC- 12 (which has an ODP 20 times that of HCFC-22), it poses a greater risk to stratospheric ozone than the use of HCFC-22 alone. (2) HCFC-141b is proposed unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in new centrifugal chillers. Flammability may be an issue. Further, this material is not generally available in new equipment. Finally, the material has a high ozone depletion potential. (3) HCFC-22/HCFC-142b/Isobutane blend is proposed as unacceptable for use as a substitute for CFC-12 in retrofits of mobile air conditioners. Flammability may be an issue, and the Agency's final determination in this case will depend on receiving adequate data on flammability and likely fractionation through permeable hoses. Submission of information from industry groups, such as from the Society for Automotive Engineers, for example, regarding refrigerant retrofit guidelines for specific equipment in motor vehicle air conditioners, would help EPA evaluate such issues as flammability and the effect of blends on recycling and recovery efforts. (4) Hydrocarbon Blend A is proposed as unacceptable for use as a substitute for all CFC-12 refrigeration uses. Flammability may be an issue. The Agency's final determination will depend on receiving adequate data on factors such as flammability and materials compatibility. EPA has not found any other substitutes to be unacceptable but may do so at a later date based on new data. E. Foams 1. Overview Foam plastics accounted for approximately 18 per cent of all U.S. consumption of ozone-depleting chemicals on an ODP- weighted basis in 1990. Five Class I chemicals-CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and methyl chloroform-are used as blowing agents in foam production. These five compounds are used in a wide variety of applications. The manufacture of foam plastics relies on the use of gas or volatile liquid blowing agents to create bubbles, or cells, in the plastic foam structure. Suitable blowing agents must conform to a number of criteria. They must be soluble in liquid but not in solid plastic, possess a suitable boiling point and vapor pressure, and they must not react with plastic. In addition, blowing agents with low thermal conductivity are desirable for use in insulating foams. CFCs possess these desirable properties, and hence have found widespread use as blowing agents in many foam plastics. Some foam plastics are characterized by a structure of closed cells that traps the blowing agent, while others have open cells that allow the blowing agent to escape. Although some rigid polyurethane packaging foams are open celled, most rigid foams have closed-cell structures. Many of these closed-cell, rigid foams are excellent insulating materials, because the blowing agent trapped within the cells can serve as a thermal insulator. Flexible foams, on the other hand, generally have open cells and are poor thermal insulators. Foam plastics manufactured with CFCs fall into four major categories: Polyurethane, phenolic, extruded polystyrene, and polyolefin. Historically, CFC-11 and CFC-113, which remain in a liquid state at room temperature, have been used as blowing agents in polyurethane and phenolic foams. CFC-12 and CFC-114, which have lower boiling points than CFC-11 and CFC-113 and are gases at room temperature, are used in polyolefin and polystyrene foams. In addition to CFCs, methyl chloroform is used as a blowing agent in some flexible polyurethane foams. The major applications for foams are cushioning, packaging, and thermal insulation. In general, cushioning and packaging foams include flexible polyurethane foams, polyurethane integral skin foams, polyolefin foams, and polystyrene sheet foams, while insulating foams include rigid polyurethane foams, polystyrene insulation board, and phenolic insulation board. However, some rigid polyurethane foams and extruded polystyrene board have non-insulating uses in flotation and packaging products, and certain polyolefin foams have thermal insulating applications. Due to the wide variety of end uses that foams represent, the Agency has decided to divide its analysis of foam plastics into the following ten distinct end-use sectors: rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock; rigid polyurethane appliance; rigid polyurethane spray and commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels; rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams; polystyrene extruded insulation board; phenolic insulation board; flexible polyurethane; polyurethane integral skin; polystyrene extruded sheet; and polyolefin. The SNAP determinations proposed today distinguish between these ten end-use sectors because the mix of potential alternatives to Class I blowing agents is different for each. Rigid polyurethane foams, which serve primarily as insulation for appliances, buildings, and refrigerated transport containers, rely heavily on the use of CFC-11 as a blowing agent. These foams also find use as pipe and tank insulation and as flotation material. The low thermal conductivity of CFC-11 endows many rigid polyurethane foams with excellent thermal insulating qualities. Moreover, low toxicity, low flammability, and compatibility with key materials have made CFC-11 the blowing agent of choice in most rigid polyurethane applications. Extruded polystyrene insulation board, which has traditionally used CFC-12 as a blowing agent, serves as insulation for roofs, walls, and floors in residential and agricultural buildings, as insulation against frost heave in roads and railways, and as the insulating core material in sandwich panels. Phenolic insulation board, a closed-cell insulating foam that relies primarily on a blowing agent mixture of CFC-113 and CFC-11 for its manufacture, accounts for only a small proportion of the total CFC consumption in foam plastics. Closed-cell phenolic foam serves mainly as building insulation. The foam's primary use is as roof insulation, although it also finds use as wall insulation in commercial applications and as sidewall sheathing in residential applications. CFC-11 use was, at one time, prevalent in flexible polyurethane foams. However, the period between 1986 and 1990 saw a decrease of over 90 per cent in the use of CFC-11 as an auxiliary blowing agent in flexible polyurethane foams. The reduction in CFC-11 use has, to some extent, been compensated for by an increase in methylene chloride use. Polyurethane flexible slabstock foam is an open-celled flexible foam manufactured in a variety of densities and degrees of firmness that finds use in many cushioning applications. Polyurethane flexible molded foam, which is also open-celled, serves primarily as cushioning in motor vehicles. The production of integral skin foams, which has also traditionally relied on CFC-11 as a blowing agent, has seen a reduction in CFC-11 consumption in recent years. Integral skin foams combine a flexible, semi-rigid, or rigid foam core with a tough outer skin. The skin results from the tendency of physical blowing agents such as CFC-11 to condense at the mold surface during manufacture. Rigid integral skin foams have applications in products such as computer cabinets, skis, and tennis rackets, while uses for semi-rigid integral skin foams include steering wheels, head rests, arm rests, office furniture, and certain other minor applications. Extruded polystyrene sheet foam, which traditionally used CFC-12, has already switched to non-CFC alternatives. Extruded polystyrene sheet serves as food packaging in items such as meat trays, egg cartons, and clam-shell containers. The foam also finds use as loose fill packaging material and as art board. Traditionally, CFC-114 and CFC-12 have been the main blowing agents used in the production of extruded polyolefin foams, although some CFC-11 has been used as well. Polyolefin foams include products manufactured from either polyethylene or polypropylene resins. Extruded polyethylene sheet products serve primarily as protective packaging for furniture, electronics, and other goods. Extruded polyethylene planks are mainly used as packaging for electronics and other high-value goods but have a number of other applications in areas such as military packaging, flotation, construction, and aircraft seating. Extruded polypropylene sheet serves as packaging in applications such as interleaving, protective furniture covering, and protective wrap for delicate food items. 2. Alternative Blowing Agents The foam industry in the U.S. has been successful in identifying, developing, and introducing substitutes for CFC blowing agents. However, the choice of future alternatives for CFCs will depend on a number of factors. These include toxicity, flammability, environmental concerns, and, in the case of insulating foams, the insulating efficiency of alternatives. Toxicity concerns associated with the use of alternative chemicals relate to the exposure of workers and consumers to the chemicals or to the decomposition products these chemicals may form slowly over time in foam products. The likely degree of human health risk associated with an alternative depends not only on the nature of a substitute chemical but also on the chemical composition, manufacturing process, and product applications that characterize the foam end-use sector into which that substitute will be introduced. Flammability concerns, like toxicity concerns, have to do with possible danger to workers and consumers. Such danger includes possible ignition of materials during manufacturing, storage, or transportation and the fire hazard posed by the final product. Alternatives to CFCs have varying degrees of flammability. As in the case of toxicity, however, the composition, production processes, and end-use applications that characterize each foam type will dictate the potential risks associated with flammability. In addition to posing toxicity and flammability risks, alternatives may have deleterious effects on the environment. Such deleterious effects may include stratospheric ozone depletion, global warming, and contribution to smog formation. HCFCs have, in varying degrees, the potential to deplete ozone; both HCFCs and HFCs have global warming potential; and various potential alternatives, especially hydrocarbons, are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that contribute to the formation of ozone, or smog, in the lower atmosphere. The use of alternative blowing agents can have an adverse effect on the insulating capability of foam products. Based on initial tests, for example, the replacement of CFCs with HCFCs in insulating foams reduced insulating efficiency. However, formulation changes and modifications to the foam technology have yielded HCFC-blown products with insulating efficiency equivalent to CFC-blown products. In fact, most efforts to replace CFC blowing agents in insulating foams over the near term involve HCFCs, although HFCs and hydrocarbons may serve as alternatives in a limited number of applications. In the flexible and packaging foam sectors, there has already been widespread movement away from CFCs to alternative, non- HCFC auxiliary blowing agents and production processes. Water, which generates CO2, is the primary blowing agent for flexible polyurethane foams. Auxiliary blowing agents like CFC-11, methylene chloride or acetone confer certain desirable physical characteristics, such as softness or low density, to the finished product. This trend away from use of CFCs is likely to continue in light of EPA's proposed regulations under section 610 of the CAA that would, beginning on November 15, 1993, ban the sale of CFCs in flexible and packaging foams. Also, beginning on January 1, 1994, section 610 bans sale of noninsulating foams manufactured with Class II substances. Foam used in food packaging must in addition meet the regulatory requirements of the FDA. a. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and HCFC blends have been, and will continue to be, important as transitional alternatives to CFC blowing agents, particularly in insulating foams. Two HCFCs, HCFC-123 and HCFC-141b, can serve as virtual drop-in replacements for CFC-11 in many end- use applications. Because of toxicity, the resultant low interim occupational exposure level (OEL), and the lack of commercial availability of HCFC-123, HCFC-141b represents the more likely short-term possibility for replacing CFC-11 in several insulating foam sectors. As a result, the Agency has determined that HCFC- 141b, despite its relatively high ODP of 0.11, represents an important transitional alternative to CFC-11. Other HCFC alternatives are HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b. Although these compounds are commercially available and have lower ODPs than HCFC-141b, each has a boiling point significantly lower than CFC-11. As a result, conversion to HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b from CFC-11 generally entails significant investment in technical and process modification. HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b do, however, present viable, near-term alternatives to CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene foams. The continued availability of HCFCs, even those with relatively high ODPs, is necessary to ensure the continued replacement of CFC blowing agents with alternative compounds in the short term. Production of HCFCs is controlled by the Clean Air Act and under section 605 is scheduled for phase-out by 2030. However, due to new data concerning greater risks of ozone depletion, EPA has proposed an accelerated phase-out schedule. Given the technical and safety concerns associated with many non-HCFC alternatives, however, disallowing the interim use of HCFCs in all foam sectors, including the use of HCFC-141b and HCFC- 22, would have adverse effects on human health and the environment. Additional restrictions on HCFC use may be made subject to final promulgation of section 610 for non-essential uses. Section 610 states that after January 1, 1994, it shall be unlawful for any person to sell or distribute, or offer for sale or distribution, in interstate commerce, any plastic foam product which contains, or is manufactured with, a Class II substance. Section 610(d)(2) authorizes EPA to grant exceptions to the Class II ban for foam insulation products, or foam used for motor vehicle safety in accordance with section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act on federal motor vehicle safety standards. b. Hydrofluorocarbons. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) represent a zero-ODP alternative to CFC blowing agents in many sectors. From the standpoint of stratospheric ozone depletion alone, HFCs are preferable to HCFCs as alternative blowing agents. However, other considerations such as flammability and cost may limit the feasibility of HFC alternatives, especially over the short term. Moreover, the relatively high thermal conductivity of HFCs is likely to hamper the insulating capabilities of HFC- blown foams. This, in turn, could result in energy efficiency losses. Two HFCs, HFC-134a and HFC-152a, are under consideration as substitutes in a number of applications. Because both compounds have boiling points that are significantly lower than that of CFC-11, significant technical and process modifications would be required to introduce them as replacements for CFC-11. The HFCs hold more promise as near- or intermediate-term alternatives for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene foams, particularly in extruded polystyrene sheet foams. However, issues such as flammability, cost, commercial availability, and the solubility of HFCs in polystyrene polymer remain of concern for extruded polystyrene foams. Both HFC-134a and HFC-152a have significantly higher thermal conductivities than do any of the CFCs. Although formulation changes and process modifications can be introduced to increase the thermal insulating efficiency of HFC-blown foams, it is unlikely that such changes can compensate fully for the disparity in thermal conductivity between HFCs and CFCs, especially in the near term. As a result, conversion to HFCs would likely lead to the production of foams with lower insulating efficiency and, possibly, to a reduction in the energy efficiency of buildings, appliances, refrigerated transport containers, and other insulated items. Even if technical difficulties and problems associated with thermal conductivity can be overcome, the commercial availability and cost of HFC-134a, and the flammability of HFC-152a, remain of concern. Conversion to HFC-152a may entail significant capital investment in order to ensure worker safety against fire hazards. Moreover, in the case of insulating foams, manufacturers will need to guarantee that foams blown with HFC-152a meet the building code requirements that apply to the flammability of building materials. The Agency has determined that, although HFCs represent an attractive alternative to CFC blowing agents in the intermediate and long term, HFC-134a and HFC-152a are unlikely to replace CFCs to a significant extent in the short term, especially in insulating foams. c. Hydrocarbons. Like HFCs, hydrocarbons represent a zero- ODP alternative to CFC blowing agents in many sectors. From the standpoint of ozone depletion potential and global warming potential alone, hydrocarbons are preferable to HCFCs as alternative blowing agents. However, other considerations such as flammability and concerns over ground-level air pollution may limit the adequacy of hydrocarbons as alternatives, especially over the short term. Moreover, the relatively high thermal conductivity of hydrocarbons is likely to hamper the insulating capabilities of hydrocarbon- blown foams. This, in turn, could result in energy efficiency losses. Hydrocarbons have significantly higher thermal conductivities than do any of the CFCs. Although formulation changes and process modifications can be introduced to increase the thermal insulating efficiency of hydrocarbon-blown foams, it is unlikely that such changes can compensate fully for the disparity in thermal conductivity between hydrocarbons and CFCs, especially in the near term. As a result, conversion to hydrocarbons would likely lead to the production of foams with lower insulating efficiency and, possibly, to a reduction in the energy efficiency of buildings, appliances, refrigerated transport containers, and other insulated items. Conversion to hydrocarbons may entail significant capital investment in order to ensure worker safety against fire hazards. Moreover, in the case of insulating foams, manufacturers will need to guarantee that foams blown with hydrocarbons meet the building code requirements that apply to the flammability of building materials. Hydrocarbons are VOCs that contribute to the formation of ozone, or smog, in the lower atmosphere. Any use of hydrocarbon blowing agents is subject to the federal and regional restrictions that apply to VOCs, and conversion to hydrocarbons could involve the capital investment necessary to comply with these restrictions. Hydrocarbons have proven effective as replacements for CFCs in many noninsulating foams. However, the Agency believes that, although hydrocarbons have the potential to replace CFC blowing agents in insulating foams, they are unlikely to replace CFCs in insulating foams over the short term. d. Other. Two other blowing agents, methylene chloride and acetone, have proven effective as substitutes for CFC-11 in flexible polyurethane foams. Methylene chloride, which already serves as an auxiliary blowing agent for most grades of flexible polyurethane foam, is commercially available, has relatively low cost, and provides a technically feasible alternative to CFC-11. However, because of concerns over its high toxicity, methylene chloride use is restricted in several states and localities; and is subject to review under Title III of the CAA. Acetone, when used as a blowing agent, is capable of yielding all grades of flexible polyurethane foam. It can serve as an alternative blowing agent where methylene chloride use is infeasible. Acetone is a VOC and must be controlled as such. In addition, plant modifications may be necessary to accommodate acetone's flammability. The AB Technology is a commercially available and technically feasible process for replacing CFCs or other auxiliary blowing agents for most conventional flexible foam grades. AB Technology employs formic acid in conjunction with water as the blowing agent for producing flexible polyurethane foam. The process is based on using the reaction of formic acid with an isocyanate to produce carbon monoxide in addition to the water/isocyanate reaction normally used to generate carbon dioxide gas for the expansion of foam. OSHA has set a permissible exposure level (PEL) for carbon monoxide of 35 ppm of a time weighted average with a ceiling not to exceed 200 ppm. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an acceptable substitute for all foam end-uses. One hundred percent CO2 blowing is achieved by further increasing the water content in the foam formulation, thereby eliminating the need for a physical blowing agent. CO2 blends acceptable as long as the other constituents of the blend are acceptable under SNAP. 3. Primary Listing Decisions a. Acceptable Substitutes (1) Polyurethane, Rigid Laminated Boardstock. (a) HCFC-123 HCFC-123 is acceptable as an alternative blowing agent to CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock foam. From the standpoint of technical feasibility, HCFC-123 represents a viable alternative to CFC-11 as a potential blowing agent. More specifically, the physical properties, thermal conductivity, and aging of foams blown with HCFC-123 are similar to those blown with CFC-11. As a result, HCFC-123, which has an ozone depleting potential significantly lower than that of CFC-11, has the potential to replace CFC-11 in many applications. Nonetheless, availability of HCFC-123 is limited at present, and furthermore industry may be unable to meet the relatively low interim OEL of 10 ppm set by the manufacturer. However, recent worker monitoring studies indicate that an interim OEL of 10 ppm can be achieved through the use of increased ventilation, good housekeeping and work practices, and dust collection. HCFC-123 is subject to the phase-out of Class II compounds under section 605 of the CAA. (b) HCFC-141b HCFC-141b is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock foam. Although its ODP of 0.11 is relatively high, HCFC-141b, because it can serve as a virtual drop-in substitute for CFC-11, offers almost immediate transition out of CFCs in this sector. Not only does HCFC-141b offer a technically feasible alternative to CFC-11, but it is currently available or will soon be available in sufficient quantities to meet industrial demand. The Agency has proposed restricting the use of HCFC-141b in the proposed accelerated phase-out of HCFCs in light of its relatively high ODP and the fact that other zero-ODP substitutes should be available by the phase-out dates. HCFC-141b is currently subject to the phase- out of Class II compounds under section 605 of the CAA. (c) HCFC-22 HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock foam. HCFC-22 offers an alternative with significantly less potential to deplete ozone than CFC- 11. Foams blown with HCFC-22 have been developed that have thermal insulating capabilities equivalent to foams blown with CFC-11. However, technical problems remain. New laminate materials may be needed to counteract the solvent characteristics of HCFC- 22, and significant process changes would be necessary to accommodate the low boiling point of HCFC-22. HCFC-22 is subject to the phase-out of Class II compounds under section 605 of the CAA. (d) HCFC-142b HCFC-142b is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock foam. HCFC-142b offers an alternative with significantly lower potential to deplete ozone than CFC-11. Nevertheless, certain technical problems persist. Namely, plant modifications are required to allow use of blowing agents like HCFC-142b that have low boiling points, and the compound's chemical and physical characteristics may lead to rapid aging of the foam. Finally, the use of HCFC-142b results in potentially significant losses in thermal insulating efficiency. HCFC-142b is subject to the phase-out of Class II compounds under section 605 of the CAA. (e) HCFC-22/HCFC-141b The HCFC-22/HCFC-142b blend is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock foam. Because both components of the blend are commercially available in large enough quantities to meet industry demand, it offers a near-term vehicle for replacing CFC-11 in laminated boardstock foams. HCFC-22 has an occupational exposure limit of 250 ppm, whereas HCFC-141b has an OEL of 1000 ppm. Use of the blend, because of its HCFC-141b component, will be restricted under the proposed accelerated phase-out of HCFCs, since other non- ODP substitutes should become available. The HCFC-22/HCFC-141b blend is presently subject to the phase-out of Class II compounds under section 605 of the CAA. (f) HCFC-22/HCFC-142b The HCFC-22/HCFC-142b blend is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock foam. The blend offers an alternative with significantly less potential to deplete ozone than CFC-11. Nevertheless, certain technical problems persist. Namely, plant modifications are required to allow use of blowing agents like HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b that have low boiling points, and the blend's chemical and physical characteristics may lead to rapid aging of the foam. Finally, use of the blend results in potentially significant losses in thermal insulating efficiency. The HCFC-22/HCFC-142b blend is subject to the phase-out of Class II compounds under section 605 of the CAA. (g) HCFC-141b/HCFC-123 The HCFC-141b/HCFC-123 blend is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock foam. As noted above, HCFC-141b, because of its commercial availability and ability to serve as a virtual drop-in substitute for CFC- 11, offers an immediate opportunity to replace CFC-11. HCFC- 123, although it has the technical requirements necessary to replace CFC-11, suffers from limited availability and concerns over whether the interim OEL can be met. The HCFC-141b/HCFC- 123 blend offers an opportunity to use HCFC-123 while at the same time allaying those concerns to some degree. Moreover, because the ODP of HCFC-123 is lower than that of HCFC-141b, the blend has a lower ODP than HCFC-141b alone. Nevertheless, the blend, because of the HCFC-141b component, is subject to the proposed accelerated phase-out of HCFCs. The HCFC-141b/HCFC- 123 blend is also currently subject to the phase-out of Class II compounds under section 605 of the CAA. (h) HFC-134a HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock foam. HFC-134a offers the potential for a non-ozone-depleting alternative to CFC-11 blowing agents in rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock foams. The use of HFC-134a as a blowing agent in rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock foams is currently not commercially feasible. Plant modifications may be necessary to accommodate the use of HFC- 134a because its boiling point is lower than that of CFC-11. In addition, there are concerns over commercial availability, the cost of HFC-134a is likely to be high, and the use of HFC- 134a may cause significant increases in thermal conductivity, with a concomitant loss in the insulating capacity of foams blown with HFC-134a. (i) HFC-152a HFC-152a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock foam. HFC-152a offers the potential for a non-ozone-depleting alternative to CFC-11 blowing agents in rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock. The use of HFC-152a as a blowing agent in rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock foam is currently not commercially feasible, and there are concerns over the potential for significant increases in thermal conductivity. Process changes may be necessary to accommodate the use of HFC-152a, and plant modifications may be necessary to manage its flammability. Also, foams blown with HFC-152a will need to conform with building code requirements that relate to flammable materials. (j) Hydrocarbons Hydrocarbons are acceptable as substitutes for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock foam. Of the hydrocarbons, pentane has the greatest potential as a replacement for CFC- 11 in this sector of the foam industry. However, the use of pentane as a blowing agent in rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock foam is currently not commercially feasible. Moreover, extensive plant modifications may be necessary to accommodate the use of pentane and other hydrocarbons. In addition, these materials pose flammability concerns. Further, there is a potential for significant increases in thermal conductivity that could reduce insulating capacity; studies suggest that pentane could increase thermal conductivity by 15 to 20 per cent over CFC-11, for example. Foams blown with hydrocarbons will need to conform with building code requirements that relate to flammable materials. Finally, pentane and other hydrocarbons are VOCs and must be controlled as such under Title I of the CAA. (k) 2-Chloropropane 2-Chloropropane is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock foam. At present, because 2-chloropropane is a proprietary technology, its commercial availability may be limited. Moreover, 2-chloropropane is flammable and its use may require extensive modification of existing equipment. (l) Carbon Dioxide Carbon dioxide is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock foam. (2) Polyurethane, Rigid Appliance Foam (a) HCFC-123 HCFC-123, for the reasons described and with the caveats outlined in the section on rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam. (b) HCFC-141b HCFC-141b, for the reasons described and with the caveats outlined in the section on rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam. (c) HCFC-22 HCFC-22, for reasons described and with the caveats outlined in the section on rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock, is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam. (d) HCFC-142b HCFC-142b is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam. HCFC-142b offers an alternative with significantly less potential to deplete ozone than CFC- 11. Nevertheless, certain technical problems persist. Namely, plant modifications are required to allow the use of blowing agents like HCFC-142b that have low boiling points. HCFC-142b is subject to the phase-out of Class II compounds under section 605 of the CAA. (e) HCFC-22/HCFC-142b The HCFC-22/HCFC-142b blend is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam. The blend offers an alternative with significantly less potential to deplete ozone than CFC-11. Foams blown with the blend have been developed that have thermal insulating capabilities equivalent to foams blown with CFC-11. However, technical problems remain. New plastic materials may be needed for appliances to counteract the solvent characteristics of HCFC-22, and significant process changes would be necessary to accommodate the low boiling point of the HCFC-22/HCFC-142b blend. The blend is subject to the phase-out of Class II compounds under section 605 of the CAA. (f) HCFC-22/HCFC-141b The HCFC-22/HCFC-141b blend is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam. Because both components of the blend are commercially available in large enough quantities to meet industry demand, it offers a near- term vehicle for replacing CFC-11 in rigid appliance foams. Use of the blend, because of its HCFC-141b component, will be restricted under the proposed accelerated phase-out of HCFCs, since other non-ODP substitutes should become available. The problem of toxic decomposition byproducts, although present, is controllable. However, new plastic materials may be needed for appliances to counteract the solvent characteristics of HCFC-22, and some process changes may be necessary to accommodate the low boiling point of HCFC-22. The HCFC-22/HCFC-141b blend is presently subject to the phase-out of Class II compounds under section 605 of the CAA. (g) HCFC-123/HCFC-141b The HCFC-123/HCFC-141b blend, for the reasons described and with the caveats outlined in the section on rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC- 11 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam. (h) HFC-134a HFC-134a, for the reasons described and with the caveats outlined in the section on rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam. (i) HFC-152a HFC-152a, for the reasons described and with the caveats outlined in the section on rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam. (j) Hydrocarbons Hydrocarbons are acceptable as substitutes for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam. Hydrocarbons offer the potential of a non-ozone-depleting alternative to the use of CFC-11 blowing agents in rigid polyurethane appliance foam. However, the use of hydrocarbon blowing agents in rigid polyurethane appliance foams is currently not commercially feasible. Moreover, extensive plant modifications may be necessary to accommodate the flammability of hydrocarbons. In addition, the potential for significant increases in thermal conductivity may reduce insulating capacity. Foams blown with hydrocarbons must conform with building code requirements that relate to flammable materials. Hydrocarbons are VOCs and will be subject to control as such under Title I of the CAA. (k) Carbon Dioxide Carbon dioxide is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam. (3) Rigid Polyurethane Commercial Refrigeration Foam, Spray Foam, and Sandwich Panels (a) HCFC-123 HCFC-123, for the reasons described and with the caveats outlined in the section on rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels. (b) HCFC-141b HCFC-141b, for the reasons described and with the caveats outlined in the section on rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels. (c) HCFC-22 HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 and CFC- 12 in rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels. HCFC-22 offers an alternative with significantly less potential to deplete ozone than either CFC- 11 or CFC-12. However, significant process changes would be necessary to accommodate the low boiling point of HCFC-22. HCFC- 22 is subject to the phase-out of Class II compounds under section 605 of the CAA. (d) HCFC-142b HCFC-142b, for the reasons described and with the caveats outlined in the section on rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels. (e) HCFC-22/HCFC-142b The HCFC-22/HCFC-142b blend, for the reasons described and with the caveats outlined in the section on rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC- 11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels. (f) HFC-134a HFC-134a, for the reasons described and with the caveats outlined in the section on rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels. (g) HFC-152a HFC-152a, for the reasons described and with the caveats outlined in the section on rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels. (h) Hydrocarbons Hydrocarbons, for the reasons described and with the caveats outlined in the section on rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock, are acceptable alternative blowing agents for CFC-11 and CFC- 12 in rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels. (i) Carbon Dioxide Carbon dioxide is an acceptable alternative blowing agent for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels. (4) Polyurethane Slabstock and Other Foams (a) HCFC-123 HCFC-123 is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams. From the standpoint of technical feasibility, HCFC-123 represents a viable alternative to CFC-11 as a potential blowing agent. More specifically, the physical properties, thermal conductivity, and aging of foams blown with HCFC-123 are similar to those blown with CFC-11. As a result, HCFC-123, which has an ozone depleting potential significantly lower than that of CFC-11, has the potential to replace CFC-11 in many applications. Nonetheless, commercial availability of HCFC-123 is limited at present, and it is unclear that industry can meet the relatively low interim OEL of 10 ppm set by the manufacturer. Nevertheless, recent worker monitoring studies indicate that an interim OEL of 10 ppm can be achieved through the use of increased ventilation, good housekeeping and work practices, and dust collection. Certain slabstock and other foams manufactured with HCFC-123 may be subject to the January 1, 1994 ban on Class II substance use in noninsulating foams. HCFC-123 is subject to the phase-out of Class II compounds under section 605 of the CAA. (b) HCFC-141b HCFC-141b is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams, provided that these foams are used for insulating or flotation purposes. Although its ODP of 0.11 is relatively high, HCFC-141b, because it can serve as a virtual drop-in substitute for CFC-11, offers almost immediate transition out of CFCs in this sector. Not only does HCFC-141b offer a technically feasible alternative to CFC-11, it is currently available in sufficient quantities to meet the demands of industry. The Agency will be proposing to restrict the use of HCFC-141b in the accelerated phase-out of HCFCs because other non-ODP substitutes should become available. The problem of toxic decomposition byproducts, although present, is controllable. With the exception of flotation foams, EPA believes that HCFC- 141b is not acceptable for use in noninsulating applications, such as rigid polyurethane packaging or floral foams. The Agency has decided to allow the use of HCFC-141b in rigid polyurethane flotation foams until January 1, 1994, the effective date of the section 610 ban on Class II noninsulating foams manufactured with HCFCs becomes effective. HCFC-141b is also subject to the phase-out of Class II compounds under section 605 of the CAA. (c) HCFC-22 HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams. HCFC-22 offers an alternative with significantly less potential to deplete ozone than either CFC-11 or CFC-12. However, significant process changes may be necessary to accommodate the low boiling point of HCFC-22. Certain slabstock and other foams manufactured with HCFC-22 may be subject to the January 1, 1994 ban on Class II substance use in noninsulating foams. HCFC-22 is subject to the phase-out of Class II compounds under section 605 of the CAA. (d) Hydrocarbons Hydrocarbons, for the reasons described and with the caveats outlined in the section on rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock, are acceptable alternative blowing agents for CFC-11 and CFC- 12 in rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams. (e) Carbon Dioxide Carbon dioxide is an acceptable alternative blowing agent for CFC-11 and CFC-12 in rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams. (5) Extruded Polystyrene Insulation Board. (a) HCFC-22 HCFC-22 is an acceptable alternative blowing agent for CFC- 12 in extruded polystyrene boardstock foam. HCFC-22 offers an alternative with significantly less potential to deplete ozone than CFC-12. HCFC-22, however, has a relatively high permeation rate out of polystyrene thus affecting insulation performance. HCFC-22 is subject to the phase-out of Class II compounds under section 605 of the CAA. (b) HCFC-142b HCFC-142b is an acceptable alternative blowing agent for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene boardstock foam. HCFC-142b offers an alternative with significantly less potential to deplete ozone than either CFC-11 or CFC-12. HCFC-142b is subject to the phaseout of Class II compounds under section 605 of the CAA. (c) HCFC-22/HCFC-142b The HCFC-22/HCFC-142b blend is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene boardstock foam. The blend offers an alternative with significantly less potential to deplete ozone than CFC-12. The blend is subject to the phase-out of Class II compounds under section 605 of the CAA. (d) HFC-134a HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene insulation board foam. HFC-134a offers the potential for a non-ozone-depleting alternative to CFC-12 blowing agents in extruded polystyrene insulation board. HFC-134a, because of its low flammability and encouraging performance in toxicological testing, exhibits definite advantages from the standpoints of environmental risk and worker and consumer safety. However, HFC-134a has relatively high thermal conductivity and cost. In addition, the compound has poor solubility in polystyrene polymer, which could limit its usefulness as an alternative blowing agent from a technical standpoint. (e) HFC-152a HFC-152a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene insulation board foam. HFC-152a offers the potential for a non-ozone-depleting alternative to CFC-12 blowing agents in extruded polystyrene boardstock. However, the high flammability of HFC-152a when combined with its properties of high thermal conductivity, low solubility in polystyrene polymer, and high permeability through polystyrene limit the extent to which HFC- 152a is likely to replace CFC-12. Plant modifications may be needed to accommodate the flammability of HFC-152a, and foams blown with HFC-152a will need to conform with building code requirements that relate to flammable materials. (f) Hydrocarbons Hydrocarbons are acceptable as substitutes for CFC-12 in polystyrene insulation board foam. Of the hydrocarbons, pentane, isopentane, butane, and isobutane have been demonstrated as feasible blowing agents in polystyrene. In fact, hydrocarbons have been used for years in the manufacture of extruded polystyrene sheet products. However, hydrocarbons have several disadvantages as blowing agents in extruded polystyrene boardstock. Replacement of CFC-12 blowing agents with hydrocarbons is likely to reduce significantly the insulating efficiency of extruded polystyrene boards. Moreover, hydrocarbon-blown foams cannot presently attain the thickness that CFC-blown foams do. Controlling the flammability of hydrocarbons entails significant investment in plant conversion to accommodate them as alternatives to CFC-12. Also, foams blown with hydrocarbons will need to conform with building code requirements that relate to flammable materials. Finally, hydrocarbons are VOCs and must be controlled as such under Title I of the CAA. (g) HCFC-22/Hydrocarbons Blends of HCFC-22/hydrocarbons, for the reasons described and with the caveats outlined above for HCFC-22 and hydrocarbons, are proposed as acceptable substitutes for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene boardstock foam. (h) Carbon Dioxide Carbon dioxide is an acceptable alternative blowing agent for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene boardstock foam. (6) Phenolic Insulation Board. (a) HCFC-141b HCFC-141b, for the reasons described and with the caveats outlined in the section on rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 and CFC-113 in phenolic insulation board. (b) HCFC-142b HCFC-142b, for the reasons described and with the caveats outlined in the section on rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 and CFC-113 in phenolic insulation board. (c) HCFC-22 HCFC-22, for the reasons described and with the caveats outlined in the section on rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration foams, spray foams, and sandwich panels, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 and CFC-113 in phenolic insulation board. (d) HCFC-22/HCFC-142b The blend HCFC-22/HCFC-142b, for reasons described above and with the caveats outlined above for HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 and CFC-113 in phenolic insulation board. (e) Hydrocarbons Hydrocarbons, for the reasons described and with the caveats outlined in the section on rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock, are acceptable alternatives to CFC-11 and CFC-113 in phenolic insulation board. (f) HCFC-22/Hydrocarbons HCFC-22/Hydrocarbon blends are acceptable a substitute for CFC-11 and CFC-113 in phenolic insulation board. HCFC-22/hydrocarbon blends offer an alternative with significantly less potential to deplete ozone than either CFC-11 or CFC-113. However, extensive plant modifications may be necessary to accommodate use of these blends. In addition, there are concerns about the potential for significant increases in thermal conductivity resulting from the replacement of CFC-11 and CFC-113 with a blend. Also, foams blown with hydrocarbons will need to conform with building code requirements that relate to flammable materials. Hydrocarbons are VOCs and must be controlled as such under Title I of the CAA, and HCFC-22 is subject to the phase-out of Class II compounds under section 605 of the CAA. (g) 2-Chloropropane 2-Chloropropane is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 and CFC-12 in phenolic insulation board. At present, because 2-chloropropane is a proprietary technology, its commercial availability may be limited. Moreover, 2-chloropropane is flammable and its use may require extensive modification of existing equipment. (h) Carbon Dioxide Carbon dioxide is an acceptable alternative blowing agent for CFC-11 and CFC-12 in phenolic insulation board. (7) Flexible Polyurethane Foam. (a) Methylene Chloride Methylene chloride is acceptable as a blowing agent in flexible polyurethane foams, provided that it is used in accordance with relevant OSHA standards and that its use meets future ambient air controls for hazardous pollutants under Title III of the CAA. Methylene chloride is already used as an auxiliary blowing agent in the manufacture of most flexible polyurethane slabstock foams and has proven adequate in yielding foams of many densities and degrees of softness. Replacement of CFC-11 or methyl chloroform blowing agents with methylene chloride can reduce the potential for stratospheric ozone depletion resulting from the production of flexible polyurethane foams. Nevertheless, there is widespread concern over the potential health and safety hazards that methylene chloride poses. In fact, due to these concerns, some local and regional restrictions apply to the use of methylene chloride. To assess these risks in the application under discussion, EPA used data collected by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for the proposed revision of the permissible exposure level (PEL) for methylene chloride. The Agency's estimate for total population risk for methylene chloride was based on average plant emissions derived from OSHA's values, and while not negligible, was within the range of existing Agency decisions on acceptable risk. The Agency solicits comment on risks associated with the use of methylene chloride in open-cell foam blowing. For further detail, refer to the background document entitled "Risk Screen on Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: Foams". In light of toxicity concerns, the Agency has decided to allow the use of methylene chloride subject to existing or future restrictions. Methylene chloride use must meet all future ambient air controls for hazardous air pollutants under Title III of the CAA. In addition, use of the compound must conform to all relevant workplace safety standards; OSHA has proposed permissible exposure levels (PELs) for methylene chloride of 25 ppm on a time-weighted average (TWA). (b) Acetone Acetone is acceptable as a blowing agent for flexible polyurethane foams, provided that it is controlled as a VOC under Title I of the CAA. In those areas where methylene chloride use is deemed unacceptable, acetone may provide another non-ODP alternative to CFC-11 and methyl chloroform. All grades of flexible polyurethane foam produced with CFCs can be produced using acetone as an auxiliary blowing agent. Acetone does not have an ozone depletion potential, its global warming potential is negligible. Nevertheless, acetone is highly flammable and its use requires special precautions to ensure adequate ventilation. In addition, the compound may be subject to controls as a VOC under Title I of the CAA. (c) HCFC-123 HCFC-123, for the reasons described and with the caveats outlined in the section on rigid polyurethane laminated boardstock is acceptable as a blowing agent in flexible polyurethane foams. (d) HFC-134a HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in flexible polyurethane foam. HFC-134a offers the potential for a non-ozone- depleting alternative to CFC-11 blowing agents in flexible polyurethane foam. The use of HFC-134a as a blowing agent in flexible polyurethane foams is currently not commercially feasible. Plant modifications may be necessary to accommodate the use of HFC-134a because its boiling point is lower than that of CFC-11. In addition, the cost of HFC-134a is high compared to CFC-11. (e) HFC-152a HFC-152a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in flexible polyurethane foam. HFC-152a offers the potential for a non-ozone- depleting alternative to CFC-11 blowing agents in flexible polyurethane foam. Process changes may be necessary to accommodate the use of HFC-152a, and plant modifications may be necessary to manage its flammability. (f) AB Technology AB Technology is acceptable as an alternative process in flexible polyurethane foams, provided that it is used in accordance with relevant OSHA standards. The AB Technology generates carbon monoxide as the chemical blowing agent. Actions to insure the safety of workers from exposure to elevated levels of carbon monoxide should be taken, particularly at the latter phases of production where ventilation is generally not as efficient as on the foam line. OSHA has set a permissible exposure level (PEL) for carbon monoxide of 35 ppm on a time-weighted average (TWA) with a ceiling of 200 ppm. (g) Carbon Dioxide Carbon dioxide is an acceptable alternative process in flexible polyurethane foams. (8) Polyurethane Integral Skin Foams. (a) HCFC-123 HCFC-123 is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 in integral skin foams. From the standpoint of technical feasibility, HCFC- 123 represents a viable alternative to CFC-11 as a potential blowing agent in integral skin foams. More specifically, the physical properties and aging of foams blown with HCFC-123 are similar to those blown with CFC-11. As a result, HCFC-123, which has an ozone depleting potential significantly lower than that of CFC-11, has the potential to replace CFC-11 in many integral skin applications. Nonetheless, commercial availability of HCFC- 123 is limited at present, and it is not clear that industry can meet the relatively low interim OEL of 10 ppm set by the manufacturer. Nevertheless, recent worker monitoring studies indicate that an interim OEL of 10 ppm can be achieved through the use of increased ventilation, good housekeeping and work practices, and dust collection. The use of HCFC-123 is subject to the provisions of section 610 of the CAA, which bans the use of Class II substances in noninsulating foams after January 1, 1994. The ban does not apply to certain integral skin foams used to provide for motor vehicle safety. HCFC-123 is subject to the phase-out of Class II compounds under section 605 of the CAA. (b) HCFC-141b HCFC-141b is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11 in integral skin foams used for automotive safety, although its use will be subject to the proposed accelerated phase-out of HCFCs. Although its ODP of 0.11 is relatively high, because it can serve as a virtual drop-in substitute for CFC-11, HCFC-141b offers almost immediate transition out of CFC-11 in integral skin foams. Not only does HCFC-141b offer a technically feasible alternative to CFC-11, but it is currently available in sufficient quantities to meet the demands of industry. The Agency has chosen to restrict the use of HCFC-141b in light of the fact that other non-ODP substitutes should become available. Section 610 of the CAA, which bans the use of Class II substances in noninsulating foams after January 1, 1994, excludes certain automotive safety foams from the ban. The allowable use of HCFC-141b shall be limited to those integral skin foams excluded from the ban under section 610. HCFC-141b is currently subject to the phase-out of Class II compounds under section 605 of the CAA. (c) HCFC-22 HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in integral skin foam, although its use will be subject to the proposed accelerated phase-out of HCFCs. HCFC-22 offers an alternative with significantly less potential to deplete ozone than CFC- 11. However, process changes may be necessary to accommodate the low boiling point of HCFC-22. The use of HCFC-22 in integral skin foams shall be subject to section 610 of the CAA, which bans the use of Class II substances in noninsulating foams after January 1, 1994. The ban does not apply to certain foams used to provide for motor vehicle safety. HCFC-22 is also subject to the phaseout of Class II compounds under section 605 of the CAA. (d) HCFC-22/HCFC-141b HCFC-22/HCFC-141b blend, for reasons described and with the caveats outlined above for HCFC-22 and HCFC-141b, is an acceptable substitute for CFC-11 in integral skin foam used for automotive safety. (e) HFC-134a HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in polyurethane integral skin foam. HFC-134a offers the potential for a non- ozone-depleting alternative to CFC-11 blowing agents in polyurethane integral skin foam. The use of HFC-134a as a blowing agent in flexible polyurethane foams is currently not commercially feasible. Plant modifications may be necessary to accommodate the use of HFC-134a because its boiling point is lower than that of CFC-11. In addition, the cost of HFC-134a is high compared to CFC-11. (f) HFC-152a HFC-152a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11 in polyurethane integral skin foam. HFC-152a offers the potential for a non- ozone-depleting alternative to CFC-11 blowing agents in polyurethane integral skin. Process changes may be necessary to accommodate the use of HFC-152a, and plant modifications may be necessary to manage its flammability. Also, foams blown with HFC-152a will need to conform with any requirements that relate to flammable materials. (g) Hydrocarbons Hydrocarbons are acceptable as substitutes for CFC-11 in integral skin foams. Hydrocarbons offer the possibility of a non-ODP replacement for CFC-11 in integral skin foams. However, the use of hydrocarbon blowing agents in integral skin foams is not commercially feasible at present. Moreover, extensive process modifications would be necessary to accommodate the flammability of hydrocarbons and to make the necessary technical and process modifications. Also, foams blown with hydrocarbons will need to conform with any requirements that relate to flammable materials. Hydrocarbons are VOCs and must be controlled as such under Title I of the CAA. (h) Methylene Chloride Methylene chloride is acceptable as a blowing agent in integral skin foam. See methylene chloride discussion under Polyurethane Flexible Foams for additional details on toxicity. (i) Carbon Dioxide Carbon dioxide is acceptable as a blowing agent in integral skin foams. (9) Extruded Polystyrene Sheet Foam. (a) HFC-134a HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene sheet foam. HFC-134a offers the potential for a non-ozone-depleting alternative to CFC-12 blowing agents in polystyrene sheet foam. (b) HFC-152a HFC-152a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene sheet foam. HFC-152a offers the potential for a non-ozone-depleting alternative to CFC-12 blowing agents in extruded polystyrene sheet foams. The compound is commercially available and its low molecular weight suggests that its blowing efficiency will be double that of CFC-12. Plant modifications may be needed to accommodate the flammability of HFC-152a. (c) Hydrocarbons Hydrocarbons are acceptable as substitutes for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene sheet foam. Hydrocarbons offer the potential of a non-ozone-depleting alternative to the use of CFC-12 blowing agents in extruded polystyrene sheet. At present, pentane and butane are used extensively as blowing agents in extruded polystyrene sheet. These compounds are widely available at low cost and offer excellent solubility with the polystyrene polymer. However, extensive plant modifications may be necessary to accommodate the use of hydrocarbons in place of CFC-12. In addition, hydrocarbons are VOCs and will be subject to control as such under Title I of the CAA. (d) Carbon Dioxide Carbon dioxide is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in extruded polystyrene sheet foam. (10) Polyolefin Foams. (a) HCFC-22 HCFC-22 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114 in polyolefin foams. HCFC-22 offers an alternative with significantly less potential to deplete ozone than CFC- 11, CFC-12, or CFC-114. The use of HCFC-22 in polyolefin foams may be restricted under section 610 of the CAA, which bans the use of Class II substances in noninsulating foams after January 1, 1994. HCFC-22 is subject to the phase-out of Class II compounds under section 605 of the CAA. (b) HCFC-142b HCFC-142b is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114 in polyolefin foams. HCFC-142b offers an alternative with significantly less potential to deplete ozone than CFC- 11, CFC-12, or CFC-114. The use of HCFC-142b in polyolefin foams may be restricted under section 610 of the CAA, which bans the use of Class II substances in noninsulating foams after January 1, 1994. HCFC-142b is subject to the phase-out of Class II compounds under section 605 of the CAA. (c) HCFC-22/HCFC-142a HCFC-22/HCFC-142a blends are acceptable, for reasons described and the caveats outlined above, as a substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12 and CFC-114 in polyolefin foam. (d) HFC-134a HFC-134a is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114 in polyolefin foams. HFC-134a offers the potential for a non-ozone-depleting alternative to CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114 in polyolefin foams. HFC-134a, because of its low flammability and encouraging performance in toxicological testing, exhibits definite advantages from the standpoints of environmental risk and worker and consumer safety. (e) HFC-152a HFC-152a, for the reasons described and with the caveats outlined in the section on extruded polystyrene sheet foam, is acceptable as an alternative to CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114 in polyolefin foams. (f) Hydrocarbons Hydrocarbons are acceptable as substitutes for CFC-11, CFC- 12, and CFC-114 in polyolefin foams. Use of hydrocarbon blowing agents in polyolefin foams is not now commercially feasible. Extensive plant modifications may be necessary to accommodate hydrocarbon use due to flammability and technical considerations. Finally, hydrocarbons are VOCs and must be controlled as such under Title I of the CAA. (g) HCFC-22/Hydrocarbons HCFC-22/hydrocarbons blends, for the reasons described and with the caveats outlined above, are acceptable substitutes for CFC-11, CFC-12 and CFC-114 in polyolefin foams. (h) Carbon Dioxide Carbon dioxide is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-114 in polyolefin foams. b. Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes. The final listing of a foam blowing agent as unacceptable in a specific foam use sector constitutes a ban on the use of that alternative to Class I or Class II compounds in commerce. The Agency solicits comments on these proposed decisions. These decisions will be effective 30 days after publication of the final rule. (1) Rigid Polyurethane Slabstock and Other Foams (Rigid Polyurethane Packaging Foams). (a) HCFC-141b The use of HCFC-141b (or blends thereof) is proposed unacceptable as an alternative blowing agent in rigid polyurethane packaging foams with the exception of insulating and flotation foams. HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11, almost equivalent to that of methyl chloroform, a Class I substance. The Agency believes that non- ODP alternatives, or alternatives with lower ODPs, are sufficiently available to render the use of HCFC-141b unnecessary in this application. (2) Flexible Polyurethane Foams. (a) HCFC-141b The use of HCFC-141b (or blends thereof) is proposed unacceptable as an alternative blowing agent in flexible polyurethane foams. HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11, almost equivalent to that of methyl chloroform, a Class I substance. The Agency believes that non- ODP alternatives are sufficiently available to render the use of HCFC-141b unnecessary in this application. (3) Integral Skin Foams. (a) HCFC-141b Use of HCFC-141b (or blends thereof) is proposed unacceptable as an alternative blowing agent in integral skin foams, except where used for the purpose of motor vehicle safety. HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11, almost equivalent to that of methyl chloroform, a Class I substance. The Agency believes that non-ODP alternatives, or alternatives with lower ODPs, are sufficiently available to render the use of HCFC-141b unnecessary in this application. However, the use of HCFC-141b will be allowed in those integral skin automotive foams excluded from the ban on noninsulating foams under section 610 of the CAA. (4) Polyolefin Foams. (a) HCFC-141b The use of HCFC-141b (or blends thereof) is proposed unacceptable as an alternative blowing agent in polyolefin foams. HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11, almost equivalent to that of methyl chloroform, a Class I substance. The Agency believes that non-ODP alternatives, or alternatives with lower ODPs, are sufficiently available to render the use of HCFC-141b unnecessary in this application. F. Solvents Cleaning 1. Overview On an ozone-depletion weighted basis, solvents constitute approximately 15 per cent of the chemicals targeted for phase- out under the Montreal Protocol. In the U.S., the two Class I chemicals used as industrial solvents are CFC-113 (C2F3Cl3- trifluorotrichloroethane) and methyl chloroform (C2H3Cl3-1,1,1- trichloroethane). The SNAP determinations proposed today focus on substitutes for these chemicals when used as industrial cleaning solvents, since this application comprises the largest use of CFC-113 and methyl chloroform (MCF). Other cleaning applications for CFC-113 and MCF exist as well, such as in dry cleaning of textiles. In addition, these solvents are used as bearer media (such as lubricant carriers), mold release agents, component testing agents, coolants, or in other non-cleaning applications. For the reasons described earlier in this Preamble, the Agency proposes to exclude substitutes for these smaller uses from the SNAP determinations. As a result, the Agency is not at this time issuing any determinations on acceptability of such substitutes, and will neither approve nor restrict their uses. The three major cleaning applications that use CFC-113 and MCF are metals cleaning, electronics cleaning, and precision cleaning. Metals cleaning applications usually involve removing cutting oils and residual metal filings. This sector relies principally on MCF as a cleaning solvent. In contrast, the electronics industry uses principally CFC-113, for instance, to remove flux residues left after mounting parts on printed circuit boards. Precision cleaning also uses mostly CFC-113. This last application comprises a broad category of industrial cleaning operations and can cover uses ranging from cleaning pacemakers to cleaning direct access storage devices on computers. Appendix B at the end of this Preamble lists in tabular form the Agency's proposed determinations on substitutes in the cleaning sector. These proposed determinations are based on the risk screen described in the draft background document entitled "Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: Solvent Cleaning." The table also includes as "pending" a number of substitutes that the Agency will issue determinations on in the next round of SNAP analyses. This table was compiled in part based on information on substitutes that companies submitted to the Agency in response to the January 16, 1992, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. In some cases, the Agency did not have adequate engineering or environmental information on these substitutes to permit a SNAP determination. Vendors or users of cleaning substitutes not described in Appendix B should submit information on these uses, so that the Agency can issue a SNAP determination. In general, the solvents cleaning industry has been extremely successful at finding non-ozone-depleting alternatives to cleaning with CFC-113 and MCF. Numerous alternatives are already commercially available, and ongoing research and development promises to generate additional innovative solutions. The most creative approaches focus on changing the manufacturing process to remove the cleaning stage altogether. This change, in which producers rely on "no-clean" technologies, embodies one of the success stories in the search for alternatives-a pollution prevention approach that relies on cutting out the manufacturing step that creates the environmental problem rather than simply transferring the pollutants from one medium to another. The electronics industry in particular has many such cleaning alternatives that eliminate the need for CFC-113 and MCF. In metals cleaning, few "no-clean" alternatives are currently available, since the manufacturing process is so heavily dependent on the use of oils as lubricants. However, no-clean approaches and products, such as vanishing oils, are being developed for cleaning metal parts and may soon be more broadly available. Finding alternatives for CFC-113 and MCF in precision cleaning has been more difficult. Here, the industry has tried where possible to find and implement other cleaning options, but in some cases currently available alternatives simply do not meet the performance or safety criteria that would permit them to be used successfully. 2. Alternatives in Solvents Cleaning a. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) HCFC-141b or HCFC-141b blends with alcohols are the principal HCFC alternative solvents to CFC-113/MCF cleaning. These alternatives can be used in vapor degreasing equipment, principally for electronics or precision cleaning, and in some cases existing CFC-113 or MCF equipment can be retrofitted for use with HCFC-141b alternatives. From an environmental standpoint, the critical characteristic of HCFC-141b is that it has a relatively high ODP-0.11-the highest of all the HCFCs. Another HCFC, HCFC-123, is generally not considered to have widespread application as a cleaner. Although this HCFC has the capacity to remove many soils, it is such an aggressive cleaner that it frequently degrades the surface of the part being cleaned. Additionally, toxicity concerns have limited commercial interest in HCFC-123 as a cleaning substitute. The Agency is currently investigating whether industry exposure standards for HCFC-123 can be met, and has therefore listed this chemical as "pending" approval. HCFC-225, a third HCFC, is widely viewed as having potential as a cleaner, especially for precision cleaning. However, this chemical is not yet in widespread production or use. Further, HCFC-225 is still undergoing toxicity testing. Preliminary findings suggest that of the two HCFC-225 isomers, HCFC-225ca and HCFC- 225cb, toxicity concerns associated with the ca-isomer may limit its commercial viability. b. Semi-Aqueous Cleaning. Semi-aqueous cleaning is an alternative for cleaning in all three cleaning sectors. This process employs hydrocarbon/surfactant cleaners either emulsified in water solutions or applied in concentrated form and then rinsed with water. Since both approaches involve water as part of the formulation, the process is commonly referred to as "semi-aqueous." The principal categories of chemicals used in this process are terpenes, petroleum distillates, or alcohols. Surfactants are sometimes added to the formulation to increase wetting, emulsification and rinsing properties. Within each category of compounds, formulators draw from a wide variety of specific chemicals. For example, even though terpene-based cleaning often uses d-limonene, other terpene cleaners formulated with terpineols or terpinenes exist. A similar range of choices is available when selecting the surfactant. To characterize environmental releases, EPA developed model processes intended to represent generic semi-aqueous cleaning scenarios. The purpose of developing the model processes was to portray the average use scenario, rather than to depict specific examples of cleaning applications. An extensive discussion of various semi-aqueous cleaning processes may be found in the Industry Cooperative for Ozone Layer Protection (ICOLP) documents on the subject. c. Aqueous Cleaning. Aqueous cleaning, unlike semi-aqueous cleaning, uses water as the primary solvent. This process is used mostly for metals cleaning, but companies are beginning to explore options using these substitutes in other cleaning applications. In aqueous cleaning, detergents and surfactants are combined in water with a variety of additives such as organic solvents (e.g., high-boiling point alcohols), builders, saponifiers, inhibitors, emulsifiers, Ph buffers and antifoaming agents. Builders such as alkaline salts usually make up a large portion of the formulation (other than water), and they are often used in blends of several chemicals. Surfactants comprise the other major portion; these chemicals are chosen for their detergent, emulsification or wetting properties. The cleaning process is comparable to that used in semi-aqueous applications and consists of combinations of a wash phase, a rinse phase, and a drying phase. An important difference is that the wash tank is frequently heated to improve soil removal. The final step, drying, can be accomplished by use of heat or a drying agent. A critical feature of aqueous cleaning, as with semi-aqueous cleaning, is the wide variety of chemicals chosen for the formulations. For each cleaning need, a vendor can tailor a formulation to the soils and parts-a process that produces innumerable combinations of chemicals in different concentrations. To capture this diversity, the Agency has chosen to adopt a screening approach that parallels the methodology described in the section on semi-aqueous cleaners. d. Organic Solvents. Organic solvents can be used to replace CFC-113 and MCF in certain cleaning operations. The classification of organic solvents typically includes conventional organic solvents such as alcohols, ethers, esters and ketones. These compounds are commonly used in solvent tanks at room temperature, although the solvents can also clean in in-line systems or be heated to increase solvency power. If heated, the solvents must be used in equipment designed to control vapor losses. These solvents, unlike Class I and II compounds, do not contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion, and generally have short atmospheric lifetimes. Yet many of the organic solvents are regulated as VOCs because they can contribute to ground-level ozone formation. In addition, certain of the organic solvents are toxic to human health and are subject to workplace standards set by OSHA. e. Other Chlorinated Solvents. In addition to MCF and CFC- 113, the three other commonly used chlorinated solvents are trichloroethylene ("TCE"), methylene chloride ("meth"), and perchloroethylene ("perc"). Unlike MCF and CFC-113, these chlorinated solvents have very short atmospheric lifetimes and are not considered to contribute to ozone depletion. However, all three have known toxicity problems and are regulated as Hazardous Air Pollutants under Title III of the Clean Air Act. They are also subject to stringent workplace standards set by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. Additionally, TCE and perc exhibit photochemical reactivity, and are regulated as smog precursors. The phase-out of CFC-113 and MCF has prompted a renewed interest in meth, TCE, and perc, despite these toxicity concerns. The three solvents are mostly viewed as potential metal cleaning substitutes, especially since they can be used in conventional vapor degreasing equipment. In fact, these three solvents were the preferred industrial solvents until concerns about their toxicity and anticipated lowering of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) resulted in a switch by some users to MCF. In response to such concerns, equipment vendors have now developed processes for using these solvents that significantly limit their emissions. The availability of such equipment has prompted environmental agencies in other western countries, such as Germany, to relax restrictions on the use of these chemicals. Such equipment, although expensive, can now be purchased in the United States. f. No-Clean Alternatives. No-clean alternatives involve the use of fluxes or cutting oils that need not be removed after the manufactured part is fully formed. It offers an efficient solution to the cleaning problem, since it sidesteps the cleaning process altogether. Water-removable products are products where the soils or fluxes can be removed using water as opposed to other types of solvents. In electronics cleaning, where these two approaches are in more widespread use, no-clean or water- removable alternatives rely either on special fluxes or on a soldering process that eliminates or reduces the residues otherwise removed through the cleaning step. g. Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are fully fluorinated compounds, unlike either CFCs, HCFCs or HFCs. These compounds are being discussed as part of innovative cleaning processes to replace ozone-depleting solvents. These processes would use an aqueous or solvent cleaner bath with a PFC vapor zone for rinsing and/or drying. Although these processes have the technical potential to meet a number of cleaning needs, the expense of the PFCs may limit wide-spread commercial interest in processes that use these compounds. The principal environmental characteristic of concern for the PFCs is that they have extremely long atmospheric lifetimes, often orders of magnitude longer than the CFCs. Environmental concerns associated with use of PFCs are discussed in the refrigerants chapter. Technology for containment and recycling of PFCs is commercially available and is recommended by manufacturers to offset any possible adverse environmental effects. h. Monochlorotoluene/chlorobenzotrifluorides. Monochlorotoluene and chlorobenzotrifluorides are of commercial interest as solvent substitutes in a variety of cleaning applications. These compounds can be used either in isolation or in various mixtures, depending on desired chemical properties. The Agency recently received information on these formulations, and will issue a SNAP determination for these substitutes in the next set of listing decisions. i. Volatile Methyl Siloxanes. Cyclic and linear volatile methyl siloxanes (VMSs) are currently undergoing investigation for use as substitutes for Class I compounds in electronics and precision cleaning. Because of their chemical properties, these compounds show promise as substitutes for cleaning precision guidance equipment in the defense and aerospace industries. In addition, the volatile methyl siloxanes have high purity and are therefore relatively easy to recover and recycle. In the cleaning process using VMS, the fluids are used to clean parts in a closed header system using a totally enclosed process. The parts are drained and then dried using vacuum baking. j. Supercritical Fluid Cleaning, Plasma Cleaning, UV-Ozone Cleaning. Supercritical fluid cleaning, plasma cleaning, UV- ozone cleaning are all three high-technology methods of cleaning parts. These substitutes are mostly of interest for cleaning electronic parts or for precision cleaning. k. Brominated Hydrocarbons. The Agency recently received notification that brominated hydrocarbons can be used as substitute cleaning agents, and will issue a SNAP determination on these chemicals in the next set of listing decisions. 3. Preliminary Listing Decisions a. Acceptable Substitutes. (1) Metals Cleaning.-(a) Semi- Aqueous/Aqueous Processes. Semi-aqueous and aqueous processes are approved as substitutes in metals cleaning. The determinations in this action cover semi-aqueous processes using terpenes, petroleum distillates, and alcohols. To complete its modeling of the ability of aqueous and semi- aqueous substitutes to replace CFC-113 and MCF in existing applications, the Agency examined their ability to meet the cleaning requirements posed in the metals cleaning sector. Each of these alternatives has the potential to service as much as 70 percent of the metals cleaning market. To date, companies have shown the greatest interest in aqueous cleaners for metals cleaning, which is why the Agency has made every effort to include review of this option in its first round of SNAP determinations. The concern with the water-based processes has historically been the potential for adverse effects on aquatic life following discharge of wastewaters to surface water bodies. Examples of these effects include death to aquatic microorganisms, fish teratogenicity, or ecosystem effects such as inhibition of algal growth or bioconcentration. In this case, the Agency wanted to ensure that, in restricting the use of CFC-113 and methyl chloroform, it would not simply be replacing risks from air emissions with equal risks from contaminated water effluent. To complete its risk analysis for the aqueous and semi-aqueous cleaners, the Agency developed a screening methodology designed to characterize risks presented by typical processes using these cleaners. The diversity of chemicals used in aqueous and semi- aqueous cleaning formulations turned this exercise into a complex undertaking. To complete its screen, the Agency projected concentrations in water for the "worst" or most toxic chemical that could be used in the water-based processes. These concentrations were based on the maximum possible concentration in the formulation and case studies documenting actual release profiles for several sample processes. The predicted concentrations obtained using this approach were then compared with toxicity values for this "worst" chemical. The risk screen performed by the Agency did show a potential for adverse effects on aquatic life due to the inherent toxicity of chemical constituents in the cleaners. These findings point to the need to control unnecessary and irresponsible discharge of these chemicals. However, the Agency believes that most risks presented by use of water-based processes can be controlled by adhering to requirements for wastewater treatment imposed by municipal or state authorities. In addition, the screen performed by the Agency that indicated the possibility of risks to aquatic life is likely to have overstated potential risks. For example, the screen did not account for several complex biological processes, including biodegradation and volatization. The Agency is developing scientific studies to address these factors, and believes that once these factors are incorporated that the risk screen will demonstrate clearly that the water-based processes present acceptable risks to aquatic life. The Agency believes that this approach to screening risks, although it does not examine the toxicity of each chemical and mixture or project exposures for each possible process, provides adequate perspective on the risks of these compounds compared with risks from the CFCs. The Agency solicits comment on this approach and data that could help refine the analysis of individual chemicals and mixtures. For example, the Agency's analysis did not specifically examine risks from mixtures of various chemicals where there could be synergistic effects. Although the Agency does not anticipate that such data would change the decision to list these substitutes as acceptable, the Agency hopes that a better understanding of ecological effects of such substitutes will enhance its ability to assist users in choosing among substitutes and among formulations. In an effort to further assist users in choosing substitutes with low environmental impacts, the Agency is currently developing a list of chemicals commonly used in the types of cleaners deemed acceptable under the SNAP program. The Agency encourages companies to ensure that substitutes sold as CFC-113/MCF replacements be formulated based on this list. In addition, the Agency urges companies to adopt closed-loop recycling and recovery systems wherever possible to limit discharge of these chemicals. Users should also note that EPA is preparing new effluent guidelines under the Clean Water Act for this industry. These guidelines, expected to be issued by 1994, will address any remaining, uncontrolled risks deriving from the use of water- based cleaners in this industry. (b) Organic Solvents. Organic solvents are acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the metals cleaning sector. Although these compounds can be toxic to human health, and are considered VOCs, the Agency's risk screen shows that these risks can be addressed through existing regulatory controls. In occupational settings where toxicity is a concern, such as for acetone or for certain ketones, OSHA has set Permissible Exposure Limits designed to control any risks. Similarly, controls exist for sources of VOC emissions, and the Agency's analysis indicates that increased use of the organic solvents would increase VOC levels in the troposphere by only very small amounts. (c) Other Chlorinated Solvents. Trichloroethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (perc) and methylene chloride (meth) are all acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the metals cleaning sector. These alternatives have the chemical properties to meet the cleaning needs of up to 80 percent of the metals cleaning sector, although the Agency anticipates that the actual market share for the non-ozone-depleting chlorinated solvents will not expand to the maximum extent feasible. Because of the high toxicity of these compounds, they have the potential to pose risks to workers and residents in nearby communities. However, the Agency's analysis of use of these compounds as cleaning agents indicates that these risks can be controlled by adhering to existing regulatory standards. OSHA has determined, for instance, that it is possible to use these solvents in a manner that minimizes risks to workers. To reach this conclusion, OSHA conducted extensive analyses of the toxicity and technical feasibility of using perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, or methylene chloride (54 FR 2329-2984, January 19, 1989, and 56 FR 57036-57141, November 7, 1991). OSHA found that the new Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 ppm for trichloroethylene was feasible in metal cleaning operations (54 FR 2433) and after conducting an extensive study of metal degreasing control technologies, NIOSH concluded that an exposure limit of 25 ppm for TCE could also be achieved. More recently, in its proposed standard for methylene chloride, OSHA found that a PEL of 25 ppm is technically feasible during metal cleaning operations with the use of appropriate local exhaust ventilation and work practices. Additionally, the Agency is in the process of addressing residual risks to the general population under Title III of the new Clean Air Act. Title III requires EPA to establish Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for use of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). All three non-OD chlorinated solvents are listed as HAPs, and the Agency expects to issue MACT rules governing their use as solvent cleaning agents by 1994. The Agency also believes that risks from waste generation due to use of these solvents are unlikely to be significantly different from risks of waste disposal of spent CFC-113 and methyl chloroform. The risks from spent cleaning solvents derive in large part from the soils removed in the cleaning process. Since the composition of the soils would not change as a result of substitution, risks are also not expected to increase significantly. The Agency also notes that the voluntary "33/50" program is encouraging companies to decrease emissions of TCE, perc, and meth, in addition to 14 other specific chemicals. Participating companies voluntarily commit to decreasing emissions 33 per cent by the end of 1992 and 50 per cent by the end of 1995, using pollution prevention strategies. The Agency is committed in the long term to urge companies to participate in pollution prevention programs such as "33/50", and continue to find new ways to use and emit less polluting and lower toxicity compounds. The Agency requests comment on the decision to list these compounds as acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF. (2) Electronics Cleaning (a) Semi-Aqueous/Aqueous Cleaners In the area of electronics cleaning, semi-aqueous and aqueous cleaners were deemed to be acceptable substitutes. The justification for this determination is described in the section on metals cleaning. In this case, the Agency estimated that up to eighty per cent of the cleaning market could be captured by semi-aqueous processes and that up to 60 per cent of the market could be served by aqueous cleaners. As in metals cleaning, the Agency urges companies to adopt pollution prevention practices and to formulate cleaners based on the cleaner constituent list. (b) No-Clean Substitutes. No-clean processes are acceptable substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals used in electronics cleaning. The Agency's analysis estimates that, over time, as much as seventy per cent of the electronics cleaning market could switch to no-clean processes-a projection that is borne out by the high degree of interest shown by electronics companies in these substitutes. Concerns for risks deriving from use of no-clean processes focus primarily on worker safety. To examine these risks, the Agency looked at critical factors that distinguish no-clean processes from conventional electronics assembly. These differences center on changes in the proportions of chemicals used in formulations, rather than on differences in the identity of chemicals selected. The analysis determined that occupational risks deriving from these differences are already well-documented and controlled, for example, through requirements specified on key Materials Safety Data Sheets and existing workplace regulations implemented by OSHA. Additionally, the shifts in proportions of chemicals used in the formulation result in less waste than is normally generated through the traditional manufacturing process, resulting in a lower probability of adverse effects to the general population. The Agency also investigated the production of waste before and after the actual cleaning process and found that waste generation at these points in the production process would not be affected. (c) Organic Solvents. Organic solvents are acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the electronics cleaning sector. The Agency's justification for this decision is described in the section on acceptable substitutes for metals cleaning. (d) Other Chlorinated Solvents. Trichloroethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (perc) and methylene chloride (meth) are all acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the electronics cleaning sector, for the reasons described in the metals cleaning discussion. Although these solvents have not received as much commercial interest for electronics cleaning as for metals cleaning applications, the Agency did receive a request to review and approve these chemicals for electronics cleaning. Although the Agency's risk screen focused on use of these chemicals in metals cleaning operations, the screen suggests that release profiles for these chemicals in electronics cleaning will be either the same or lower. As a result, the Agency has reached the same conclusion in the metals cleaning analysis, namely that any risks due to the inherent toxicity of these chemicals could be controlled by existing and future regulatory standards. However, the Agency has received some indication from industry experts that these solvents do not fill any special cleaning niche for the electronics industry. Based on a desire to control any unnecessary use of chemicals with such high inherent toxicity, the Agency requests comment on the availability of other alternatives and on whether there is a genuine need to use these chemicals in electronics cleaning applications. (e) Perfluorocarbons. Use of perfluorocarbons (PFCs) in spot- free cleaning and drying of high-performance computer components is an acceptable substitute in cases where no other alternative exists that meets performance or safety standards. This would not include defluxing of printed circuit boards or cleaning of standard metal parts, since many other viable alternatives exist for these applications. Global warming concerns associated with PFC use are discussed in the refrigerants chapter. Despite these concerns, the Agency has listed this niche application as an acceptable use of perfluorocarbons because it is aware that, for certain computer components, a PFC-based process may be the only viable process available to replace use of Class I or II compounds. For example, in manufacture of certain direct access storage devices (DASDs) for computers, spot-free cleaning and drying using PFCs appears at the present time to be the only cleaning process that yields the necessary product performance (as opposed to cosmetic appearance). To make the technical improvements demanded of the storage devices, such as faster access times and higher recording densities, companies have been required to use magnetically superior materials. These materials are extremely prone to corrosion from water and are vulnerable to any contamination introduced in the manufacturing process, such as organic or particulate matter. Consequently, the storage device itself must be a miniature "clean room" if it is to perform correctly. Manufacturers of some DASDs can use water-based cleaners in much of the production process, but may need to rely on the PFCs as water-displacement agents to achieve the required high degree of cleanliness while protecting the water-sensitive materials in the device. Another example of components where PFC-based cleaning may be necessary is data storage media. In cases where users must rely on PFCs due to lack of other options, they should make every effort to: Adopt closed systems and recover, recycle and destroy where possible Reduce emissions to a minimum through conservation practices that address idling losses, liquid dragout, and operator variables Continue to search for long-term alternatives. Examples of appropriate measures to reduce emissions include freeboard chillers, welded piping, and programmable handling devices. The Agency believes that it is reasonable to expect users to achieve favorable CFC/PFC replacement ratios since PFCs have relatively higher boiling points. In addition, the high price of PFCs makes additional containment cost-effective. Prospective users should also note that companies investigating PFC use currently contend that within 3-8 years, it will be possible to replace the PFCs in cleaning equipment with other chemicals that have zero ozone depletion potential and very low global warming potential. As a result, they view use of the PFCs as an important but transitional solution to their cleaning needs. If PFCs are chosen, it is important for users to begin working with chemical manufacturers to start testing and qualifying these new materials to help speed conversion when the chemicals become commercially available. In addition to the case cited earlier, the Agency is examining other possible necessary uses for PFCs as rinse agents to follow a water-free cleaning process or as drying or rinsing agents to follow a water-based cleaning process. Parts typically cleaned in these applications are characterized by vulnerable substrates, complex geometries, and exceptionally stringent cleanliness standards and include: Precision mechanical or electro-mechanical parts such as gyroscopes and accelerometers with complex structures and capillary spaces that could trap water or solvent residue Plastic parts with embedded iron or parts made from steel, lead or other materials subject to corrosion, oxidation or other damage from water (e.g., gallium arsenide, silicon nitride or magnesium parts) Plastic parts for the medical industry where extremely rigorous standards of cleanliness are necessary to ensure patient survival (e.g., kidney dialysis, implants, etc.) Electro-optical devices for weapon-targeting systems Ceramic or other porous materials for military, medical, safety or other high-value products, where any conductive residue could interfere with the component's performance Temperature-sensitive materials that cannot maintain component integrity at aqueous drying temperatures (e.g., where loss of dimensional stability is at issue) High-performance analytical devices where any residue could interfere with equipment accuracy. The Agency solicits comment on the need to use PFCs in these applications or in any other specialized cleaning applications. In addition, the Agency seeks comment on the availability, performance, and economic feasibility of any cleaning alternatives that would eliminate the need for PFCs in these applications. (f) Supercritical Fluid Cleaning, Plasma Cleaning, UV-Ozone Cleaning. Supercritical fluid cleaning, plasma cleaning, UV- ozone cleaning are all approved as substitutes in electronics cleaning. The Agency did not identify any environmental issues associated with use of these substitutes. Ozone is hazardous to human health, however, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has already set standards for use of this compound in the workplace. (3) Precision Cleaning. (a) Semi-Aqueous/Aqueous Processes. Semi-aqueous and aqueous processes are approved for precision cleaning. The reasons for this decision are the same as those described in the metals cleaning section. Each of these alternatives has the potential to service approximately 65 per cent of the precision cleaning market. This figure may overestimate the technical potential for water-based processes in this sector, since industry feedback indicates that this end use sector faces the greatest technical constraints in implementing new cleaning alternatives. The Agency did not specifically examine risks from water- based processes used in precision cleaning. Instead, the analysis assumed that these risks would be either comparable to or less than risks associated with use of water-based processes for electronics cleaning. (b) Other Chlorinated Solvents. These alternatives, for reasons described in the section on metals cleaning, are deemed acceptable substitutes for precision cleaning. For the analysis of risks from these substitutes in the precision cleaning end use sector, the Agency made the same assumptions as in its analysis for electronics cleaning applications of water-based processes, namely that exposures would be equal or less than exposures in the metals cleaning sector. Consequently, the Agency believes that risks would also be either equal or less. (c) Organic Solvents. Organic solvents are acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the precision cleaning sector. The Agency's justification for this decision is described in the section on acceptable substitutes for metals cleaning. (d) Perfluorocarbons. Use of perfluorocarbons (PFCs) in spot- free cleaning and drying of high-performance computer components is an acceptable substitute in cases where no other alternative exists that meets performance or safety standards. This would not include defluxing of printed circuit boards or cleaning of standard metal parts. While the Agency is concerned about increased uses of PFCs due to global warming concerns as discussed in the refrigerants chapter, it believes that cases exist where a PFC-based process may be the only process available to replace use of Class I or II compounds. These cases are discussed in the section on acceptable substitutes for electronics cleaning. (e) Supercritical Fluid Cleaning, Plasma Cleaning, UV-Ozone Cleaning. Supercritical fluid cleaning, plasma cleaning, UV- ozone cleaning are all approved as substitutes in precision cleaning. The Agency did not identify any environmental issues associated with use of these substitutes. Ozone is hazardous to human health, however, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has already set standards for use of this compound in the workplace. b. Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes (1) Metals Cleaning. (a) HCFC-141b and its Blends HCFC-141b and its blends are proposed to be prohibited as substitutes for CFC-113/MCF in metals cleaning, with limited critical use exceptions for CFC-113 replacements. The proposed effective date for this prohibition is 30 days after the date of the final rule for new equipment and as of January 1, 1996, for existing equipment. As discussed earlier in this action in Section VI.A., the Agency is authorized to grandfather existing uses from a proposed prohibition where appropriate under the four-part test established in Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. The Agency has conducted the four analyses required under this test, and it has concluded that the balance of equities favors a grandfathering period of two years for existing equipment in this application. The prohibition proposed in this action clearly represents a departure from previously established practice, as use of the substitute was allowed previously. Existing users of HCFC-141b who switched from Class I substances into this solvent invested in this substitute on the assumption that it would be a sufficient improvement. Prohibiting their use of the substitute immediately would impose a severe economic burden on these users. These factors taken together outweigh any statutory interest in applying the new rule immediately to existing users. This is especially true since the restriction applies immediately to new equipment using HCFC-141b, which creates no incentive for continued investment in equipment using HCFC-141b in this application. The Agency's basis for proposing to restrict use of HCFC- 141b is that this compound has a comparatively high ODP-0.11. This is the highest ODP of all the HCFCs; in fact, the ODP for 141b is nearly equal to the ODP for MCF (0.12). For this reason, the Agency proposes not to grant any exceptions for replacing MCF with 141b, since using 141b in place of MCF would negate the environmental benefits that the phase-out was designed to achieve. To analyze the impacts from use of 141b as a CFC-113 replacement, the Agency estimated 141b use over time in each of the cleaning end uses, and projected health effects due to ozone depletion with the help of the Atmospheric Stabilization Framework model. The modeling period starts in 1990 and measures health effects expected for people born before 2030. The findings of this modeling show adverse health effects of the magnitude commonly associated with the use of ozone-depleting compounds. For example, in the case of metals cleaning, the Agency projected that use of HCFC-141b to replace MCF where technically feasible could yield approximately 40,000 additional skin cancer cases and approximately 1,000 additional skin cancer fatalities compared to use of non-ozone-depleting substitutes. The Agency believes that these figures and the availability of superior substitutes as described in the section on acceptable substitutes justify the proposal to list 141b as an unacceptable substitute. The Agency believes that, in almost all applications, other solvent cleaning substitutes are available that meet industry performance and safety criteria. To reach its decision on 141b use, the Agency also took into account the cost of other alternatives. The analysis suggested that, although 141b can be used with modification to existing equipment, the capital costs for the retrofit and the materials costs in combination would be so high as to render other alternatives comparatively affordable, even though they require new equipment. Readers should note that 141b will be restricted as a substitute only where other alternatives exist to CFC-113 for the application in question. Several companies have already contacted the Agency, indicating that they have tested available alternatives to CFC- 113, and that in some cases only HCFC-141b meets performance or safety criteria. The most commonly cited reasons for needing to use HCFC-141b are either applications where a non-flammable solvent is required for cleaning operational equipment or where sensitive parts could be destroyed by use of other cleaning processes. For these applications of 141b, which the Agency refers to as "critical uses," users may receive an exemption from the SNAP restrictions. Procedures for receiving a critical use exemption are described in Section VIII.F. of today's Preamble. Companies interested in these exemptions who believe they may qualify are encouraged to review this section. Companies who have already notified the Agency and requested permission for continued use of 141b will be contacted after this proposal so that the Agency can issue a formal critical use determination. Companies should note that uses of 141b in existing solvent cleaning equipment would be permitted to continue until two years after the date of the final rule, as discussed above. The Agency solicits comment on the proposed effective date. The Agency believes that the decision to restrict 141b use as a CFC-113/MCF substitute for metals cleaning will have little effect on industry since few vendors of HCFC 141b have been selling 141b as a metals cleaning substitute. Companies in this end use sector that want to replace CFC-113 with 141b and feel they qualify for an exemption should review the section referenced above. The Agency expects to receive few such petitions, however, since most metals cleaning is currently performed with MCF. (2) Electronics Cleaning. (a) HCFC-141b and its Blends HCFC-141b and its blends are proposed to be prohibited as substitutes for CFC-113/MCF in electronics cleaning, with limited critical use exceptions for CFC-113 replacements. The reasons for this prohibition are the same as those for the decision on 141b as a metals cleaning substitute. As in the metals cleaning sector, the Agency proposes to grant limited critical use exemptions to this prohibition. The proposed effective date for this prohibition is 30 days after the date of the final rule for new equipment and January 1, 1996 for existing equipment. As discussed earlier in this action in Section VI.A., the Agency is authorized to grandfather existing uses from a proposed prohibition where appropriate under the four-part test established in Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. The Agency has conducted the four analyses required under this test, and it has concluded that the balance of equities favors a grandfathering period of two years for existing equipment in this application. The prohibition proposed in this action clearly represents a departure from previously established practice, as use of the substitute was allowed previously. Existing users of HCFC-141b who switched from Class I substances into this solvent invested in this substitute on the assumption that it would be considered an acceptable substitute. It would impose a severe economic burden on these users to prohibit their use of the substitute immediately, with no provision of time to allow them to recover their investment in existing equipment or acquire new equipment in a timely fashion. These factors taken together appear to outweigh any statutory interest in applying the new rule immediately to existing users, especially since the restriction would apply immediately to new equipment using HCFC-141b, which would serve to prevent further ozone depletion from use of HCFC-141b in this application. As with metals cleaning applications for 141b, the Agency modeled potential 141b use in electronics cleaning applications over time, and projected health effects due to ozone depletion with the help of the Atmospheric Stabilization Framework model. For electronics cleaning, the maximum market penetration for 141b as a replacement for CFC-113 is 90 per cent. With this penetration, the model predicted approximately 400 additional skin cancer fatalities and 30,000 additional skin cancer cases compared to uses of non-ozone-depleting substitutes. (3) Precision Cleaning. (a) HCFC-141b For the same reasons described in the section on metals cleaning, HCFC-141b and its blends are proposed to be prohibited as substitutes for CFC-113/MCF in precision cleaning, with limited critical use exemptions for CFC-113 replacements. The proposed effective date for this prohibition is 30 days after the date of the final rule for new equipment and as of January 1, 1996, for existing equipment. As discussed earlier in this action in Section VI.A., the Agency is authorized to grandfather existing uses from a proposed prohibition where appropriate under the four-part test established in Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. The Agency has conducted the four analyses required under this test, and it has concluded that the balance of equities favors a grandfathering period of two years for existing equipment in this application. The prohibition proposed in this action clearly represents a departure from previously established practice, as use of the substitute was allowed previously. Existing users of HCFC-141b who switched from Class I substances into this solvent invested in this substitute on the assumption that it would be considered an acceptable substitute. It would impose a severe economic burden on these users to prohibit their use of the substitute immediately, with no provision of time to allow them to recover their investment in existing equipment or acquire new equipment in a timely fashion. These factors taken together outweigh any statutory interest in applying the new rule immediately to existing users, especially since the restriction would apply immediately to new equipment using HCFC- 141b, which would serve to prevent further ozone depletion from use of HCFC-141b in this application. In the case of precision cleaning uses of HCFC-141b, the Agency's modeling of 141b use as a CFC-113 replacement projected approximately 5,000 additional skin cancer cases when compared to use of non-ozone-depleting substitutes. As in the case of other cleaning applications, the Agency proposes to prohibit substitutions of 141b to replace MCF, since these compounds have nearly identical ODPs. Here again, Agency will propose to grant a limited number of critical use exemptions. Companies in this sector wishing to replace CFC-113 with 141b that may qualify for an exemption should review the section in today's Preamble on critical use exemption petitions. The Agency expects most requests for permission to use 141b will come from this end use sector, and has already received a number of inquiries from companies that either use or want to use 141b as a substitute for cleaning with CFC-113. G. Halons 1. Overview. Halons are gaseous or easily vaporizable halocarbons used primarily for putting out fires, but also for explosion protection. The two halons used most widely in the United States are Halons 1211 (chlorodifluorobromomethane) and 1301 (trifluorobromomethane). Halon 1211 is used primarily in streaming applications in which it is manually dispensed through a nozzle from a hand-held or portable extinguisher. Halon 1301 is used in total flooding and explosion protection applications in which a predetermined quantity of the gas is dispensed into a fixed location in order to achieve a specific extinguishing concentration of gas. The principal use for Halon 1211 is in handheld extinguishers in fixed facilities such as homes, offices, and military and government buildings. A small percentage of handheld 1211 extinguishers are also used on aircraft in accordance with FAA regulations. Portable systems are used by military and commercial "crash/rescue" teams at airports. In order to evaluate 1211 substitutes in the variety of applications described above, the Agency has divided streaming applications into three categories: residential, commercial/industrial, and military. This subdivision of the sector allows the Agency to properly account for differences in the types of fires likely to be encountered and in the types of proposed extinguishers. Halon 1301 systems are used in combination with automatic fire detection equipment as total flooding agents in contained areas. Most Halon 1301 total flooding systems are used to protect electronics facilities, such as computer rooms and telecommunications switching facilities. Halon 1301 is also used to protect oil production facilities, records storage facilities, aircraft cargo bays, flammable liquid storage facilities, laboratories, public places such as libraries, museums, shopping malls and tourist facilities, and much more. Halon total flooding systems are particularly important in protecting normally unoccupied facilities, where typically no personnel are present to detect and extinguish fires. Halon total flooding systems are also used in occupied areas in which large numbers of workers or large capital investments may be at risk. In this latter case, precautions must be taken to avoid exposing occupants to toxic levels of extinguishant. Typically, these chemicals are used in conjunction with fire detection devices, alarm devices to warn occupants of impending discharge, as well as manual abort mechanisms to delay discharge until occupants are evacuated or to prevent accidental discharges. Some systems also incorporate a `lockout' mechanism to prevent discharge of agent in the event personnel must enter the area in an emergency. Some occupational or military settings involve flammable liquids or vapors (Class B fires) where the speed of the potential fire event precludes evacuation prior to discharge. The design of a system that reacts quickly to the threat of fire or explosion must consider the effects of human exposure to the fire suppression agent. Halon 1301 can also be used in explosion protection applications which include explosion inertion and explosion suppression. In inertion, the atmosphere is filled with an explosion protection agent at the concentration needed to prevent an explosion. The inerting agent must disperse uniformly and remain at the required concentration for a specified amount of time. Effective inertion systems require the timely detection of conditions likely to cause an explosion. In suppression, an agent is discharged to mitigate an explosion, or deflagration, that has already begun. The agent must surround the expanding fireball at a specified concentration. Both inertion and suppression require rapid discharge of agent, often without providing time for evacuation of personnel. Again, possible exposure of occupants to toxic levels of the compound must be carefully controlled and balanced against the risk of explosion. Some limited use of Halon 2402 also exists in the United States, but only as an extinguishant in engine nacelles (the streamlined enclosure surrounding the engine) on older aircraft and in the guidance system of Minuteman missiles. Halons also find limited application in other use sectors such as plasma etching. Decisions proposed in this notice do not address these other sectors, but instead focus on fire protection applications which comprise the vast majority of halon applications. Halons are used in a wide range of fire protection applications because they combine five characteristics. First, they are highly effective against solid, liquid/gaseous, and electrical fires (referred to as Class A, B, and C fires, respectively). Second, they are clean agents; that is, they dissipate rapidly, leaving no residue and therefore do not cause "secondary damage" to the property they are protecting. Third, halons do not conduct electricity and can be used in areas containing live electrical equipment. Fourth, halons are gaseous substances that can penetrate in and around physical objects to extinguish fires in otherwise inaccessible areas. Finally, halons are generally safe for limited human exposure when used with proper exposure controls. Despite these advantages, halons are among the most ozone depleting chemicals in use today. Halon 1301 has an estimated ODP of 16; Halon 1211 has an estimated ODP of 4. Thus, while total halon production (measured in metric tons) comprised just 2 per cent of the total production of Class I substances in 1986, halons represented 23 per cent of the total estimated ozone depletion potential of CFCs and halons combined. Halons therefore make up the largest use sector in terms of ozone depleting potential. The greatest releases of halon into the atmosphere occur not in extinguishing fires, but during testing and training, service and repair, and accidental discharges. Data generated as part of the Montreal Protocol's technology assessment indicate that only 15 per cent of annual Halon 1211 emissions and 18 per cent of Halon 1301 emissions occur as a result of use to extinguish actual fires. These figures indicate that significant gains can be made in protecting the ozone layer by revising testing and training procedures and by limiting unnecessary discharges through better detection and dispensing systems for halon and halon alternative systems. Additional information on specific halon uses can be found in the Montreal Protocol 1991 Assessment or in other background material in the public docket. The initial determinations found in this section are based on the risk screen described in the draft background document entitled "Characterization of Risk from the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: Fire Extinguishing and Protection (Halon Substitutes)." 2. Substitutes for Halons. The fire protection community has made considerable progress in identifying and developing substitutes for halons in fire protection applications. Several manufacturers have submitted information regarding substitute streaming and total flooding agents, and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has initiated efforts to develop standards for their use in total flooding scenarios. In addition, manufacturers are seeking Underwriters Laboratories (UL) and Factory Mutual (FM) certification for systems employing the new agents. The Agency's review of halon substitutes is intended not to replace, but to complement the guidance of the fire protection community in directing the transition away from halons to substitutes that are less destructive to the stratosphere. Most recent efforts to develop substitutes for halon have focused primarily on halocarbon chemicals. These are considered potential "replacements" for halon because they possess halonlike properties (gaseous, non-conducting) and because they can be used on Class A, B, and C fires. These halocarbon replacements can be distinguished by the mechanism by which they extinguish fires. Chemical action agents, like halons, suppress fires by interfering with the free radical chain reactions that sustain a fire. Physical action agents cool, dilute, or smother the fire (separating the air and fuel). In general, chemical action agents are much more effective fire suppressants than physical action agents. Halocarbons represent only a portion of agents available for fire protection. Water mist or fog is a newly developing technology that uses fine water droplets to suppress and extinguish fires. Studies indicate that water mist can be used in a wide variety of applications for occupied and unoccupied areas including electronics, machinery spaces, enclosed spaces, etc. Several other "alternative" agents such as water, carbon dioxide, foam, and dry chemicals are already in widespread use as fire extinguishants and can be expected to find limited use as substitutes for halon. Unlike some halocarbons, these alternative agents are not effective against all types of fire. They do not all have the same penetration capability, nor are they all non-conducting and non-toxic. Thus, each can be used only in specified applications as directed by manufacturers and by fire protection authorities such as the NFPA. However, these alternatives should seriously be considered as appropriate replacements to halons where systems are being redesigned. Substitutes for halons, whether other halocarbons or alternatives such as water, must meet four general criteria. They must be effective fire protection agents, have an acceptable environmental impact, have low toxicity, and they must be relatively clean or volatile. In addition, they must be commercially available as a halon replacement in the near future. The halon sector requires special evaluation of consumer and worker exposures to discharges of halon substitutes during fire emergencies and accidental discharges. In these acute, episodic exposures to the halon substitutes, cardiac sensitization is of particular interest. The term cardiac sensitization refers to an increased susceptibility of the heart to adrenaline (or other catecholamines) which may result in potentially fatal heart arrhythmias. Human heart arrhythmias and sudden deaths resulting from overexposure to CFCs, halons, and other halogenated hydrocarbons have been documented in workplace settings, and in volatile substance abuse (i.e. glue-sniffing). Several studies involving human exposure in a laboratory setting establish the potential significance for human health of animal data on cardiac sensitization. (See the background document "Characterization of Risk from the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: Fire Extinguishing and Protection" for more details.) Evaluating the safety of potential halon substitutes requires the measurement of the No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level (NOAEL) and the Lowest- Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level (LOAEL) of cardiac sensitization in an appropriate species, usually the dog. The Agency uses the NOAEL value as the basis to ensure protection to the worker population. The determination of the safety of either a flooding or streaming agent substitute is also dependent on a number of other related factors. For total flood systems, the magnitude of exposure will depend on the design concentration of the flooding agent (as determined by the substitute's extinguishing concentration plus 20 percent, as specified by NFPA guidelines) and the length of time it takes a person to evacuate the area in which the agent is released. Because total flood systems are designed to achieve a uniform concentration of agent within a space, the magnitude of exposure is independent of the size of space, size of fire, or proximity of person to the fire. In assessing exposure and consequent use restrictions, the design concentration of a total flood substitute is compared to its cardiotoxic NOAEL and LOAEL levels. Generally, if the design concentration is higher than the agent's NOAEL level, conditions are placed on the use of the agent to ensure human safety. For example, if the NOAEL is 1 percent and the LOAEL is 2.5 percent, but the substitute requires 4 percent concentration to extinguish a fire, all personnel must be evacuated from an area before the concentration exceeds the 2.5 percent LOAEL. If there is a possibility that someone must enter a room while the agent is likely to exceed the NOAEL level, Self Contained Breathing Apparatuses (SCBA) must be worn in accordance with OSHA safety requirements. In contrast, exposure to substitute streaming agents can be expected to vary greatly depending on the amount of agent released, the time needed to extinguish a fire, the size of the room or enclosure in which a fire occurs, the size of the fire, the proximity of the person to the point of discharge of the agent, the rate at which fresh air infiltrates the space, and the air exchange rate near the fire. Assessment of exposure in streaming applications is much more complicated and requires development of a model and testing of the values assumed for the variables described above. The resulting modeled peak exposure rate is compared to the NOAEL in our assessments. For some proposed substitutes, the Agency requires personal monitoring data in order to complete the assessment. Evaluating halon substitutes also requires assessing the efficacy of substitute agents. The efficacy of a fire protection agent can be measured by the extinguishing concentration required to put out a burning fire. With substitutes for handheld extinguishers and for total flood systems on weight-constrained systems (such as aircraft and space systems), designers are also concerned with the weight of substitute required to replace the halon. This factor is referred to as the weight equivalency ratio and relates the number of pounds of substitute required to replace each pound of halon to achieve the same fire extinguishing capability. In other applications, such as with existing equipment, required storage volume for a substitute is of greatest concern. This quantity can be measured by the storage volume equivalency ratio which is defined as the ratio of the storage volume of substitute to the storage volume of halon required to achieve the same fire extinguishing capability. These three measures will be used throughout this proposed rule to evaluate halon substitutes. After concluding the analysis of alternatives to halon, the Agency in some cases proposes to approve the use of an agent contingent on certain conditions. In implementing its use of conditions, the Agency has sought to avoid overlap with other existing regulatory authorities. EPA has taken a number of steps to mitigate this potential for duplication. First, EPA intends to limit the use of conditions to cases in which clear regulatory gaps exist. Second, these existing regulatory gaps must render the use of a substitute an unreasonable risk in the absence of any additional controls. Third, in the limited cases in which conditions may be necessary, the Agency will impose them only after going through formal notice-and-comment rulemaking. Finally, the Agency intends to withdraw existing conditions when they are superseded by appropriate regulatory controls under other authorities. The Agency, however, requests comment on the general issue of the need for use of conditions. In particular, EPA requests comment on whether section 612 in fact confers upon the Agency the authority to go beyond the listing of acceptable and unacceptable alternatives and to set such use conditions; and on the capability and practicality of EPA enforcing use conditions which may, for example, closely resemble workplace safety standards which are typically within the enforcement purview of other regulatory authorities. EPA also requests comment on whether, when an unreasonable risk might exist due to a gap in regulatory coverage, the appropriate means to address these risks is through the existing regulatory framework of other federal authorities. For example, rather than using EPA's use conditions to address existing gaps in workplace safety standards, EPA could refer the matter to the appropriate OSHA authorities and request appropriate action to mitigate an otherwise unreasonable risk.{4} ³{4} 29 USC 654, OSHA General Duty Clause, requires that ³each employer "shall furnish to each of his employees ³employment and a place of employment which are free from ³recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to ³cause death or serious physical harm to his employees. ³* * * " Alternatively, where the length of time required to address a problem under another authority may be unacceptably long given the nature of the risk, there may be cases in which EPA would simply consider unacceptable the use of a given substitute, pending the development of a regulatory framework to control the risk it poses in its use as a substitute for an ozone-depleting compound. Finally, EPA requests comment on the use of conditions where no regulatory gap, per se, exists, but where the use of an alternative poses risk to the public. By imposing such conditions, EPA would be establishing a new regulatory framework where one did not previously exist. For example, explosion inertion agents are not currently regulated by OSHA or any other regulatory body. However, design concentrations for systems protecting from explosion of various gases or flammable liquids may expose personnel to cardiotoxic levels of inertion agents. While the Agency is not currently proposing to place conditions for the use of alternatives in occupied areas, it may do so in the final rule subject to public comment as well as further analysis with agencies such as OSHA and OMB. EPA could place a condition for use of alternative agents in occupied areas which would identify the cardiotoxic LOAEL and would prohibit design concentrations that exceed that level. The primary candidate substitutes for halons in fire protection applications are discussed below by category. No SNAP submissions have been received for substitutes to replace halons in explosion suppression applications. However, in the listing decisions, explosion suppression is included with the explosion inertion decisions. The Agency is requesting comment on this. a. Brominated Hydrofluorocarbons.-Brominated hydrofluorocarbons (HBFCs) are an effective halon substitute. Because these substances contain bromine, they act as chemical action agents in the same manner as the halons. In fact, some HBFCs are more effective than Halons 1211 and 1301 in specific applications. For this reason, HBFCs can replace Halons 1211 and 1301 on nearly a one- to-one basis and appear to have significant applicability in existing systems. However, the presence of bromine also means that these agents have higher ozone-depleting potentials than other halon substitutes. At this time, only one HBFC, HBFC-22B1, is expected to be commercially available in the near term. Extinguishment testing indicates that HBFC-22B1 can replace Halon 1211 at a ratio of 1.08 by weight, making it a substitute for handheld extinguishers. HBFC-22B1 can also replace Halon 1301 at a ratio of 1.4 by weight and 1.3 by storage volume, making it technically suitable for use in existing total flood systems. HBFC-22B1 can, however, serve only as an interim substitute for halons. The substance has an estimated ODP of 0.74 and will soon be added to the list of Class I substances in accordance with section 602(d) of the Clean Air Act. Under the Montreal Protocol, production of HBFC-22B1 is required to be completely phased out by January 1, 1996. In addition, this agent was submitted to the Agency as a Premanufacture Notice (PMN) and is presently subject to requirements contained in a Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) section 5(e) Consent Order and associated Significant New Use Rule (40 CFR 721.1296). The provisions of today's proposed rule do not supersede those of the TSCA regulations presently in effect, and readers should note that, at present, the terms of the TSCA requirements are more restrictive than the provisions of this rule. b. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons A number of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) have also been suggested as halon replacements. These include HCFC-22, HCFC- 123, and HCFC-124. These HCFCs are effective fire-fighting agents, but because they are physical action agents, they are considerably less effective than halons or HBFCs and thus exhibit high extinguishing concentrations. Further, although the ozone depletion potential of HCFCs is considerably lower than that of either halons or HBFCs, they are listed as Class II chemicals under the Clean Air Act and their production will be phased out. As a result, these chemicals can serve only as interim halon substitutes. HCFC-22 has been suggested as a total flooding agent. HCFC- 22 has a low acute toxicity, but its ODP (0.05) is higher than other candidate HCFCs. The extinguishing concentration is 11.6 percent, the highest of the candidate HCFCs, while its cardiotoxicity LOAEL is 5.0 percent. It also is somewhat inferior in terms of weight and storage volume equivalents. For these reasons, this compound is unlikely to be used as a single agent. HCFC-123 is being considered as a streaming agent to replace Halon 1211. Because of its relatively high effectiveness, HCFC- 123 could replace Halon 1211 at a ratio of 1.8 by weight-a figure considerably better than that of most other streaming substitutes. HCFC-123 has the lowest ODP of all the HCFCs proposed as halon substitutes, and its global warming potential (GWP) is half that of other proposed HCFC substitutes. However, HCFC-123, has a cardiotoxic level of 2.0 percent in the dog, with no effect apparent at 1.0 percent. Potential users have expressed concern about using HCFC-123, or blends containing HCFC-123 as the primary constituent, in small enclosed areas. However, actual exposures were assessed using personal monitoring, and the Agency concludes that likely exposure levels do not exceed safe levels. HCFC-124 is being considered as both a total flooding agent and a streaming agent, both alone and in blends. HCFC-124 demonstrates average performance compared to other halon substitutes as a fire extinguishant and has relatively low ODP and GWP values. Testing indicates that the substance may be lethal at levels ranging from 24 percent to 36 percent. Cardiotoxicity occurs in the dog at 2.5 percent with no effect apparent at 1.0 percent. Potential users express concerns regarding exposures in small enclosed spaces. c. Hydrofluorocarbons. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) have also been suggested as halon substitutes. HFCs are physical action agents and are less effective than halons or HBFCs. Due to their reduced efficacy, considerably larger storage volumes are required for use in fire protection systems. Their great advantage over halons, HBFCs, and HCFCs is that HFCs have an ozone depletion potential of zero. However, when exposed to fires, HFCs potentially decompose into greater amounts of hydrogen fluoride (HF) than do HCFCs, depending on the number of fluorines in the molecule. Discharge of these chemicals onto a fire must be rapid to prevent the buildup of large amounts of these decomposition products. In addition, some HFCs can potentially contribute to global warming. The Agency examines the atmospheric lifetime and global warming potential (GWP) of each substitute to establish a risk balanced listing decision. If an agent's atmospheric lifetime or GWP is unusually large relative to other available substitutes, the use of these agents may be allowed only for specific limited uses to prevent widespread adoption. HFC-23, HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, and HFC-227ea have all been proposed as total flooding agents. HFC-227ea has also been proposed as a streaming agent. Required extinguishing concentrations vary from 5.9 percent for HFC-227ea to 12.4 percent for HFC- 23. Required storage volumes will vary from 2.5 to 4.5 times that required for 1301. Weight equivalency ratios compared to 1301 vary from 1.1 for HFC-32 to 2.65 for HFC-125. All have low acute toxicity levels. Not all of these substances have been fully investigated for commercialization. Specifically, HFC-32 is considered flammable with a flammability range that is very large, and would probably require blending with another material to make a nonflammable mixture. d. Perfluorocarbons.-Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are effective fire protection agents, having the lowest required extinguishing concentration of any of the suggested substitutes other than HBFCs. However, these compounds have high molecular weights which create weight and storage replacement ratios that are somewhat higher than the HCFCs and many of the HFC candidates. Two PFCs have been submitted as halon replacements: perfluorobutane (FC 3-1-10) as a total flood replacement for Halon 1301, and perfluorohexane (FC 5-1-14) as a Halon 1211 replacement primarily for USAF flightline applications. As discussed in the section on refrigerants, PFCs are of concern due to long atmospheric lifetimes and their potential to contribute to global warming. The intent of SNAP is to reduce the overall risk to health and the environment. Since there is no other regulatory authority controlling the emissions of such long-lived agents, the Agency intends to take conservative decisions regarding substances with the potential to cause significant environmental, and ultimately human health, impacts. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to prohibit discharge testing and training with these agents, and to require recapture and recycling in order to minimize emissions of these agents. Eighty to eighty- five percent of all halon emissions are due to testing, training, leakage and accidental discharge, and it is likely that such emission patterns will occur with the alternative agents as well. In addition, the Agency proposes to allow use of PFCs only for applications involving critical military uses, the protection of public safety or national security, or life support functions. The Agency invites comment about the niche these agents can best serve in light of the fact that the Agency seeks to prevent their widespread use. The Agency specifically invites comment on the cost of these restrictions and benefits in terms of reduced potential for global warming. e. Chlorofluorocarbons.-Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have also been proposed as halon alternatives, either individually or in blends. However, since production of CFCs is to be phased out by the end of 1995, sufficient quantities of recycled CFC would have to be available for halon applications, making it improbable that significant shifts to these compounds will occur. CFCs are relatively effective fire extinguishants and have well- understood toxicity characteristics. While CFCs deplete stratospheric ozone, their ODPs are significantly lower that those of Halons 1211 and 1301. f. Blends.-A number of manufacturers have proposed proprietary blends of chemicals for fire protection applications. These blends combine a variety of CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs, PFCs, inert gases, and other additives to achieve desired levels of effectiveness, toxicity, and decomposition products. Most of these blends have non-zero ODPs and GWPs. Toxicity varies with the exact composition of the blend. Where possible, the Agency has examined both the blend and its individual constituents. Characteristics of the overall combination, in some cases, were examined to estimate a weighted average of the characteristics of the individual components. g. Non-halocarbon Alternative Agents. Non-halocarbon alternative agents such as CO2, dry chemical, foams, inert gas blends and water that are currently in widespread use may also be used as substitutes for halon. However, as noted above, these agents are not as widely applicable as are the halons and must be used in end uses recommended by the manufacturers and approved by standard-setting entities such as the NFPA. CO2 can be used as a streaming or a total flooding agent. In the past, CO2 systems were used in many of the applications now served by halons. As a total flooding agent, CO2 has an extinguishing concentration ten times that of Halon 1301 and requires 1.4 times the storage volume required by 1301 systems; it is also an asphyxiant in the concentrations required for total flooding. Streaming CO2 extinguishers must also be larger and heavier than 1211 extinguishers and have no Class A fire rating. Additionally, depending on the exposure characteristics discussed above, CO2 may reach dangerous levels in small areas. One manufacturer has developed a blend of CO2 mixed with inert gases as a Halon 1301 substitute in total flood systems. This agent would not be considered a `drop in' replacement due to its high extinguishing concentration. As it is a non-reactive, non-halocarbon substance, and thus is not carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic, the toxicity and cardiotoxicity tests normally applied to halon substitutes do not apply here. Rather, this agent is a potential asphyxiant. It is designed to decrease the oxygen level to 12 to 14 per cent, at which combustion cannot be supported. OSHA requires oxygen levels to be at least 19.5 per cent for human safety. It has been suggested that this particular blend increases breathing rates, thus making the oxygen deficient atmosphere breathable for short periods of time. Data submitted by the manufacturer was peer-reviewed by pulmonary, cardiac, and stroke specialists. All have agreed that the blend does not pose significant risk to the working population and may even pose less risk than does exposure to halocarbon agents. Dry chemical extinguishers are suitable for Class A, B, and some Class C fires. Total flooding systems using dry chemical are rare, but some "localized applications" exist around deep fat fryers and textile machines. Generally, dry chemical extinguishers are more effective than halons, but dry chemical is not a clean agent and cannot be used without potentially damaging precision machinery and other equipment. Water is an effective fire protection agent that can be used with either total flooding or streaming systems. Water is primarily a Class A fire extinguishant, but can be used against Class B when applied as a fine mist. Water also produces a cooling effect that prevents re-ignition. Water, typically cannot be used against Class C electrical fires and may cause considerable secondary damage in some applications. However, a promising new technology incorporates fine water droplets to create a water mist or fog. It has been suggested that water mist systems are safe for use on Class A and B fires, and even on Class C electrical fires without causing secondary damage. Foams are extremely effective in extinguishing flammable liquids (Class B fires) and to some degree against Class A fires. Portable and handheld systems are available for use as streaming agents, but high- and medium-expansion foams are also marketed for total flooding applications in inaccessible areas (such as between floors or in marine machinery spaces). Use of high- and medium-density foams can be dangerous in large, cluttered or hazardous enclosures in which people might be present, but foams are not typically considered toxic. Nevertheless, foams can cause secondary damage and, due to their water content, cannot be used with electrical fires. They do not penetrate as well as gaseous agents. 3. Preliminary Listing Decisions In order to evaluate the acceptability of proposed halon substitutes, the Agency divided the fire protection sector into six end-uses: (1) Residential/Consumer Streaming Agents, (2) Commercial/Industrial Streaming Agents, (3) Military Streaming Agents, (4) Total Flooding Agents for Occupied Areas, (5) Total Flooding Agents for Unoccupied Areas, and (6) Explosion Inertion. The table in Appendix B provides a summary of decisions by end use. For some substitutes, data required by the Agency to complete a risk assessment is not yet available or has not been submitted to the Agency as requested. As a result, not all candidate substitutes have been fully evaluated by the Agency. Those substitutes which the Agency is currently reviewing, but for which a final determination cannot yet be made, are listed as pending in the table in Appendix B. The Agency will make every effort to evaluate these chemicals before promulgation of the final rule. a. Acceptable Substitutes.-(1) Streaming Agents: Consumer Applications. (a) HBFC-22B1. HBFC-22B1 is proposed acceptable as a streaming agent in consumer applications for nonresidential uses only. Given the potential market penetration and the high ODP of HBFC- 22B1, use of HBFC-22B1 in consumer applications was estimated to cause unacceptable damage to the ozone layer and an excessively high number of skin cancer cases and deaths. The total estimated skin cancer cases and fatalities from the use of 22B1 as a halon 1211 replacement in all uses including consumer uses is approximately 30,000 and approximately 600, respectively. In light of the availability of other fire protection agents with lower associated risks, the Agency determined that the risks posed by HBFC-22B1 were too large to justify widespread use in the consumer sector. In addition to concern about its ODP, use of HBFC-22B1 in residential applications may present exposure risks of cardiosensitization. To assess this risk, the Agency modeled the peak concentration of HBFC-22B1 that would be expected if such an extinguishant were used to suppress a kitchen fire and estimated the decline from the peak. Such analysis indicated that peak concentrations of HBFC-22B1 would exceed 3300 ppm. This is in excess of NFPA ceilings for exposure. Because of its effectiveness, the Agency is approving use of HBFC-22B1 as a streaming agent only for nonresidential uses only. However, it can only be considered a transitional agent, because it will be phased out as a Class I substance in accordance with the Clean Air Act and with the requirements of the Montreal Protocol. This agent was submitted to the Agency as a Premanufacture Notice (PMN) and is presently subject to requirements contained in a Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) section 5(e) Consent Order and associated Significant New Use Rule (40 CFR 721.1296). Under the terms of the Consent Order, it may be used only for outdoor automotive and marine applications. In addition, to ensure safe use, the sale of this product is restricted to a size discouraging residential use, with a minimum UL rating of 5BC. The unit must be properly labeled indicating that residential use is prohibited due to danger of cardiotoxicity; indicating proper space volume restrictions limiting exposure to 1 per cent; and indicating proper evacuation and reentry requirements. In addition, the agent may only be sold in rechargeable units to encourage reuse and recycling and to discourage the potential for the agent to escape to the atmosphere through improper disposal. (b) HCFC-123. HCFC-123 is acceptable as a streaming agent for consumer applications. Because of its relatively high effectiveness, HCFC-123 could replace Halon 1211 at a ratio of 1.8 by weight- a figure considerably better than that of most other streaming substitutes. HCFC-123 has the lowest ODP of all the HCFCs proposed as halon substitutes, and its global warming potential (GWP) is half that of other proposed HCFC substitutes. However, since HCFC-123, has a cardiotoxic level of 2.0 per cent in the dog, with no effect apparent at 1.0 per cent, potential users have expressed concern about using HCFC-123 or blends containing HCFC-123 as the primary constituent. However, actual exposures were assessed using personal monitoring devices, and the Agency concludes that likely exposure levels from its use as a streaming agent do not exceed safe levels. (c) [HCFC Blend] B [HCFC Blend] B is acceptable as a streaming agent for consumer applications.-This blend consists largely of HCFC-123, therefore, as with HCFC-123, it has been shown in tests to have a relatively high effectiveness with a weight equivalency ratio to Halon 1211 of 1.8-a figure considerably better than that of most other streaming substitutes. HCFC-123 has the lowest ODP of all the HCFCs proposed as halon substitutes, and its global warming potential (GWP) is half that of other proposed HCFC substitutes. While HCFC-123 has a cardiotoxic level of 2.0 per cent in the dog, with no effect apparent at 1.0 per cent, actual exposures from use of this blend as a streaming agent were assessed using personal monitoring devices. The Agency concludes that likely exposure levels do not exceed safe levels. (d) [CFC-Blend] [CFC-Blend] is acceptable as a streaming agent for nonresidential consumer use.-While [CFC-Blend] contains CFCs, its overall ODP is 0.95, which is less than one-fourth that of Halon 1211. [CFC- Blend] is the most effective of all other halon substitutes except for HBFC-22B1 and HCFC-123, and does not pose the exposure risk of HBFC-22B1 in certain scenarios. [CFC-Blend] is generally considered non-toxic but in light of its high ODP relative to other substitute agents and the large potential market for consumer/residential extinguishers, alternative agents such as water and dry chemical are considered sufficient for residential uses. In addition, this substitute will be phased out by December 31, 1995. (e) Dry Chemical Dry chemical extinguishers are approved for use in residential streaming applications as a Halon 1211 substitute.-Dry chemical extinguishers can be used as a substitute for Halon 1211 in most residential applications. While dry chemical extinguishers can be used on Class A, B, or C fires depending upon the type of powder used, they do not always penetrate well around obstacles, they do not inhibit re-ignition of fires, they do not cool surfaces, they can cause secondary damage, and discharge in confined spaces can result in temporary loss of visibility. Dry chemical extinguishers should be used only in accordance with manufacturer's guidelines and with relevant NFPA standards. (f) Carbon Dioxide Carbon Dioxide extinguishers are approved for use in residential streaming applications as a Halon 1211 substitute.-Carbon dioxide can be used as a direct substitute for Halon 1211 in specified applications. Carbon dioxide systems have no rating versus Class A fires and so must be used in conjunction with another type of extinguisher to ensure that all possible fire scenarios can be appropriately handled. In addition, discharge of carbon dioxide into confined spaces may result in CO2 concentrations above the Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) level. Areas into which carbon dioxide is discharged should be immediately evacuated and ventilated. Carbon dioxide extinguishers should be used only in accordance with manufacturer's guidelines and applicable NFPA standards. (g) Water Water extinguishers are approved for use in residential streaming applications as a Halon 1211 substitute. Users should be aware, however, that water extinguishers cannot act as a substitute for Halon 1211 in all applications. Water is primarily a Class A (solid) fire extinguishant and should not be used with Class B (flammable liquid) or C (electrical) fires. Water may damage objects onto which it is discharged. Water extinguishers should be used only in accordance with manufacturer's guidelines and with NFPA standards. (h) Foam Foam extinguishers are approved for use in residential streaming applications as a Halon 1211 substitute. Foam extinguishers cannot be used as a substitute for halon in all applications. Portable foam extinguishers are intended primarily for use on flammable liquid fires and are somewhat effective on Class A fires. Foams can also cause secondary damage on objects onto which it is discharged. Foam extinguishers should be used in accordance with manufacturer's guidelines and with NFPA standards. (2) Streaming Agents: Commercial/Industrial Use (a) HBFC-22B1 HBFC-22B1 is approved for use as a streaming agent in commercial/industrial applications. Despite its high ODP, this chemical will enable industry to more rapidly shift away from 1211 extinguishants which have an even higher ODP. Moreover, as the chemical will be phased out as a Class I substance on January 1, 1996, only limited use is expected to be made of this substitute. Worker exposure may be a concern in small office areas, but in larger offices, modeling efforts indicate that HBFC-22B1 can be used safely. In most office/industrial fire scenarios, proper procedures should be in place regarding the operation of the extinguisher and ventilation of extinguishment areas after dispensing the extinguishant to minimize concerns about exposure. This agent was submitted to the Agency as a Premanufacture Notice (PMN) and is presently subject to requirements contained in a Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) section 5(e) Consent Order and associated Significant New Use Rule (40 CFR 721.1296). Under the terms of the Consent Order, to ensure safe use, the sale of this product is restricted to a size discouraging residential use, with a minimum UL rating of 5BC. The unit must be properly labeled indicating that residential use is prohibited due to danger of toxicity, listing proper space volume restrictions limiting exposure to 1 per cent, and indicating proper evacuation and reentry requirements. In addition, the agent may only be sold in rechargeable units to encourage reuse and recycling and to discourage the potential for the agent to escape to the atmosphere through improper disposal. EPA invites comment on these use restrictions. (b) [CFC-Blend] [CFC-Blend] is acceptable as a streaming agent for use in commercial/industrial streaming applications. While [CFC-Blend] contains CFCs, its overall ODP is 0.95, which is less than one- fourth that of Halon 1211. [CFC-Blend] is the most effective of all other halon substitutes except for HBFC-22B1 and HCFC- 123, and does not pose the exposure risk of HBFC-22B1 in certain scenarios. [CFC-Blend] is generally considered non-toxic and could serve as a transitional substitute in many streaming applications, but will be phased out by December 31, 1995. (c) HCFC-123 HCFC-123 is acceptable as a streaming agent for commercial/industrial applications. Because of its relatively high effectiveness, HCFC-123 could replace Halon 1211 at a ratio of 1.8 by weight-a figure considerably better than that of most other streaming substitutes. HCFC-123 has the lowest ODP of all the HCFCs proposed as halon substitutes, and its global warming potential (GWP) is half that of other proposed HCFC substitutes. However, since HCFC-123, has a cardiotoxic level of 2.0 percent in the dog, with no effect apparent at 1.0 percent, potential users have expressed concern about using HCFC-123, or blends containing HCFC-123 as the primary constituent. However, actual exposures were assessed using personal monitoring devices, and the Agency concludes that likely exposure levels from its use as a streaming agent do not exceed safe levels. (d) [HCFC Blend] B [HCFC Blend] B is acceptable as a streaming agent for commercial/industrial applications. This blend consists largely of HCFC-123, therefore, as with HCFC-123, it has been shown in tests to have a relatively high effectiveness with a weight equivalency ratio to Halon 1211 of 1.8-a figure considerably better than that of most other streaming substitutes. HCFC-123 has the lowest ODP of all the HCFCs proposed as halon substitutes, and its global warming potential (GWP) is half that of other proposed HCFC substitutes. While HCFC-123 has a cardiotoxic level of 2.0 percent in the dog, with no effect apparent at 1.0 percent, actual exposures from use of this blend as a streaming agent were assessed using personal monitoring devices. The Agency concludes that likely exposure levels do not exceed safe levels. (e) Dry Chemical Dry Chemical, for the reasons described and with the limitations suggested in the section on consumer streaming applications, are approved for use as a commercial/industrial streaming agent. (f) Carbon Dioxide Carbon Dioxide, for the reasons described and with the limitations suggested in the section on consumer streaming applications, is approved for use as a commercial/industrial streaming agent. (g) Water Water, for the reasons described and with the limitations suggested in the section on consumer streaming applications, is approved for use as a commercial/industrial streaming agent. (h) Foam Foams, for the reasons described and with the limitations suggested in the section on consumer streaming applications, is approved for use as a commercial/industrial streaming agent. (3) Streaming Agents: Military Applications (a) HBFC-22B1 (a) HBFC-22B1 HBFC-22B1 is approved for use as a streaming agent in military applications. Despite its high ODP, HCFC-22B1 will enable the military to more rapidly shift away from 1211 extinguishants which have an even higher ODP. Moreover, as this chemical will be phased out under the Montreal Protocol (with possible essential use exemptions) as a Class I substance on January 1, 1996, only limited use is expected to be made of this substitute. Worker exposure may be a concern in small, enclosed areas, but in larger areas and outdoor areas, modeling efforts indicate that HBFC-22B1 can be used safely. In most realistic fire scenarios, proper procedures should be in place regarding the operation of the extinguisher, workers will be properly trained in fire- fighting procedures, and ventilation of extinguishment areas can be expected after dispensing the extinguishant. This agent was submitted to the Agency as a Premanufacture Notice (PMN) and is presently subject to requirements contained in a Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) section 5(e) Consent Order and associated Significant New Use Rule (40 CFR 721.1296). Under the terms of the Consent Order, to ensure safe use, the sale of this product is restricted to a size discouraging residential use, with a minimum UL rating of 5BC. The unit must be properly labeled indicating that residential use is prohibited due to toxicity; indicating proper space volume restrictions limiting exposure to 1 percent; and indicating proper evacuation and reentry requirements. In addition, the agent may only be sold in rechargeable units to encourage reuse and recycling and to reduce the potential for the agent to escape to the atmosphere through improper disposal. (b) HCFC-123 HCFC-123 is acceptable as a streaming agent for military applications. Because of its relatively high effectiveness, HCFC-123 could replace Halon 1211 at a ratio of 1.8 by weight-a figure considerably better than that of most other streaming substitutes. HCFC-123 has the lowest ODP of all the HCFCs proposed as halon substitutes, and its global warming potential (GWP) is half that of other proposed HCFC substitutes. However, since HCFC-123 has a cardiotoxic level of 2.0 percent in the dog, with no effect apparent at 1.0 percent, potential users have expressed concern about using HCFC-123, or blends containing HCFC-123 as the primary constituent. However, actual exposures were assessed using personal monitoring devices, and the Agency concludes that likely exposure levels from its use as a streaming agent do not exceed safe levels. (c) [HCFC Blend] B [HCFC Blend] B is acceptable as a streaming agent for military applications. This blend consists largely of HCFC-123, therefore, as with HCFC-123, it has been shown in tests to have a relatively high effectiveness with a weight equivalency ratio to Halon 1211 of 1.8-a figure considerably better than that of most other streaming substitutes. HCFC-123 has the lowest ODP of all the HCFCs proposed as halon substitutes, and its global warming potential (GWP) is half that of other proposed HCFC substitutes. While HCFC-123 has a cardiotoxic level of 2.0 percent in the dog, with no effect apparent at 1.0 percent, actual exposures from use of this blend as a streaming agent were assessed using personal monitoring devices. The Agency concludes that likely exposure levels do not exceed safe levels. (d) FC 5-1-14 FC 5-1-14 is acceptable in streaming applications for military flightlines, inside military aircraft, and in military computer and telecommunication facilities. Due to the long atmospheric lifetime of FC 5-1-14, the Agency urges that the chemical be used only in those instances in which a viable alternative is not available. The Agency proposes that the only acceptable uses involve national security or public safety where no other substitute has been proven to be as effective. For example, military flightlines are ground-based operations which typically involve fuel spills and fires in engine nacelles. Flightlines require a clean agent that is capable of extinguishing three-dimensional fires, and that is non-corrosive and leaves no residue in order to leave engines intact. These are typically smaller, easily contained fires. Crash Rescue Vehicles may have a combination of agents available, but agents such as foam are usually used for larger fires. The Agency proposes to permit use of this agent in operational military electronics facilities such as computer and telecommunication rooms, which are critical to national security or public safety. In order to reduce emissions of FC 5-1-14 into the atmosphere, the Agency is proposing to require that FC 5-1-14 not be used in system discharge tests or for training. In addition, the Agency is proposing to require that FC 5-1-14 be recovered before servicing and recycled for later use. In most streaming applications, the Agency believes that alternatives to FC 5-1-14 exist. These include the halocarbon replacements identified above as well as alternative agents such as water, CO2, foam, and dry chemicals. Users should attempt to use these other agents before deciding on a FC 5-1-14 system. (e) [CFC-Blend] [CFC-Blend] is acceptable as a substitute to Halon 1211 for use in military streaming applications. While [CFC-Blend] contains CFCs, its overall ODP is 0.95, which is less than one-fourth that of Halon 1211. [CFC-Blend] is the most effective of all other halon substitutes except for HBFC-22B1 and HCFC-123, and does not pose the exposure risk of HBFC-22B1 in certain scenarios. [CFC-Blend] is generally considered non-toxic and could serve as a transitional substitute in many streaming applications until it is phased out on December 31, 1995. (f) Dry Chemical Dry chemical, for the reasons described in the section on consumer streaming applications, is approved for use as a military streaming agent. (g) Carbon Dioxide Carbon Dioxide, for the reasons described and with the limitations suggested in the section on streaming applications, is approved for use as a military streaming agent. (h) Water Water, for the reasons described and with the limitations suggested in the section on streaming applications, is approved for use as a military streaming agent. (i) Foam Foams, for the reasons described and with the limitations suggested in the section on streaming applications, is approved for use as a military streaming agent. (4) Total Flooding Agents: Occupied Areas In analyzing the acceptability of substitutes for occupied total flooding applications, the Agency considered cardiotoxicity one of the primary decision variables. Current limitations on use of Halon 1301 in total flooding applications assure that these uses do not pose a cardiotoxic risk to personnel, if flooding does not exceed the design concentration. Halon 1301 has a cardiotoxic NOAEL of 7.5 percent, and a LOAEL of 10.0 per cent; its required extinguishing concentration for total flooding is only 2.6 percent, according to testing results. OSHA promulgated a safety and health standard governing fire protection systems used at all workplaces (29 CFR 1910 Subpart L) which is designed to limit employee exposures to toxic levels of gaseous agents used in fixed total flood systems. In addition to alerting employees of impending system discharge by suitable alarms (Section 1910.160), the standard requires that employees be provided sufficient time to leave before system discharge if the discharge is designed to exceed 10 percent (Section 1910.162). For Halon 1301, the standard prohibits the use of halon concentration greater than 7 percent (the cardiotoxic NOAEL) where egress cannot be accomplished in less than 1 minute and prohibits the use of concentrations greater than 10.0 percent (the cardiotoxic LOAEL) where egress requires more than 30 seconds. In addition, if there is a possibility that someone must enter a room while an agent is likely to exceed the NOAEL level, Self Contained Breathing Apparatuses (SCBA) must be worn. Since most of the proposed substitutes for use in normally occupied areas pose a risk of cardiotoxic exposure, EPA has concluded that their use must be governed by conditions similar to those for Halon 1301. While the OSHA regulation section 1910.160 generally applies to all fire protection systems, section 1910.162 addresses specific allowable concentrations only for halon. While it is not the intent of EPA to preempt OSHA regulation in this area, the Agency is seeking to ensure public safety until OSHA develops appropriate regulations for the new substitute gaseous agents. Therefore, while all agents used in normally occupied areas must meet OSHA regulations under section 1910.160, the Agency is setting conditions for use in normally occupied areas similar to those found in the OSHA regulation section 1910.162. For example, in this action, EPA has proposed conditions on the acceptability of certain halon substitutes when used as total flooding agents in normally occupied areas. EPA has imposed these conditions because of the risk of cardiotoxic levels of exposure to personnel in areas where substitute agents may be discharged in the event of fire. Existing OSHA standard 1910.160 applies certain general controls to the use of fixed extinguishing systems in occupied workplaces, whether gaseous, dry chemical, water sprinklers, etc., and EPA has not reproduced those. These include, for example, the requirements for discharge and pre-discharge alarms, and availability of Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for emergency entry into an area where agent has been discharged.{5} ³{5} 29 CFR 1910.160(b) includes general provisions to ³ensure the safety of all fixed extinguishing systems. ³Paragraph (c) stipulates requirements for systems with ³"potential health and safety hazards to employees" such ³as might be posed by gaseous agents. ³ (b)(3) ``The employer shall provide a distinctive alarm ³or signaling system * * * capable of being perceived ³above ambient noise or light levels * * * to indicate ³when the extinguishing systems are discharging. Discharge ³alarms are not required on systems where discharge is ³immediately recognizable.'' ³ (b)(4) ``The employer shall provide effective safeguards ³to warn employees against entry into discharge areas ³where the atmosphere remains hazardous to employee safety ³or health.'' ³ (b)(5) ``The employer shall post hazard warning or ³caution signs at the entrance to, and inside of, areas ³protected by fixed extinguishing systems which use agents ³in concentrations known to be hazardous to employee safety ³and health.'' ³ (b)(6) ``The employer shall assure that fixed systems ³are inspected annually * * * to assure that the system ³is maintained in good operating condition.'' ³ (b)(10) ``The employer shall train employees designated ³to inspect, maintain, operate, or repair fixed extinguishing ³systems. * * *'' ³ (b)(17) ``The employer shall provide and assure the ³use of personal protective equipment needed for immediate ³rescue of employees trapped in hazardous atmospheres ³created by an agent discharge.'' ³ (c)(3) ``On all total flooding systems the employer ³shall provide a pre-discharge employee alarm * * * which ³will give employees time to safely exit from the discharge ³area prior to system discharge.'' While section 1910.162 can apply generally to gaseous agents, it includes cardiotoxic levels specific to Halon 1301. Section 1910.162 paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) provide alternative workplace requirements based on specific design concentrations of Halon 1301. That is, if the design concentration is 7 percent, employees must be able to egress in one minute, but if the design concentration is 10 percent, employees must be able to egress in 30 seconds. These design concentrations are not identified as the cardiotoxic NOAEL or LOAEL, so one cannot generalize a rule for use with alternative agents which have different LOAEL and NOAEL values. For this reason, EPA is concerned that halon substitute agents could be used in the absence of enforceable compound-specific cardiotoxic exposure levels. On the other hand, requiring other gaseous agents to meet the 7 percent or 10 percent requirements specified in 1910.162 will preclude their use because the design concentrations of the alternative agents vary greatly, as does their cardiotoxic values. Should OSHA create compound-specific cardiotoxicity values to be applied to the use of halon substitutes as gaseous total flooding agents in occupied spaces, these conditions would no longer be necessary and EPA would rescind them. However, EPA is also aware that existing OSHA regulations may provide adequate coverage against exposure to toxic levels of gaseous agents and their decomposition products. Section 1910.162 (b)(3) states, "(t)he employer shall assure that employees are not exposed to toxic levels of gaseous agent or its decomposition products," and paragraph (b)(4) states, "(t)he employer shall provide a distinctive pre-discharge employee alarm * * * when agent design concentrations exceed the maximum safe level for employee exposure." EPA invites comment on the adequacy of 1910.162 (b)(3) to provide workplace protection for agents that differ from Halon 1301. In those relatively rare instances where explosion suppression or fireball suppression of Class B fires is immediately necessary to protect life, discharge of any suitable agent without an alarm may be necessary. The Agency solicits descriptive comments on such situations and on appropriate use restrictions of agents. In many occupied areas, total flooding halons can be replaced by improved detection equipment and manually operated extinguishing systems. Improved detection systems, if they detect fires in their early stages, can alert occupants to the existence of a fire so they may extinguish it with hand-held extinguishers. In those cases in which a total flooding system is deemed necessary, improved detection systems and the use of cross-zoning can also reduce false alarms that result in the unnecessary discharge of total flooding systems. The following substitutes are approved by the Agency for use as total flooding agents in occupied areas: (a) HBFC-22B1 HBFC-22B1 is acceptable as a 1301 substitute only in occupied areas from which personnel can be safely evacuated and egress can occur before concentration of HBFC-22B1 exceeds its cardiotoxic LOAEL. The required extinguishing concentration for HBFC-22B1 is estimated at 44,000 ppm (or 4.4 percent) and its design concentration is 5.4%. The LOAEL for cardiotoxicity is 1 percent while its NOAEL is 0.3%. EPA proposes that, for occupied areas from which personnel cannot be evacuated in one minute, use is permitted only up to concentrations not exceeding the NOAEL for cardiotoxicity. For occupied areas from which personnel can be evacuated or egress can occur in 30 to 60 seconds, use is permitted up to a concentration not exceeding the LOAEL. All personnel must be evacuated before concentration of HBFC-22B1 exceeds 1 percent. This compound is unlikely to be feasible as a total flooding agent because its design concentration exceeds its cardiotoxic level. While HBFC-22B1 has an ODP of 0.74 and will be phased out on January 1, 1996, the Agency believes that the substance can serve a useful role in helping users transition away from Halon 1301, which has an ODP estimated at 16. HBFC-22B1 is available immediately and can replace 1301 at a ratio of 1.1 by weight and a ratio of 1.3 by storage volume. Thus, current 1301 total flooding systems can be converted to HBFC-22B1 with only minor increases in storage volume (or losses in efficacy). Other total flooding agents, though having a lower ODP, would require much larger additions of agent weight and storage volume. This agent was submitted to the Agency as a Premanufacture Notice (PMN) and is presently subject to requirements contained in a Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) section 5(e) Consent Order and associated Significant New Use Rule (40 CFR 721.1296). (b) HCFC-22 HCFC-22 is acceptable as a total flooding agent in occupied areas from which personnel can be safely evacuated and egress can occur before concentration of HCFC-22 exceeds its cardiotoxic LOAEL. HCFC-22 has an acute cardiotoxicity with a LOAEL of 5 percent; however its extinguishment concentration of 11.6% and its design concentration of 13.9 percent makes this compound unlikely to be used as a single agent because it exceeds its cardiotoxic level. EPA proposes that, for occupied areas from which personnel cannot be evacuated in one minute, use is permitted only up to concentrations not exceeding the NOAEL for cardiotoxicity. For occupied areas from which personnel can be evacuated or egress can occur in 30 to 60 seconds, use is permitted up to a concentration not exceeding the LOAEL. All personnel must be evacuated before the concentration of HCFC-22 exceeds 5 percent. This compound is unlikely to be feasible as a total flooding agent because its design concentration exceeds its cardiotoxic effect level. The ODP for HCFC-22 is 0.055 and the 100 year GWP is 1500, both of which are higher than other candidate HCFCs. It also requires the highest extinguishing concentration of the candidate HCFCs and is somewhat inferior in terms of weight and storage volume equivalents. (c) HCFC-124 HCFC-124 is acceptable as a total flooding agent in occupied areas from which personnel can be safely evacuated and egress can occur before concentration of HCFC-124 exceeds its cardiotoxic LOAEL. HCFC-124 demonstrates average performance as a fire extinguishant, has relatively low ODP of .022, and, compared to other candidate 1301 substitutes for which GWP has been estimated, has a relatively low 100 year GWP value of 430. Testing indicates that the substance has a cardiotoxicity LOAEL of 2.5 percent with no effect NOAEL apparent at 1.0 percent. The extinguishing concentration of HCFC-124 is 8.2 percent and its design concentration is 9.8%. EPA proposes that, for occupied areas from which personnel cannot be evacuated in one minute, use is permitted only up to concentrations not exceeding the NOAEL for cardiotoxicity. For occupied areas from which personnel can be evacuated or egress can occur in 30 to 60 seconds, use is permitted up to a concentration not exceeding the LOAEL. All personnel must be evacuated before concentration of HCFC-124 exceeds 2.5 percent. This compound is unlikely to be feasible as a total flooding agent because its design concentration exceeds its cardiotoxic level. (d) [HCFC BLEND] A [HCFC BLEND] A is acceptable alternative to Halon 1301 only in occupied areas from which personnel can be safely evacuated and egress can occur before concentration of [HCFC Blend] A exceeds its cardiotoxic LOAEL. Based on full-scale testing, the extinguishing concentration of this blend has been determined to be approximately 8.6 percent and therefore the design concentration is approximately 10.3 percent. Preliminary reports of test data indicate that the cardiotoxicity NOAEL of the blend is at least 10.0 percent, and therefore the LOAEL is likely to be greater than 10.0 percent. The Agency is awaiting the final report validating this data, but believes the preliminary report represents a conservative assessment of the cardiotoxicity of the blend. The blend has an ODP higher than other proposed HCFC substitutes, but appears somewhat more effective from a weight and storage volume equivalency basis. EPA proposes that, for occupied areas from which personnel cannot be evacuated in one minute, use is permitted only up to concentrations not exceeding the NOAEL for cardiotoxicity. For occupied areas from which personnel can be evacuated or egress can occur between 30 and 60 seconds, use is permitted up to a concentration not exceeding the LOAEL. All personnel must be evacuated before concentration of [HCFC Blend] A exceeds 10.3 percent. This compound is a feasible candidate for use in a normally occupied area. (e) HFC-23 HFC-23 is an acceptable alternative to Halon 1301 in occupied areas only for high value applications such as those involving the protection of public safety or national security; telecommunication or computer equipment related to public safety or national security; or life support functions; and from which personnel can be safely evacuated and egress can occur before concentration of HFC-23 exceeds its cardiotoxic LOAEL. HFC-23 is attractive for use as a total flooding agent in occupied areas because the draft report on cardiotoxicity indicates that its cardiotoxic NOAEL is over 30% without added oxygen and over 50% with added oxygen, compared to a design concentration of 14.9%. The Agency is awaiting the final report to validate these values, but believes that the draft report adequately represents the likely cardiotoxicity of the agent. Still, in order to ensure safe evacuation, EPA proposes that, for occupied areas from which personnel cannot be evacuated in one minute, use is permitted only up to concentrations not exceeding the NOAEL for cardiotoxicity. For occupied areas from which personnel can be evacuated or egress can occur between 30 and 60 seconds, use is permitted up to a concentration not exceeding the LOAEL. All personnel must be evacuated before concentration of HFC- 23 exceeds 30 percent. While this agent has an ODP of zero, it has a relatively high GWP and an atmospheric lifetime of some 300 to 400 years. Until the Agency completes its analysis of its likely effects on global warming, it is listed as acceptable for particular critical uses only. The weight equivalent of HFC-23 is 2.0 while its storage volume is 4.6. (f) HFC-134a The Agency has determined that HFC-134a is an acceptable alternative to Halon 1301 only in occupied areas from which occupants can be safely evacuated and egress can occur before concentration of HFC-134a exceeds its cardiotoxic LOAEL. HFC- 134a has a cardiotoxic NOAEL of 4 percent, a LOAEL of 8 percent, and an extinguishing concentration of 10.5 percent. EPA proposes that, for occupied areas from which personnel cannot be evacuated in one minute, use is permitted only up to concentrations not exceeding the NOAEL for cardiotoxicity. For occupied areas from which personnel can be evacuated or egress can occur between 30 and 60 seconds, use is permitted up to a concentration not exceeding the LOAEL. All personnel must be evacuated before concentration of HFC-134a exceeds 8 percent. This compound is unlikely to be feasible as a total flooding agent in occupied areas because its design concentration exceeds its cardiotoxic level. Like the other HFCs, HFC-134a has an ODP of zero. It also has among the lowest GWP of the candidate 1301 replacements for which GWP has been estimated. Extinguishment tests conducted with HFC-134a indicate that the substance is considerably less effective than 1301. Systems that use HFC-134a will therefore require approximately 2.5 times more extinguishant by weight and 3.1 times more storage volume than 1301 systems. Such considerations preclude HFC-134a from being used in most existing equipment. (g) HFC-227ea HFC-227ea is acceptable for use as a total flooding agent in occupied areas from which occupants can be safely evacuated and egress can occur before concentration of HFC-227ea exceeds its cardiotoxic LOAEL. The preliminary report on the cardiotoxicity of HFC-227ea indicates a cardiotoxic NOAEL of 8.1% and a LOAEL of at least 10.5%. The Agency is awaiting the final report to validate the data, but believes that the draft report represents a conservative estimate of its likely cardiotoxic value. The design concentration for this agent is 7.1%, which provides a sufficient margin of safety for use in an occupied area. EPA proposes that, for occupied areas from which personnel cannot be evacuated in one minute, use is permitted only up to concentrations not exceeding the NOAEL for cardiotoxicity. For occupied areas from which personnel can be evacuated or egress can occur between 30 and 60 seconds, use is permitted up to a concentration not exceeding the LOAEL. All personnel must be evacuated before concentration of HFC-227ea exceeds 10.5 percent. HFC-227ea does not deplete stratospheric ozone. In addition, HFC-227ea is the most effective of the proposed HFC substitutes for Halon 1301. Testing indicates an extinguishing concentration of 5.9 percent. HFC-227ea can replace Halon 1301 at a ratio of 2.4 by weight and 2.55 by volume which may limit its applicability in existing total flood systems. (h) FC 3-1-10 FC 3-1-10 is acceptable as a total flooding agent in occupied areas only for those limited applications involving the protection of public safety or national security; telecommunication or computer equipment related to public safety or national security; or life support functions. Experimental results indicate that FC 3-1-10 can extinguish fires in a total flood application at concentrations of 5.5 percent. The cardiotoxicity NOAEL of 40% for this agent is well above its extinguishment concentration and therefore is safe for use in occupied areas. In order to ensure safe evacuation, EPA proposes that, for occupied areas from which personnel cannot be evacuated in one minute, use is permitted only up to concentrations not exceeding the NOAEL for cardiotoxicity. For occupied areas from which personnel can be evacuated or egress can occur between 30 and 60 seconds, use is permitted up to a concentration not exceeding the LOAEL. All personnel must be evacuated before concentration of FC 3- 1-10 exceeds 40 percent. Due to the long atmospheric lifetime of FC 3-1-10, the Agency urges that the chemical be used only in those limited instances described above in which a viable alternative is not available. In order to reduce emissions of FC 3-1-10 into the atmosphere, the Agency is also proposing to require that FC 3-1-10 not be used in system discharge tests. In addition, the Agency is proposing to require FC 3-1-10 to be recovered from total flooding systems before servicing and recycled for later use. Fire detection should also be cross-zoned to avoid unnecessary discharge and maintained to high reliability. In most total flooding applications, the Agency believes that alternatives to FC 3-1-10 exist. These include the halocarbon replacements identified above. As a result, EPA is proposing to restrict its use only to those applications described above. (i) [Inert Gas Blend] [Inert Gas Blend] is approved as a total flooding agent in occupied areas. This agent is a non-reactive, non-halocarbon substance, and thus not carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic; the toxicity and cardiotoxicity tests normally applied to halon substitutes do not apply here. Rather, this agent is a potential asphyxiant as it is designed to decrease the oxygen to a level at which combustion cannot be supported. This blend is designed to increase breathing rates, thus making the oxygen deficient atmosphere breathable for short periods of time. Data submitted by the manufacturer was peer-reviewed by pulmonary, cardiac, and stroke specialists. All have agreed that the blend does not pose significant risk to the working population and may even pose less risk than does exposure to halocarbon agents. However, to ensure safety, the Agency proposes to approve this blend under the conditions that the design concentration results in at least 14% oxygen and 4% carbon dioxide. In addition, if the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere falls below 12%, personnel must be evacuated and egress must occur within 30 seconds. Since a fire can be expected to consume oxygen and form decomposition products, personnel should treat any fire situation as an emergency and promptly exit the space. Concerns have been raised about the decibel level of this system upon discharge. The manufacturer has submitted a report indicating the decibel level to be 117 decibels for 3 seconds followed by a decay in noise level over 5 minutes, compared to 130 decibels for a typical halon system. The Time Weighted Average (TWA) of this system is 57 decibels. These levels are in compliance with the OSHA workplace maximum allowed peak of 140 decibels and a maximum Time Weighted Average (TWA) of 90 decibels. (j) Carbon Dioxide Carbon Dioxide is approved as a total flooding agent in occupied areas. The Agency is not proposing to regulate alternative fire protection agents that are currently in widespread use. However, questions have been raised about the Agency's position on the use of carbon dioxide as a total flooding agent in occupied areas. Exposure to carbon dioxide poses an imminent threat to life. However, because it displaces oxygen, it is an effective fire protection agent. As a result, both OSHA and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) address CO2 systems for occupied areas. OSHA 1910.162(b)5 requires a pre-discharge alarm for systems with a design concentration of 4 percent or greater. NFPA has written a standard (NFPA 12) that explicitly controls how such CO2 systems may be safely used in occupied areas. To protect life, it requires a system design such that no personnel may be present upon system discharge. The EPA recognizes both the OSHA regulation and the NFPA standard as industry practice and therefore references them in this rule. In the review of proposed substitutes, the Agency looks at a variety of health and environmental factors, including whether the agent contributes to global warming. While carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it is a byproduct of many industrial processes. We realize that carbon dioxide is recaptured and reformulated as a fire fighting agent and thus does not require new production. Therefore, the Agency has determined that its status as a greenhouse gas is irrelevant to our review. (k) Water Water sprinkler systems are also approved for use as a 1301 substitute in occupied areas. Such systems should not be used on Class C electrical fires or in instances in which secondary damage is considered unacceptable. (5) Total Flooding: Unoccupied Areas. In unoccupied areas, human exposure to potentially toxic substitutes or decomposition products are of less concern than in occupied areas. Key criteria in the decision process therefore become agent efficacy and environmental considerations. At the same time, the Agency must ensure that personnel are not exposed to toxic concentrations of fire protection agents or their decomposition products when the substances are vented or leak out from the extinguishment area. Precautions must also be taken to prevent exposures to personnel entering a normally unoccupied area after a discharge. In addition, if there is a possibility that someone must enter a room while an agent is likely to exceed the NOAEL level, Self Contained Breathing Apparatuses (SCBA) must be worn. Based on these considerations, the Agency has determined that the following agents are acceptable substitutes to Halon 1301 in unoccupied areas: (a) HBFC-22B1 In unoccupied areas, toxicity concerns are minimal. Thus, for the reasons outlined in the section on occupied areas, HBFC- 22B1 is acceptable for use in unoccupied areas. Because of its low storage volume equivalency ratio, HBFC-22B1 can be used in existing total flooding systems to help speed the transition away from Halon 1301. This agent was submitted to the Agency as a Premanufacture Notice (PMN) and is presently subject to requirements contained in a Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) section 5(e) Consent Order and associated Significant New Use Rule (40 CFR 721.1296). (b) HCFC-22 HCFC-22 is acceptable as a total flooding agent in unoccupied areas. However, due to the low efficacy of the agent and its high ODP and GWP relative to other proposed substitutes, the Agency believes this is a less attractive replacement than other potential candidates. (c) HCFC-124 HCFC-124 is acceptable as a total flooding agent in unoccupied areas. This agent is relatively effective for a physical action agent and has lower ODP and GWP values than other substitutes. (d) [HCFC BLEND] A [HCFC BLEND] A is acceptable as a substitute for Halon 1301 in unoccupied total flooding applications. [HCFC BLEND] A is not anticipated to result in toxic exposures when used in unoccupied areas. The blend has an ODP higher than other HCFC substitutes, but appears more effective on a weight and storage volume equivalency basis. (e) HFC-23 HFC-23 is an acceptable alternative to Halon 1301 in unoccupied areas only for high value applications such as those involving the protection of public safety or national security; telecommunication or computer equipment related to public safety or national security; or life support functions. HFC-23 has a design concentration of 14.9%. While this agent has an ODP of 0, it has a relatively high GWP and an atmospheric lifetime of some 300 to 400 years. Until the Agency completes its analysis of its likely effects on global warming, it is listed as acceptable for particular critical uses only. The weight equivalent of HFC-23 is 2.0 while its storage volume is 4.6. (f) HFC-125 HFC-125 is acceptable for use as a Halon 1301 substitute in unoccupied areas. Specific cardiotoxicity information has not been received by the Agency regarding HFC-125. However, in unoccupied areas, it is not expected that human health would be threatened by use of HFC-125. In addition, HFC-125 does not deplete stratospheric ozone. Despite its zero ODP, HFC-125 has one of the highest calculated GWP (100 year GWP of 2500) of any HFC or HCFC currently planned for production as a halon or CFC substitute. (g) HFC-134a In unoccupied areas, toxicity concerns are minimal. Thus, for the reasons outlined in the section on occupied areas, HFC- 134a is acceptable for use in unoccupied areas. (h) HFC-227ea In unoccupied areas, it is not expected that human health would be threatened by use of HFC-227ea. In addition, HFC-227ea does not deplete stratospheric ozone. HFC-227ea is therefore acceptable for use in unoccupied areas. HFC-227ea is the most effective of the proposed HFC substitutes for Halon 1301. Testing indicates an extinguishing concentration of 5.9 percent. HFC-227ea can replace Halon 1301 at a ratio of 2.4 by weight and 2.55 by volume which may limit its applicability in existing total flood systems. (i) FC 3-1-10 FC 3-1-10 is acceptable as a total flood agent in unoccupied areas only for those limited applications involving the protection of public safety or national security; telecommunication or computer equipment related to public safety or national security; Armored Personnel Vehicles and related vehicles; and for explosion inertion/suppression with flammable liquids and gases. Due to the long atmospheric lifetime of FC 3-1-10 and its global warming potential, the Agency urges fire protection specialists to consider alternatives to FC 3-1-10 in unoccupied areas. Such alternatives would include other halocarbon systems, water sprinkler systems, or manually operated extinguishers in conjunction with improved and well-maintained fire detection and warning devices and the use of cross-zoning to avoid unnecessary discharge. In those limited cases described above in which FC 3-1-10 is the optimal fire protection choice, care must be taken to limit releases of FC 3-1-10. To this end, the Agency is also proposing to require (1) that systems not be tested using FC 3-1-10, and (2) that during servicing and maintenance all FC 3-1-10 be recovered from the total flood system and recycled for later use. (j) [Inert Gas Blend] [Inert Gas Blend] is approved for use as a 1301 substitute in unoccupied areas. This agent would not be considered a "drop in" replacement in a total flooding system due to its high extinguishing concentration. (k) Carbon Dioxide Carbon Dioxide is approved for use as a Halon 1301 substitute in unoccupied areas. CO2 is currently widely used as a total flooding agent. In the past, CO2 systems were used in many of the applications now served by halons. As a total flooding agent, CO2 has an extinguishing concentration ten times that of Halon 1301 and requires 1.4 times the storage volume required by 1301 systems; it is also an asphyxiant in the concentrations required for total flooding. Thus, it is most suited for use in unoccupied areas. In the review of proposed substitutes, the Agency looks at a variety of health and environmental factors, including whether the agent could potentially contribute to global warming. While carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it is a byproduct of many industrial processes. We realize that carbon dioxide is recaptured and reformulated as a fire fighting agent and thus does not require new production. Therefore, the Agency has determined that its status as a potential global warmer is irrelevant to our review. (l) Water Water sprinkler systems are also approved for use as a 1301 substitute in unoccupied areas. EPA proposes that such systems should not be used on Class C electrical fires or in instances in which secondary damage is considered unacceptable. (6) Explosion Inertion Explosion inertion agents are not currently regulated by OSHA or any other regulatory body. However, design concentrations for systems protecting from explosion of various gases or flammable liquids may expose personnel to cardiotoxic levels of inertion agents. While the Agency is not currently proposing to place conditions for the use of alternatives in occupied areas, it may do so in the final rule subject to public comment as well as further analysis with agencies such as OSHA and OMB. EPA could place a condition for use of alternative agents in occupied areas which would identify the cardiotoxic LOAEL and would prohibit design concentrations that exceed that level. EPA requests comment on the use of conditions where no regulatory gap, per se, exists, but where the use of an alternative poses risk to the public. By imposing such conditions, EPA would be establishing a new regulatory framework where one did not previously exist. (a) HBFC-22B1 HBFC-22B1 is acceptable for use as a Halon 1301 replacement in explosion inertion applications in unoccupied areas. HBFC- 22B1 is an effective halon substitute for explosion inertion, requiring an inertion concentration of 8 percent. Because this value exceeds the recommended exposure concentrations for short- term exposures to HBFC-22B1, and because it cannot be assumed that occupants would have an opportunity to safely evacuate in the event of an explosion, the Agency considers this substitute safe only for use in unoccupied areas. HBFC-22B1 appears to be a suitable candidate for replacing Halon 1301 in existing explosion inertion applications. The storage volume equivalent for HBFC-22B1 is 1.6, lower than any other halon substitute. Thus, despite the relatively high ODP of HBFC-22B1 compared to other substitute agents, HBFC-22B1 can accelerate the transition away from Halon 1301. This agent was submitted to the Agency as a Premanufacture Notice (PMN) and is presently subject to requirements contained in a Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) section 5(e) Consent Order and associated Significant New Use Rule (40 CFR 721.1296). (b) HFC-23 HFC-23 is acceptable as an explosion inertion agent only for high value applications such as those involving the protection of public safety or national security; telecommunication or computer equipment related to public safety or national security; or life support functions. While this agent has an ODP of 0, it has a relatively high Global Warming Potential and an atmospheric lifetime of some 300 to 400 years. The Agency is currently restricting its use until further analysis on this issue is complete. Until then, the Agency urges explosion protection specialists to consider alternatives to HFC-23 in unoccupied areas. HFC-23 is attractive for use as an explosion inertion agent in occupied areas because the draft report on cardiotoxicity indicates that its cardiotoxic NOAEL is over 30% without added oxygen and over 50% with added oxygen. The Agency is awaiting the final report to validate these values, but believes that the draft report adequately represents the likely cardiotoxicity of the agent. Explosion inertion requires the rapid discharge of agent, often without providing time for evacuation of personnel. Possible exposure of occupants to toxic level of the compound must be carefully controlled and balanced against the risk of explosion. While the Agency is not currently imposing conditions on the use of this agent in occupied areas, employers are advised to evaluate this agent in light of the fact that the required design concentrations vary for different atmospheres. The design concentration should not exceed the cardiotoxic LOAEL for HFC-23 of 50% in an occupied area. The Agency also recommends that employers provide an alarm to alert personnel of system discharge, and to evacuate all personnel as soon as possible after system discharge. (c) HFC-125 HFC-125 is acceptable for use as an explosion inertion agent only in unoccupied areas. At this time sufficient information has not been received by the Agency to allow use of HFC-125 as an explosion protection agent in occupied areas. In applications in which exposures to personnel can be avoided, however, HFC- 125 is acceptable. (d) HFC-227ea HFC-227ea is acceptable for use as an explosion inertion agent in occupied and unoccupied areas. The preliminary report on the cardiotoxicity of HFC-227ea indicates a cardiotoxic LOAEL of at least 10.5%. The Agency is awaiting the final report to validate the data, but believes that the draft report represents a conservative estimate of its likely cardiotoxic value. Because required design concentrations vary for different atmospheres, explosion protection engineers must ensure that this agent is not used in an occupied area when a concentration greater than the estimated cardiotoxic LOAEL of 10.5% is required. Explosion inertion requires the rapid discharge of agent, often without providing time for evacuation of personnel. Possible exposure of occupants to toxic level of the compound must be carefully controlled and balanced against the risk of explosion. While the Agency is not currently imposing conditions on the use of this agent in occupied areas, employers are advised to evaluate this agent in light of the fact that the required design concentrations vary for different atmospheres. The design concentration should not exceed the cardiotoxic LOAEL for HFC-227ea of 10.5% in an occupied area. The Agency also recommends use of an alarm to alert personnel of system discharge, and to evacuate all personnel as soon as possible after system discharge. This agent is also acceptable for unoccupied areas. (e) FC 3-1-10 FC 3-1-10 is acceptable as an explosion inertion agent only for those limited applications involving the protection of public safety or national security; telecommunication or computer equipment related to public safety or national security; or life support functions. Due to the long atmospheric lifetime of FC 3-1-10 and its potentially large global warming potential, the Agency urges explosion protection specialists to consider alternatives to FC 3-1-10 in unoccupied areas. Explosion inertion studies conducted with methane and propane indicate an inerting concentration of 7.8 percent and 9.5 percent respectively. Additional performance data is being collected for use with other flammable gases. No data has been received by the Agency for explosion suppression applications. The cardiotoxicity NOAEL of this agent is 40 percent and its LOAEL is greater than 40%, and thus is well suited for use in occupied areas. Explosion inertion requires the rapid discharge of agent, often without providing time for evacuation of personnel. Possible exposure of occupants to toxic level of the compound must be carefully controlled and balanced against the risk of explosion. While the Agency is not currently imposing conditions on the use of this agent in occupied areas, employers are advised to evaluate this agent in light of the fact that the required design concentrations vary for different atmospheres. The design concentration should probably not exceed the cardiotoxic NOAEL for FC 3-1-10 of 40% in an occupied area. The Agency also recommends use of an alarm to alert personnel of system discharge, and to evacuate all personnel as soon as possible after system discharge. In those limited cases described above in which FC 3-1-10 is determined to be the optimal explosion inertion choice, care must be taken to limit releases of FC 3-1-10. To this end, the Agency is also proposing to require (1) that systems not be tested using FC 3-1-10, and (2) that during servicing and maintenance all FC 3-1-10 be recovered from the inertion system and recycled for later use. (f) [Inert Gas Blend] [Inert Gas Blend] is approved for use as a 1301 substitute for explosion inertion in occupied and unoccupied areas. This agent is a non-reactive, non-halocarbon substance, and thus not carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic; the toxicity and cardiotoxicity tests normally applied to halon substitutes do not apply here. Rather, this agent is a potential asphyxiant as it is designed to decrease the oxygen to a level at which combustion cannot be supported. This blend is designed to increase breathing rates, thus making the oxygen deficient atmosphere breathable for short periods of time. Data submitted by the manufacturer was peer-reviewed by pulmonary, cardiac, and stroke specialists. All have agreed that the blend does not pose significant risk to the working population and may even pose less risk than does exposure to halocarbon agents. The inerting concentration for this blend is 44 percent for methane/air mixtures and 50 percent for propane/air mixtures. A 50 percent concentration would result in an atmosphere of only 10.5 percent oxygen content, which is the lower limit at which studies show this agent safe for use with healthy, young people. Explosion inertion requires the rapid discharge of agent, often without providing time for evacuation of personnel. Possible exposure of occupants to a hypoxic, or oxygen reduced, atmosphere must be carefully controlled and balanced against the risk of explosion. The Agency thereby requires an alarm to alert personnel of system discharge, and all personnel must evacuate as soon as possible after system discharge. Concerns have been raised about the decibel level of this system upon discharge. The manufacturer has submitted a report indicating the decibel level to be 117 decibels for 3 seconds followed by a decay in noise level over 5 minutes, compared to 130 decibels for a typical halon system. The Time Weighted Average (TWA) of this system is 57 decibels. These levels are in compliance with the OSHA workplace maximum allowed peak of 140 decibels and a maximum Time Weighted Average (TWA) of 90 decibels. b. Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes. (1) Streaming Agents: Commercial/Industrial Use. (a) CFC-11. CFC-11 is proposed unacceptable in its proposed application as a Halon 2402 substitute or for large outdoor uses. This agent has been proposed as a substitute for Halon 2402, as well as for use in a new niche for large outdoor fires, such as for dropping from helicopters. Halon 2402 is not used in the U.S. and thus does not require a substitute agent. As a new use in the large outdoor sector, such as dropping from helicopters, other non-ozone depleting methods are already in use and thus do not warrant introduction of this substitute. H. Sterilants 1. Overview CFC-12 is widely used in combination with ethylene oxide (EtO) to sterilize medical equipment and devices. The most prevalent combination consists of 12 percent EtO mixed with 88 percent CFC-12; the mixture is therefore referred to as "12/88". EtO serves as the actual sterilant in this mixture and can be used alone as a sterilant, but by itself, EtO is highly flammable. CFC-12 acts as a stabilizing agent to reduce the overall flammability of the blend. Sterilants, including 12/88, are used in a variety of applications. These include hospital sterilization, medical equipment sterilization, pharmaceutical production, spice fumigation, commercial research and development, and contract sterilization. Hospitals are by far the most numerous users of sterilants. Within hospitals, 12/88 is the most popular sterilant. Estimates indicate that in 1989, EtO/CFC-12 was used for over 95 percent of all sterilization in hospitals. Pure EtO systems are also used in hospitals, but typically as small, tabletop models. Few hospitals have large pure EtO systems in-house. Other individual users of sterilant such as contract sterilizers and pharmaceutical producers, while less numerous than hospitals, typically consume more sterilant than the average hospital. They are also more likely to use pure EtO sterilization systems to handle large capacity loads. Despite the varied end uses of sterilants, the Agency did not divide its analysis and regulation of the sterilants sector into distinct end uses. This is because alternatives to 12/88 are consistent across end uses, and the sterilant sector as a whole represents one of the smallest use sectors for Class I substances which is being considered in the SNAP program. On an ODP-weighted basis, US consumption of CFC-12 for sterilization represented less than 4 per cent of the total US consumption of ozone depleting substances in 1990. Several alternatives to 12/88 are currently in widespread use, but each is limited in applicability by material properties of the devices to be sterilized. These currently available alternatives are unlikely to serve as widespread substitutes for 12/88. Steam sterilizers, for example, are used in many applications and are less expensive to purchase and to operate than 12/88 systems. However, steam can only be used to sterilize equipment that can resist high temperatures. Pharmaceutical manufacturers already use steam to the maximum extent possible, but hospitals may be able to shift some of their current 12/88 use to steam by separating heat-resistant devices from heat-sensitive ones. Other alternatives such as radiation, peracetic acid, and glutaraldehyde are also in use, but, like steam, are incompatible with many of the materials now sterilized with 12/88. In fact 30 to 50 per cent of new products are initially sterilized with gamma radiation, but it is not possible to re-sterilize hospital surgical equipment with gamma radiation. Instead, 12/88 must be used. Other alternatives are currently under development. These include chlorine dioxide, gaseous ozone, vapor phase hydrogen peroxide, and ionized gas plasma. Many of these alternatives are also incompatible with materials currently sterilized with 12/88. Those that may be applicable as partial substitutes for 12/88, such as hydrogen peroxide, are not expected to be commercially available in the near term. For these reasons, alternatives such as steam and other currently available technologies should be used wherever applicable, but are not specifically addressed in this proposal. Additional information on such alternatives and on specific uses of 12/88 can be found in the supporting documentation retained in the public docket. The proposed determinations in this section are based on the risk screen described in the background document titled "Characterization of Risk from the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: Sterilization." 2. Substitutes for Sterilization. a. Halocarbons A number of halocarbon substitutes have been suggested as viable alternatives to CFC-12 in EtO blends for sterilization. These include HCFC-123, HCFC-124, HFC-125, HCFC-141b, and HFC- 134a and HFC-227ea. At present, however, only HCFC-124 and HFC- 227ea have been proposed as near-term candidates. While HCFC- 124 has been fully evaluated by the Agency in this rule, a final determination on HFC-227ea will be completed as soon as exposure data are received. Additional research will be required to determine the suitability of the other agents in EtO blends. Many of the proposed halocarbons offer good potential as EtO diluents. They demonstrate good flame retardation, low ODPs, low GWPs, low toxicity, materials compatibility, acceptable vapor pressures, and good blending properties. Mixtures of halocarbons with EtO would most likely be at ratios similar to 12/88, or with a slightly lower EtO content. HCFC-124 has been tested with 8.6 percent EtO, for example. Such properties would make halocarbon blends virtual drop-in replacements for 12/88 in existing systems. The blends would also be far less damaging to stratospheric ozone than is 12/88. b. Carbon Dioxide Carbon dioxide is already in widespread use as a sterilant in blends with EtO. The most common blend contains 10 percent EtO and 90 percent CO2 and is referred to as "10/90". While 10/90 is compatible with most of the materials now sterilized with 12/88, it must be used at higher operating pressures than 12/88 systems and hence is not a direct drop-in replacement for 12/88. Use of CO2 blends requires that the sterilizing unit itself be upgraded to handle higher operating pressures in order to prevent excessive leakages of EtO from the system. However, operating costs for CO2 systems are typically lower than those for 12/88 systems. CO2 and EtO tend to separate while stored in pressurized containers. Thus, initial discharges from the canisters during use may contain excessively high amounts of flammable EtO; final discharges from nearly empty canisters may contain pure CO2 and may not effectively sterilize equipment. To overcome this problem, "unit dose" canisters have been developed for use in conjunction with CO2 sterilizers. For safe operation, these canisters must be connected and disconnected from the sterilizing unit before and after every use, thereby increasing the risk of accidental exposure. Improved training procedures will be required with such systems. c. Pure EtO Pure EtO systems can also be used in place of current 12/88 sterilizers. By itself, EtO is toxic, carcinogenic, and flammable. Thus, additional precautions must be taken to limit occupational exposures and conflagration. Present OSHA standards and proper engineering controls have demonstrated their ability to provide for safe operation of such systems. Pure EtO systems are currently used by many contract sterilizers, large hospitals, and other large users. Pure EtO cannot be used in existing 12/88 sterilizing equipment without significant technical changes. Large sterilizers may have to be relocated or rooms modified in order to reduce damage from possible explosions. Both large and small systems require retrofits to provide the capability to properly vent EtO and to prevent explosions. Such conversions are costly, but may produce long-term cost savings. Operating costs for pure EtO systems are lower than those for 12/88 systems. 3. Preliminary Listing Decisions a. Acceptable. (1) HCFC-124 HCFC-124 is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in EtO blends.- Initial testing in hospital, industrial, and laboratory settings indicates that an EtO/HCFC-124 blend can serve as a virtual drop-in replacement for 12/88, enabling users to transition away from CFC-12 while still using their existing equipment. Use of HCFC-124 in sterilizers will allow significant reductions in skin cancer cases and deaths resulting from ozone depletion. HCFC-124 has an ODP of only 0.02. Modeling results indicate that even if HCFC-124 replaces all current use of CFC-12 in sterilization, resulting skin cancer deaths in the total US population born before 2030 will total only 600 more than if a zero ODP substitute were available. In addition, the low GWP of HCFC-124 ensures that use of the chemical in sterilizers will have a negligible effect on global warming. Under Title III of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Agency is required to regulate any of the 189 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Ethylene oxide is a HAP, and the user is alerted to follow all upcoming regulations concerning the use of ethylene oxide, whether used alone or in a blend. For example, it is likely in the future that Title III will require a system that prevents venting of EtO into the atmosphere, therefore users installing new HCFC-124/EtO systems may choose to take this into consideration. (2) Carbon Dioxide Carbon dioxide is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in EtO blends used for sterilization. Carbon dioxide can effectively reduce the flammability of EtO and does not deplete stratospheric ozone. While CO2 is considered a greenhouse gas, atmospheric modeling indicates that its use in the sterilants sector will have no measurable impact on global warming. Furthermore, most CO2 currently used in sterilant mixtures is the recaptured by- product of other chemical processes, so its manufacture for use in sterilizers should not increase emissions to the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant in high concentrations, but engineering controls designed to limit occupational exposures from the more toxic EtO will also serve to prevent potentially lethal exposures to CO2. Blends of CO2 and EtO are commercially available at present, and proven process cycles already exist. Blends of CO2 and EtO have been in widespread use for years and dominated the market before the development of 12/88. Recent flammability tests indicate that the maximum concentration of EtO in CO2 blends may have to be lowered from its traditional level of 10 per cent to perhaps 8 or 9 per cent to achieve adequate levels of safety. As mentioned above, ethylene oxide is a HAP, and the user is alerted to follow all upcoming regulations concerning the use of ethylene oxide, whether used alone or in a blend. Carbon dioxide blends will not serve as direct drop-in replacements for 12/88. The higher operating pressures of CO2/EtO blends will require modifications to existing equipment. The Montreal Protocol's technology assessment report on sterilants estimated that less than one-half of the 12/88 sterilizers currently used in hospitals are certified to operate at the higher pressures necessary for CO2/EtO blends. (3) Pure EtO Pure EtO is acceptable as a substitute for 12/88 in sterilization. By itself, EtO is neither an ozone depleting substance nor a contributor to global warming. However, EtO is toxic, carcinogenic, and flammable. While these factors must be considered in the decision to approve EtO as a substitute for 12/88 and must be considered by users selecting appropriate substitutes for their current use of 12/88, the Agency considers current applicable standards and operating procedures (such as OSHA standards for occupational exposure) sufficient to protect human health and the environment. Thus, pure EtO systems are acceptable substitutes for 12/88. Users are advised to adhere to all existing workplace standards and to train workers in the proper operation of EtO equipment. Historical experience with pure EtO systems indicates that they can be used safely when operated in accordance with such guidelines. Because of the threat posed by vented EtO to the general population, the Agency also recommends that pure EtO systems be used in conjunction with emission control technologies such as catalytic converters or acid water scrubbers to prevent exposures of the general population to dangerous levels of EtO. As mentioned above, ethylene oxide is a HAP, and the user is alerted to the probability of future regulations concerning the use of ethylene oxide, whether used alone or in a blend. Pure EtO should not be considered a drop-in replacement for 12/88. EtO systems operate at atmospheric pressure or below, allowing some current 12/88 equipment to be retrofit for pure EtO through the addition of proper ventilation and control technologies. However, the costs associated with such changes, especially with larger equipment, can be prohibitive. Nevertheless, use of pure EtO can reduce operating costs substantially compared to those achieved with equivalent 12/88 systems. b. Unacceptable Substitutes [None] I. Aerosols 1. Overview To provide perspective on EPA's decisions in the aerosols sector, this section presents first an overview of important related regulations. Subsequent parts of the section describe the substitutes in the aerosols sector and present EPA's decisions on the substitutes. The decisions are summarized in Appendix B at the end of this notice. The proposed decisions presented in this section are based on the risk screen contained in the draft background document entitled "Risk Screen on Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: Aerosols." Following scientific concerns raised in 1974 regarding possible ozone depletion from CFCs, EPA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) acted on March 17, 1978 (43 FR 11301; 43 FR 11318) to ban the use of CFCs as aerosol propellants in all but "essential applications." During the mid-1970s, use as aerosol propellants constituted over 50 percent of total CFC consumption in the United States. The 1978 ban reduced aerosol use of CFCs in this country by approximately 95 percent, eliminating nearly half of the total U.S. consumption of these chemicals. Some CFC aerosol products were specifically exempted from the ban based on a determination of "essentiality". (See reference Essential Use Determinations-Revised, 1978.) The other uses of CFCs in aerosol and pressurized dispenser products (e.g., as an active ingredient, a solvent, or as the sole ingredient) were excluded from the ban because they did not fit the narrow definition of "aerosol propellant". Therefore, prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the only aerosol products that still contained CFCs were products exempted from the 1978 ban on CFC propellants or products excluded from the 1978 ban. The amended Clean Air Act of 1990 includes statutory authorities relevant to use of HCFCs in several sections of Title VI. Title VI divides controlled ozone-depleting substances into two distinct classes. Class I is comprised of CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride and MCF. Class II is comprised solely of HCFCs. In addition to mandating the phase out of Class I and Class II substances, section 610 of Title VI also provides for the prohibition of certain products made with Class I and Class II substances. The product bans for Class I substances and Class II substances are distinct from one another and are addressed in subsections 610(b) and 610(d), respectively. In section 610(b), Congress directed EPA to promulgate regulations that prohibit the sale or distribution of certain "nonessential" products that release Class I substances as of November 15, 1992. Under this subsection, Congress specifies particular products as nonessential and directs EPA to identify other nonessential products. In the Notification of Proposed Rulemaking (57 FR 1992, January 16, 1992), EPA proposed regulations that implement the requirements of section 610(b) and ban certain nonessential products that release Class I substances. Under this rule, EPA proposed to ban, among other products, flexible and packaging foam, and aerosols and other pressurized dispensers using CFCs. The use of methyl chloroform, while a Class I substance, is not restricted under this proposed rule. As directed by Congress, EPA conducted research into the purpose or intended use of products containing Class I substances, the technological availability of substitutes, safety and health considerations, and other relevant factors including the economic impact of banning selected products. EPA then proposed to ban the use of CFCs as propellants and solvents in all aerosol products with the following specific exemptions (57 FR 1992, January 16, 1992): -Contraceptive vaginal foams; -lubricants for pharmaceutical and tablet manufacture; -metered dose inhalation devices; -gauze bandage adhesives and adhesive removers; -commercial products using CFC-11 or CFC-113 as lubricants, coatings, or cleaning fluids for electrical and electronic equipment; -commercial products using CFC-11 or CFC-113 as lubricants, coatings, or cleaning fluids for aircraft maintenance; and -release agents for molds using CFC-11 or CFC-113 in the production of plastic or elastomeric materials. In addition to the first four products listed above, EPA is likely to exempt additional medical products as directed by the CAA. Medical devices, as defined in section 601, include devices, diagnostic products, drugs, and drug delivery systems that (a) utilize a Class I or Class II substance for which no safe and effective alternative has been developed and (b) have been approved and determined to be essential by the FDA Commissioner in consultation with the EPA Administrator. It is important to note that a product being exempted from the Class I ban does not imply exemption from the phase-out requirements under the CAA, which the Agency is examining separately. Section 610(d) of the CAA prohibits the sale or distribution of certain products that contain or are manufactured with Class II substances. This ban, which is effective January 1, 1994, extends to certain aerosols and pressurized dispensers which contain Class II substances and plastic foam products which contain or are manufactured with a Class II substance. EPA believes that the ban on certain products containing Class II substances is self-executing. Section 610(d)(1) bans the sale of the specified Class II products on its own terms, without any reference to required regulations. Thus, EPA is not required to determine which products will be banned. However, section 610(d)(2) allows EPA to grant exceptions and exclusions from the ban on aerosol and pressurized dispenser products containing class II substances. Specifically, EPA is authorized to grant exceptions from the prohibition where the use of the aerosol product or pressurized dispenser is determined by the Administrator to be essential as a result of flammability or worker safety, and where the only available alternative to use of a Class II substance is use of a Class I substance which legally could be substituted for such Class II substance (i.e., use of a Class I substance that is still allowed). In addition to these two criteria for exceptions, aerosol products may be excluded from the ban as a result of a third consideration in section 610 (d)(2); namely, that the ban on products containing Class II substances shall not apply to any medical device. Reflecting the self-executing nature of the CAA ban, any aerosol product or pressurized dispenser containing a Class II substance is banned as of January 1, 1994, unless EPA grants an exception. HCFCs have current and potential applications as propellants and as solvents in aerosol products. However, until recently, their use has been limited by the aerosol industry because of their high cost relative to traditional options such as CFCs and hydrocarbons. Increased regulation of CFCs, including taxation of these substances and an eventual phase-out, has meant that HCFCs are, for an interim period, economically viable in some applications, particularly where concern about flammability limits the use of cheaper alternatives, such as hydrocarbons. 2. Substitutes for Aerosols The Class I substances that are currently being used in aerosol applications include CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, and methyl chloroform (MCF). Similarly, the Class II substances that are currently being used are HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and HCFC-141b. The Agency has elected only to discuss alternatives for the CFC-11, CFC-113, MCF, HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and HCFC-141b. The uses for CFC-12 and CFC-114 are as propellants in medical applications and will not be discussed here because the substitutes for these applications are currently being developed and will have to undergo FDA approval. Possible substitutes in this application include HFC-134a and HFC-227ea, which both have low toxicity and zero ozone depletion potential. Regulatory approval for these compounds, however, is contingent on FDA approval, which will likely occur over the next several years. A variety of chemicals are currently being used or are being considered as substitutes for Class I and II controlled substances used in non-inhalation aerosols and pressurized containers. The suitability of alternatives depends upon the product in which they are used. Each of these alternatives has its own physical and chemical characteristics which make it optimal choice for the product in question, in terms of such factors as solvency properties, propellant characteristics, performance, cost, and environmental considerations. However, the Agency believes that a majority of the substitutes considered to replace the Class I and II controlled substances used as propellants or solvents in aerosols and pressurized containers as propellants and solvents are currently available and easily integrated into existing aerosol production facilities. The primary substitutes for the propellant uses of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are as follows: Hydrocarbons Dimethyl ether HFCs Compressed Gases Alternative Processes The primary substitutes for the solvent/diluent uses of CFC- 11, CFC-113, MCF, and HCFC-141b are as follows: Petroleum Distillates Ketones, esters, ethers, and alcohols HCFC-141b Terpenes Chlorinated Solvents Water-Based Systems This list of substitutes was compiled with the help of companies that submitted information on substitutes to the Agency in response to the January 16, 1992, Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-Making. Today's decisions on these substitutes are listed in Appendix B. The remainder of the section discusses these substitutes, the decision on each substitute, and the Agency's reasoning behind each determination. Vendors or users of other substitutes not included on the table for the SNAP determinations on aerosols should provide information on the substitutes so that the Agency can complete the determinations. a. Substitutes for Propellants.-(1) Hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are promising replacements for nonessential uses of HCFC-22 as a propellant in aerosols and pressurized containers. These small chain compounds, such as butane, isobutane, and propane, have low boiling points, making them excellent propellants. They are used separately or in mixtures, are inexpensive compared to HCFC-22 (HCFC-22 is four times more expensive than hydrocarbons), and are readily available from most chemical distributors. The Agency believes that the major area of concern with the replacement of hydrocarbons for HCFC-22 is the high flammability of hydrocarbons. In applications where a nonflammable propellant is needed, a hydrocarbon could not be used. For example, the use of hydrocarbons around electrical equipment could prove hazardous if sparks from the equipment were to ignite the hydrocarbon propellant. Hydrocarbons are adequate substitute propellants where flammability is not a concern. To reduce product flammability, hydrocarbons can be used with water-based formulations in products such as insecticides where product quality would not be adversely impacted. Manufacturers are also hindered from selling hydrocarbon propelled aerosols in certain jurisdictions. In California, for example, the use of hydrocarbons is restricted because of their classification as volatile organic compounds which contribute to low level ozone or smog. (2) Dimethyl Ether. Dimethyl ether (DME) is a medium pressure, flammable, liquified propellant. Because of its chemical properties, it can be used as a combination propellant/solvent, although it is typically classified together with other propellants and is used in combination with other propellants. Practices for manufacture and use of aerosol products formulated with DME parallel practices employed with hydrocarbons. (3) Hydrofluorocarbons. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) such as HFC-134a and HFC-152a are partially fluorinated hydrocarbons, which have recently been developed. These compounds are less dense than HCFC-22, but with minor reformulation adjustments could function equally well as propellants except in products such as noise horns, which require a more dense gas. Because HFCs have only recently been developed, they are only now becoming readily available and are expected to be priced significantly higher than HCFC-22. Preliminary studies show that HFCs are nonflammable and have low toxicity, which would make them good replacements for HCFC- 22 as a propellant. They also may be used in conjunction with flammable chemicals to reduce the flammability of such mixtures. For example, HFCs are being tested for use with dimethyl ether (DME) in safety sprays and animal repellents. Although DME is flammable, the overall product formulation is not. HFCs are also being tested as replacements for CFCs still used in medical applications because of their nonflammable, nontoxic properties. (4) Compressed Gases. Compressed Gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, air, and nitrous oxide are common, low molecular weight gases used as propellants in aerosol products but not as drop- in replacements. First, alternative dispensing mechanisms and stronger containers are needed because these gases are under significantly greater pressure. Containers holding compressed gases are, therefore, larger and bulkier. Second, because these chemicals have low molecular weights, they are inadequate as replacements for HCFC-22 in products requiring a dense gas propellant, such as noise horns, or in products requiring fine dispersion of the product, such as surface lubricants and weld inspection developers. Third, compressed gases dispel material faster because they are under higher pressure, which contributes to wasted product. Compressed gases are readily available from most chemical distributors and are inexpensive. Compressed gases cool upon expansion. This property could be beneficial when they are used as freezing agents and gum removers and could substitute for some nonessential uses of HCFC-22. Compressed gases are also nonflammable and can serve as propellants in applications where a nonflammable propellant is necessary, but not in applications where a fine even dispersion is required. (5) Alternative Processes. Alternative processes, such as manually operated pumps and sprays, provide an alternative delivery mechanism in place of the aerosol dispenser. Development of alternative process replacements depends on technological feasibility, but successful implementation of these processes depends on consumer or worker preferences. Some products, such as aerosol foams, cannot now be easily formed with alternative processes, making the replacement of the propellant difficult. In other products, the alternative process may not provide proper dispersion or accurate application of the product, limiting its use. Persons using manual pumps or sprays (in applications where alternative processes function adequately as replacements) on a continuous basis may become fatigued with the constant pumping motion, thus reducing consumer satisfaction. Therefore, alternative processes could not easily replace the use of aerosols in applications where it is not technologically feasible or where the product is used repeatedly. Nonetheless, these substitutes can serve as viable alternatives in certain applications. b. Substitutes for Solvent/Diluents. (1) Petroleum Distillates. Petroleum distillates are hydrocarbons fractionated from the distillation of petroleum. These compounds are loosely grouped into paraffins (six carbon chains to ten carbon chains-n-hexane, n-heptane, etc.) and light aromatics (toluene and xylene) and come in various grades of purity. These compounds have good solvent properties, are inexpensive (about half the price of MCF), and are readily available from chemical distributors. When a controlled substance is used only as a diluent, such as in automotive undercoatings, substitution using petroleum distillates is relatively easy with minor reformulation changes. Many of these products containing petroleum distillates even outperform their chlorinated counterpart. Petroleum distillates are, however, flammable, and thus cannot be used as replacement solvents in applications where the solvent must be nonflammable such as electronic cleaning applications. In addition, pesticide aerosols formulated with certain petroleum distillates must adhere to requirements imposed under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). (2) Oxygen-Containing Hydrocarbons. Oxygen-containing hydrocarbons are compounds are based on hydrocarbons containing appendant oxygen (alcohols and ketones), integral oxygens (ethers), or both (esters). These compounds are relatively inexpensive compared to MCF-about half the cost-and are readily available from chemical distributors. These compounds are also flammable and cannot be used as substitute solvents in applications where the solvent must be nonflammable. These compounds are currently being blended with Class I substances to reduce the amount of Class I substances used in a product formulation. Since the quantity of these compounds is small, the product still remains nonflammable. Some manufacturers, however, are completely reformulating products such as spot removers with ketones, esters, ethers, or alcohols. To continue the use of these convenient products, consumers may have to be educated about the product's increased flammability. (3) Hydrofluorocarbons (HCFCs). HCFC-141b is a potential substitute to replace CFC-11 and CFC-113 used in solvent/diluent applications in aerosols and pressurized dispensers. HCFC-141b's ODP is similar to MCF, making it unlikely that aerosol manufacturers would reformulate their products away from MCF towards HCFC- 141b. HCFC-141b has a number of characteristics which make it a suitable alternative solvent, namely: it is nonconductive, nonflammable, and evaporates quickly. HCFC-141b is expensive compared to the pretax price of CFC-113 (almost three times the cost). However, HCFC-141b is slightly corrosive to plastic parts, and could not serve as a drop-in replacement for all the uses of CFC-11 and CFC-113 as a solvent. (4) Terpenes. Terpenes are unsaturated hydrocarbons based on isoprene subunits. They have good solvent properties and could replace ozone-depleting compounds in some solvent cleaning applications. They are flammable, which limits their use in applications that require nonflammable solvents. Some terpenes have a slight citrus scent while others have a more stronger unpleasant odor, thereby making them unpleasing to use over a constant period of time. (5) Chlorinated Solvents. Chlorinated solvents such as perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and methylene chloride can be used to replace CFC-11, CFC-113, and MCF in solvent applications in aerosol and pressurized containers. These chlorinated solvents are extremely effective and can dissolve compounds which are difficult to dissolve in other solvents, such as fluorinated polymers used in water and oil repellents. However, due to toxicity concerns associated with these substances, their application is likely to be limited, especially in products sold to the general public or in products that are used frequently by workers. In addition, pesticide aerosols formulated with these chlorinated solvents must adhere to requirements under FIFRA. Chlorinated solvents, because they are strong solvents and nonflammable, are promising substitutes in cleaning applications for electronic equipment or electric motors where safeguards could be used to protect workers from the potentially toxic fumes. These compounds are readily available from chemical distributors at prices comparable to MCF. (6) Water-Based Formulations. Water-based formulations provide a replacement for the use of CFC-11, CFC-113, and MCF as solvents in aerosols and pressurized dispensers. These reformulated products usually contain new components/active-ingredients that are water soluble. The overall function of the reformulated product remains the same, but the product's substituents are changed. Most formulations are nonflammable, yet may be difficult to use around sources of electricity because they may short out electrical equipment. Such products may also have short shelf-lives because the active ingredient may decompose in an aqueous environment. Also, these products when sprayed do not evaporate quickly, resulting in product accumulation. This may be problematic in certain applications such as where the accumulation of a water-based product contributes to rust or corrosion. The possibility of reformulating products is product-specific, depending on the feasibility of finding active ingredients that are water soluble. (7) Monochlorotoluene/ chlorobenzotrifluorides. Monochlorotoluene and chlorobenzotrifluorides are of commercial interest as solvent substitutes for aerosols. These compounds can be used either in isolation or in various mixtures, depending on desired chemical properties. The Agency recently received information on these formulations, and it will issue a SNAP determination for these substitutes in the next set of listing decisions. 3. Preliminary Listing Decisions a. Acceptable Substitutes. (1) Propellants (a) Hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are acceptable substitutes as propellants in the aerosols sector. Hydrocarbons have several environmental advantages over other substitutes. For example, they have zero ozone-depletion potential, and because of their extremely short atmospheric residence times they are estimated to have insignificant impact on global warming. Yet their reactivity contributes to formation of tropospheric ozone. The Agency has assessed this effect, however, and found that the increase in volatile organic compound emissions (VOCs) from these substitutes will have no significant effect on tropospheric ozone formation. Hydrocarbons have a long history of use, and the increase due to replacement of CFCs as aerosol propellants represents a fraction of current consumption. Hydrocarbon propellants acquired industrial importance in the U.S in the early 1950s. By 1978, when the ban on CFC propellants in the U.S. was promulgated, nearly half of all aerosol units being produced in the U.S were already using hydrocarbon propellants. This percentage grew to nearly 90 percent in 1979. Most of the hydrocarbon propellants are essentially non-toxic. Very high concentration of hydrocarbons are necessary to alter normal body functions. No temporary or permanent physiological malfunctions are produced by these chemicals. Very high concentrations of hydrocarbons may result in asphyxiation because of lack of oxygen. Hydrocarbon propellants are flammable. Thus, precautions will need to be taken in receiving, unloading, transferring, storing, and filling hydrocarbons aerosol products. The listing of these compounds as acceptable substitutes does not exempt producers or users from other regulatory or industrial standards such as those promulgated by OSHA. However, because of the widespread use of these materials, industry is already familiar with the safety precautions necessary in switching from a CFC filling operation to one using hydrocarbons. (b) HCFC-22 HCFC-22 is an acceptable substitute as a propellant in the aerosols sector. The principal characteristic of HCFC-22 that has resulted in its increased use is non-flammability. However, the use of HCFC-22, either by itself or blended with other compounds, will be prohibited after January 1, 1994 due to the high ozone- depletion potential of this compound. As noted earlier, section 610(d) of the CAA Amendments of 1990 prohibits the sale or distribution of aerosol products or other pressurized dispensers that contain Class II substances (i.e., HCFCs) by January 1, 1994. Section 610(d)(2) allows EPA to grant exceptions where the use of the aerosol product or pressurized dispenser is determined by the Administrator to be essential as a result of flammability or worker safety, and where the only available alternative to the use of a Class II substance is the legally permitted use of a Class I substance. The Agency is not restricting substitution of HCFC-22 for Class I propellants at this time. However, the Agency advises companies that, under the SNAP program, the Agency will only allow uses of HCFC-22 consistent with the exemptions provided under section 610(d)(2), once these regulations are promulgated in 1994. (c) HCFC-142b HCFC-142b is an acceptable substitute as a propellant in the aerosols sector. Although this compound has a comparatively high ODP, it is one of the few non-toxic, non-flammable substitutes. However, as described in the section on HCFC-22, use of HCFC- 142b, either by itself or blended with other compounds, will be prohibited after January 1, 1994 under section 610(d)(2). After that date, the SNAP program will only grant exemptions for use of HCFC-142b for essential applications based on worker safety and flammability as classified under section 610. (d) HFC-152a and HFC-134a HFC-152a and HFC-134a are acceptable substitutes as propellants in the aerosols sector. HFC-152a has both zero ozone-depletion potential and a low global warming potential. However, HFC-152a by itself is flammable, and necessary precautions should be taken when using this chemical. HFC-134a also has zero ozone- depletion potential, yet this compound does have a relatively long atmospheric lifetime and could therefore contribute to global warming. Despite these concerns, the Agency has approved these substitutes due to their ability to fill certain niche applications where other substitutes do not exist. The use of these HFCs by themselves or blended with HCFC- 22 or HCFC-142b will be allowed. However, as noted above, the use of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b, either by itself or blended with other compounds, will be prohibited after January 1, 1994 under section 610(d)(2). Limited exemptions will apply, as discussed above. (e) Dimethyl Ether Dimethyl ether is an acceptable substitute propellant in the aerosols sector. The principal environmental concern for use of DME is its ability to contribute to ground-level ozone formation. However, the Agency's screen of effects from increased use of VOCs in aerosol products suggests that increases in ground- level ozone formation from use of DME would be minor. (f) Compressed Gases Compressed gases are acceptable substitutes as propellants in the aerosols sector. The Agency believes that although compressed gases such as air, carbon dioxide, nitrogen are presently only used in about 7-9 per cent of the aerosol products, their use will grow in the future. These gases have low toxicity and industrial practices for using these substitutes are well established. Since these gases are under significantly greater pressure, containers holding these gases will have to be larger and bulkier, and safety precautions will have to be undertaken during filling operations. Carbon dioxide and nitrogen are non-flammable and do not require the use of explosion proof gassing equipment. Nitrous oxide, while non-flammable, can create a moderate explosion risk under certain temperature and pressure conditions. (g) Alternative Processes Alternative Processes are acceptable as propellants in the aerosols sector. Alternative processes such as finger and trigger pumps, two-compartment aerosol products, mechanical pressure dispenser systems, and non-spray dispensers (e.g., solid stick dispensers) have found increasing use as replacement for conventional aerosol products. The Agency believes that these products do not pose any significant risks, since they rely on mechanical force to replace the propellant. (2) Solvents (a) Petroleum Distillates.-Petroleum distillates are acceptable substitutes as solvents in the aerosol sector. Petroleum distillates have had a long history of use, and increases due to replacements for aerosol applications represent a fraction of the current consumption across industries. Concerns for risks from these compounds in possible uses as pesticide aerosol solvents have already been addressed under FIFRA authorities. (b) HCFC-141b HCFC-141b, either by itself or blended with other compounds, is an acceptable substitute for aerosol solvent applications. Like HCFC-22, the principal problem with HCFC-141b is that it has a comparatively high ODP-0.11. This is the highest ODP of all HCFCs; in fact, the ODP of HCFC-141b is about twice as high as HCFC-22. Yet in certain cases, such as where flammability is a technical impediment to use of other alternatives, HCFC- 141b may be the only alternative to replace other ozone-depleting solvents. Several companies have already contacted the Agency indicating that they have tested alternatives, and that in some cases only HCFC-141b meets performance or safety criteria. Under the SNAP program, the Agency will allow the use of HCFC-141b as a substitute for CFC-11 or CFC-113 use until January 1994, when regulations under section 610(d)(2) will be promulgated. Key features of section 610 are described under the listing decision for HCFC-22. (c) Other Chlorinated Solvents Trichloroethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (PERC) and methylene chloride (MeCl), are acceptable substitutes as solvents in the aerosols sector. These substitutes have the technical capability to meet a large portion of the needs of the aerosols industry. However, the Agency anticipates that, due to toxicity concerns associated with the past use of these alternatives, the market share for these other chlorinated solvents will not increase substantially. The toxicity of these three solvents has been subject of extensive analysis. Their use has the potential to pose high risks to workers as well as to residents in nearby communities or consumers using products containing such chemicals. Although risks to workers can be reduced by adhering to OSHA standards, residual risks to residents in nearby communities may remain. The Agency is aware of potential for these risks to occur, and it has the authority necessary to address them under Title III of the CAA. This section of the CAA lists three of these solvents as Hazardous Air Pollutants, and authorizes the Agency to establish controls for their use. In addition, any risks through use of these compounds as pesticide aerosols have already been addressed using FIFRA authorities. The Agency did not explicitly evaluate risks to consumers, since it received no indication that these chlorinated solvents were of commercial interest for use in consumer aerosols. The Agency strongly encourages manufacturers to formulate consumer products based on other compounds with fewer known adverse effects on human health. (d) Oxygen-Containing Hydrocarbons Oxygen-containing hydrocarbons (ketones, esters, ethers, and alcohols) are acceptable substitutes as solvents in the aerosols sector. Most of these compounds have a long history of use, and the increase due to replacement as aerosol substitutes represents a fraction of the current consumption across all industries. (e) Terpenes Terpene-based products are acceptable substitutes as solvents in the aerosols sector. Terpene-based chemicals have a long history of use as industrial solvents, and the increase due to replacement of ozone-depleting compounds in aerosol applications represents a fraction of current consumption across all industries. Additionally, many of these chemicals are naturally occurring organic hydrocarbons and exhibit significant biodegradability. The use history of these chemicals does not negate the inherent toxicity of these compounds to aquatic life. However, the Agency does not believe that in this case significant adverse effects are to be expected, since in aerosol applications the terpenes volatilize during use and would consequently not be discharged to surface or ground water where aquatic species are to be found. (f) Water-Based Formulations Water-based formulations are acceptable substitutes for propellants in the aerosols sector. The Agency did not identify any significant environmental concerns associated with use of these products. They can contain small amounts of VOCs, but these amounts are minor in comparison to products formulated solely with organic solvents. b. Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes. (1) Propellants. None (2) Solvents. None J. Tobacco Expansion. 1. Overview Tobacco expansion is the process of puffing leaves of tobacco to increase the volume of tobacco used in cigarette production. Currently, one of the primary technologies used to expand tobacco in the U.S. uses CFC-11. One and one half million pounds annually are used in the U.S. in this application. In the CFC-11 process, tobacco is saturated with CFC-11 in a stainless steel vessel maintained at 120 degrees Fahrenheit and pressurized to 20 psi. The tobacco is then permeated with hot air (330 °F) which expands the tobacco. The CFC-11 is vaporized and recovered by cooling and compressing. The CFC-11 is continually recovered and recycled. The Agency received information about three potential substitutes: (1) Carbon dioxide technology, an alternative process substitute, (2) HCFC-123, a drop-in replacement, and (3) HFC-227ea. In this action, the Agency is listing carbon dioxide as an acceptable substitute for CFC-11 in tobacco expansion. The decision on HCFC-123 as a substitute for CFC-11 for tobacco expansion is pending completion of the Agency's review of the data. Similarly, HFC-227ea is pending completion of review of the data. 2. Proposed Acceptable Substitutes. a. Carbon Dioxide The Agency has determined the use of carbon dioxide as a substitute for CFC-11 in tobacco expansion to be acceptable. Carbon dioxide has been successfully used in the tobacco industry for approximately twenty years. It is non-toxic, non-flammable, and it has zero ODP. A permissible exposure level (PEL) has been set at 5,000 ppm, a level that can easily be met during the well contained tobacco expansion process. The carbon dioxide process is similar to the process using CFC-11, though pressure and temperature parameters are different. For this reason carbon dioxide cannot be used as a retrofit for CFC-11 equipment; new equipment must be purchased in order to use carbon dioxide for tobacco expansion. Although carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, increased use of carbon dioxide for tobacco expansion will not increase global warming because the carbon dioxide used in tobacco expansion is a by-product of the production of other gases. The carbon dioxide is captured from a stream of gas that otherwise would be emitted to the ambient air. Additionally, carbon dioxide recycling equipment is available, which will also help limit emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. K. Adhesives, Coatings, and Inks. 1. Overview Methyl chloroform (MCF) is used as a solvent in adhesives, coatings, and inks because of its favorable properties: high solvency, low flammability, low toxicity, relative high stability, and low boiling point. Unlike a number of other solvents classified as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), MCF does not photochemically degrade in the lower atmosphere to lead to ground-level ozone formation. This key property caused many manufacturers to switch from formulations containing VOC solvents to MCF in the mid 1980s as regulatory pressure increased to reduce VOC emissions in nonattainment areas. Companies achieved compliance by altering their solvent-borne formulations, thereby avoiding costly capital investment in new equipment, changes in operating procedures, and employee retraining. This trend has been reversed as companies have begun to respond to the phase-out of MCF under the stratospheric ozone protection provisions of the Clean Air Act. This section examines substitutes that can be used in place of MCF in this sector, and presents the Agency's proposed decisions and supporting analysis on acceptability of these substitutes. These determinations are summarized in Appendix B at the end of the sector discussions. Of the three uses for MCF in this sector, use of MCF is largest in the adhesives subsector. In 1989, manufacturers of adhesives consumed about 28,000 metric tons (MT) of MCF in their formulations, roughly nine per cent of the total MCF produced in the U.S. (HSIA, 1991). Solvent-based adhesive formulations constitute 15 per cent of all adhesive types. MCF is desirable as a solvent for adhesives because it evaporates rapidly, is nonflammable, performs comparably to or better than VOC-formulated products, and does not photochemically degrade in the lower atmosphere. Current consumption of methyl chloroform as a solvent in the adhesives sector is estimated to be 32,000 MT. MCF is used in five adhesive types: laminate adhesives; flexible foam adhesives; hardwood floor adhesives; metal to rubber adhesives; and tire patch adhesives. MCF is no longer commonly used in the following adhesive applications where its use was once widespread: pressure sensitive adhesives (tapes, labels, etc.); flexible packaging adhesives; aerosol-propelled adhesives; and shoe repair glues and other consumer adhesives. In manufacture of coatings and inks, MCF usage rose steadily throughout the 1980s and began declining in the early 1990s. In 1989, the consumption of MCF used in coatings and inks was 18,480 MT, six percent of the total 310,000 MT of MCF consumed in the U.S. Current consumption in the coatings and inks sector is estimated to be 23,000 MT. MCF is the only ozone-depleting substance currently used in coatings and inks formulations. As with uses in adhesives, MCF has replaced some of the applications in coatings and inks which previously used VOC solvents. The current use of MCF in coatings and inks applications occurs four use areas: flexographic and rotogravure printing inks; wood stains; metal coatings; and aerospace coatings. 2. Substitutes in the Adhesives, Coatings, and Inks Sector Methyl chloroform-based adhesives, coatings, and inks can be replaced by either substitute solvents or alternative application technologies. In most instances, the alternatives are expected to perform as well as products containing MCF. Factors that determine which particular alternative is best in a given situation include physical and chemical properties, replacement chemical costs, capital investment costs, and product performance. The primary substitutes to replace methyl chloroform in adhesives, coatings, and inks include: petroleum distillates; organic solvents (ketones, esters, ethers, alcohols); chlorinated solvents; terpenes; water-based formulations; high-solids formulation; and alternative process alternatives; -powder formulations -hot melts -thermoplastic plasma spray coatings -radiation cured -moisture cured -chemical cured -reactive liquids. These substitutes can be grouped into four basic categories: solvent substitutes, water-based formulations, high-solids formulations, and alternative processes. a. Solvent Substitutes. Petroleum distillates are hydrocarbons fractionated from the distillation of petroleum. These compounds are loosely grouped into paraffins (six carbon chains to ten carbon chains-hexane, heptane, etc.) and light aromatics (toluene and xylene), and come in various levels of purity. These compounds have good solvent properties, cost about half as much as MCF, and are readily available from chemical distributors. Organic solvents such as alcohols, ketones, ethers, and esters dissolve a wide range of polar and semi-polar substances. These compounds are relatively inexpensive compared to MCF (about half the cost) and are readily available. They function well as solvents and dissolve most resins and binders used in adhesives, coatings, and inks. Chlorinated solvents such as perchloroethylene and methylene chloride are chlorinated hydrocarbons. These chemicals can be used to replace MCF used in adhesives, coatings and inks. These solvents are commercially available from chemical distributors at prices comparable to those for methyl chloroform. Chlorinated solvent compounds are chemically similar to MCF and thus are able to substitute directly for MCF with minor changes in the formulation of the product; product quality is expected to remain unchanged. Manufacturers can use chlorinated solvents in existing equipment with minor changes, resulting in low capital costs. Terpenes are unsaturated hydrocarbons based on isoprene subunits. They have good solvent properties and could replace MCF in some coating and ink products. Terpenes, such as d-limonene, cost about seven times more than MCF, and are commercially available from chemical distributors. Manufacturers can use terpenes in existing equipment with minor changes. Monochlorotoluene and chlorobenzotrifluorides are also of commercial interest as solvent substitutes for adhesives, coatings, and inks. These compounds can be used either in isolation or in various mixtures, depending on desired chemical properties. The Agency recently received information on these formulations, and it will issue a SNAP determination for these substitutes in the next set of listing decisions. b. Water-Based Formulations. Water-based coatings contain water rather than conventional solvents. Primary uses of these coatings include furniture, aluminum siding, hardboard, metal containers, appliances, structural steel, and heavy equipment. Water-based coatings are priced roughly 20 to 30 per cent more than methyl chloroform-based coatings. Water-based inks use water and other co-solvents such as alcohols and alkyl acetates to dissolve resins, binders, and pigments instead of conventional solvents. Water-based inks accounted for 55 per cent of the flexographic inks and 15 per cent of the gravure inks used in the U.S. in 1987. Water-based inks are priced roughly 10 per cent less than methyl chloroformbased inks. Water-based adhesives currently account for about 45 per cent of world adhesive market. Water-based adhesives will likely dominate the market to replace MCF in general consumer uses and in areas where a rigid bond is not needed. Water-based adhesives- especially water-based latexes, which are stable dispersions of solid polymeric material in an essentially aqueous medium- can effectively replace MCF use in the flexible foams sector because of the flexibility of the bond they provide. Water-based latex adhesives have the potential to penetrate 85-90 per cent of the MCF-based adhesive market in flexible foams applications. They still pose a number of problems, however, including: long set and dry times; deterioration during storage; and the production of bacteria-contaminated waste water. Water-based replacements have not proven effective in binding high density laminates or hardwood flooring. Slow tack, set, and dry times continue to be a problem and trapped moisture enhances the chances of warping. In cases where MCF is used for door assemblies or sealants, water-based urethane adhesives containing polyisocyanates can be used instead. c. High-Solid Formulations. High-solids coatings resemble conventional coatings in appearance and use, except high-solids coatings contain less solvent and a greater percentage of resin. High-solids coatings are currently used on appliances, metal furniture, and farm and road construction equipment. High-solids coatings are priced 20 to 30 percent higher than methyl chloroform- based coatings, yet the buyer receives more usable paint because the coatings contain less solvent reducing their volume. High-solids adhesives can reduce the amount of solvent used in adhesives by increasing the percentage of solids in the formulation. Adhesives formerly containing 30-50 percent solids contain about 80 percent solids after reformulation. High-solids adhesives have good performance characteristics, including initial bond strength, and can be applied using existing equipment at normal line speeds with minimal modification. For bonding rubber assemblies, high solid adhesive films are often too thick, resulting in limited versatility and generally poor performance. High-solids formulations, however, are already used widely in the flexible foams, hardwood flooring, and high-pressure laminates industries. The solvent of choice in these industries remains MCF, but with a decreased portion of solvent in the formulations, less solvent is consumed overall. High solids formulations are only a transitional replacement until adequate substitutes are found that do not contain MCF. d. Alternative Process Substitutes. Powder adhesives, the first category of alternative process substitutes, are composed of one-part epoxies, urethanes, and natural resins. These adhesives are often supplied as powders that require heat to cure. They are generally applied in one of three ways: by sifting the powder onto preheated substrates, by dipping a preheated substrate into the powder, and by melting the powder into a paste or liquid and applying it by conventional means. Since high temperatures are required to activate and thermoset powder adhesives, their ability to replace MCF-based formulations will depend on the characteristics substrates being bonded: if the materials being bonded are heat sensitive, heat-activated powder adhesives can not be used. Powder coatings have no solvent, containing only resins and pigments in powder form. Typically, the coated object is heated above the powder's melting point, so that the resin fuses into a continuous film. Powder coatings have been used on various types of metal products such as appliances, concrete reinforced bars, automobiles, steel shelving, lawn and farm equipment, and some furniture. The elevated temperatures necessary to melt the coatings, however, restrict the use of powder coatings on plastic and wood products. Powder coatings are priced comparably to methyl chloroform-based coatings. Hot melt adhesives are 100 percent solid thermoplastic binders that can be used to replace MCF formulations in applications that require a rigid bond. Hot melts currently account for about 20 percent of the adhesives market, and they, along with water- based adhesives, will likely benefit most from the move away from MCF-based adhesive formulations. Hot melts are now used instead of MCF formulations in laminating applications, especially those involving the lamination of flexible foam products. They can also replace MCF-based adhesive formulations in OEM production of high-pressure laminates and possibly in the installation of hardwood flooring. The potential ability of hot melt adhesives to replace MCF-based formulations in the flexible foams sector is limited to 10-15 percent penetration because of the need for flexible bonds in most furniture and bedding applications. Thermoplastic plasma spray coatings are powder coatings that melt in transit towards the object to be coated propelled by a pressurized inert gas, such as Argon. An electric arc strips electrons from the plastic particles fusing them together as they move through the applicator gun. Thermoplastic plasma spray coatings can be used to coat large and small objects of metal, wood, plastic, or fiberglass. Radiation curing is a production technique for drying and curing adhesives with radiant energy in the form of ultraviolet (UV) or infrared (IR) light, electron beams (EB), and gamma or x-rays. The binding agents that can be cured with radiant energy are acrylics, epoxies, urethanes, anaerobic adhesives, and polyester resins. In many cases, if the materials are either heat sensitive or opaque, radiation curing cannot be employed. Radiation-dried coatings are applied as either a powder or as a high-solids form and dried using the same radiant energy forms as used in radiation-cured adhesives. The binder systems that can be dried with radiant energy are also similar. In cases where the radiant energy is harmful to a component, such as sensitive electronic equipment, radiant-dried coating cannot be employed. Moisture-cured, chemical-cured, and reactive liquid adhesives are still not widely used because they are still being developed or because performance or application problems still have to be addressed. They will not be widely commercially available for several years. 3. Preliminary Listing Decisions. a. Acceptable Substitutes (1) Solvent Substitutes. (a) Petroleum Distillates Petroleum distillates are acceptable substitutes for adhesives, coatings, and inks. The principal concern with these substitutes is over risk to workers during manufacture and use of the alternative solvent. However, the Agency's analysis of these alternatives indicated that risks from use of petroleum distillates are well understood and, as a consequence, already subject to necessary controls. For instance, although these solvents are flammable, industry has a good record of safe use of these substitutes. Additionally, certain of the petroleum distillates have low Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs), for example n-hexane, but the Agency's survey of exposures in the workplace found that these levels can successfully be attained if adequate ventilation and appropriate work practices are implemented. The Agency's analysis of the potential for risks to residents in nearby communities did indicate the potential for adverse effects near a site with industrial use of petroleum distillates if a relatively toxic petroleum distillate is used. However, the Agency does not believe that the risk screen describes the true risk presented by these chemicals. First, it is unlikely that solvents as toxic as the chemical chosen for the purpose of the risk screen-n-hexane-are in wide-spread use. Second, the screen used as past MCF emissions as a proxy for emissions of n-hexane. This approach does not account for other regulatory controls, such as VOC controls, that limit emissions of petroleum distillates from industrial sites, and would consequently also serve to lower any other health risks to the general population from these chemicals. For this reason, the Agency believes that petroleum distillates merit use as substitutes, although it encourages manufacturers to formulate products where possible with compounds with lowest inherent toxicity. (b) Alcohols, Ketones, Ethers and Esters Alcohols, Ketones, Ethers and Esters are acceptable substitutes for adhesives, coatings, and inks. The concerns for use of these solvents parallel the concerns associated with petroleum distillates. In this case, two of the typical hydrocarbons examined in the Agency's risk screen, methyl ethyl ketone and methyl isobutyl ketone, also have comparatively low toxicity. For the same reasons described in the section on petroleum distillates, the Agency is approving these compounds as substitutes for MCF. This approval also includes the same guidance to manufacturers-to select chemicals for product formulations with lowest inherent toxicity. (c) Chlorinated Solvents Perchloroethylene, methylene chloride and trichloroethylene are acceptable substitutes for adhesives, coatings, and inks. Uses of these solvents merit special caution, since they are suspected human carcinogens. However, as with other solvents, the Agency's risk screen indicates that proper workplace practices significantly reduce risks in occupational settings. The Agency's examination of risks to the general population determined the highest potential for adverse effects to be associated with use of trichloroethylene, since it has the greatest cancer potency. The screen pointed to the need for further assessment of the hazards from use of this chemical, and the Agency notes that authorities exist to address any risks determined from such analyses under Title III of the Clean Air Act. Title III lists all three of the chlorinated solvents as Hazardous Air Pollutants, and mandates development of Maximum Achievable Control Technology to control emissions of these chemicals in various industrial settings. (d) Terpenes Terpenes are acceptable substitutes for adhesives, coatings, and inks. The principal environmental concern with terpenes is their toxicity to aquatic life. In applications for terpenes in adhesives, coatings, and inks, however, the terpenes are both used and bound in the product formulation, meaning that there are no discharges of wastewater effluent that could present a risk. Other potential environmental hazards associated with these compounds arise from their flammability and unpleasant odors, but these can be controlled by good workplace practices. (2) Water-Based Formulations/High-Solid Formulations Water-based formulations and high-solid formulations are acceptable substitutes for adhesives, coatings, and inks. The Agency did not identify any environmental or health concerns associated with use of these products. These formulations do contain small amounts of VOCs, but the increase in VOC loadings from these products is expected to be extremely small in comparison to VOC contributions from other sources. (3) Alternative Processes Alternative processes, including powder formulations, hot melt, thermoplastic plasma spray, radiation-based formulations, and moisture-cured, chemical-cured, and reactive liquid alternatives, are all acceptable substitutes for adhesives, coatings, and inks. The Agency did not identify any health or environmental concerns associated with use of these substitutes. Since this grouping includes such a wide variety of products for which it is difficult to complete an in-depth risk screen, the Agency solicits additional detail on any potential environmental or health effects that merit further investigation. X. Additional Information A. Executive Order 12291 Executive Order (EO) 12291 requires the preparation of a regulatory impact analysis for major rules, defined by the order as those likely to result in: (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, state or local government agencies; (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign- based enterprises in domestic or export markets. EPA has determined that this proposed regulation does not meet the definition of a major rule under EO12291 and therefore has not prepared a formal regulatory impact analysis. EPA has instead prepared an economic analysis which estimated potential costs of the proposed regulation, using the reductions of production and consumption under the CFC phase-out as a baseline. This analysis showed that the SNAP program was not likely to impose costs of greater than $100 million on industry, and in fact, to the extent the program established by this rule helps spread the word about available, economically viable substitutes for Class I and II ozone-depleting compounds, this rule provides solid benefits to industry in their effort to move away from prohibited compounds. The economic analysis summarized in the foregoing discussion has been placed in the record for this rulemaking. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-602, requires that Federal agencies examine the effects of their regulations on small entities. Under 5 U.S.C. 604(a), whenever an agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rule-making, it must prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA). Such an analysis is not required if the head of the Agency certifies that a rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The Agency believes that today's proposed regulation, if promulgated, will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities and has therefore concluded that a formal RFA is unnecessary. Because costs of the requirements as a whole are expected to be minor, the rule is unlikely to adversely affect small businesses, particularly as the rule exempts small sectors and end-uses from reporting requirements and formal Agency review. In fact, to the extent that information gathering is more expensive and time-consuming for small companies, this rule may well provide benefits for small businesses anxious to examine potential substitutes to any ozone-depleting Class I and II substances they may be using, by requiring manufacturers to make information on such substitutes available. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1596.02) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch, EPA, 401 M St., SW. (PM-223Y), Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260- 2740. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to vary from 4 to 166 hours per response with total estimated reporting burden on the industry of 8,772 hours. This estimate includes time for initial contact with the Agency, reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, completing the collection and presentation of information, and responding to any additional requests for missing data. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Chief, Information Policy Branch, EPA, 401 M St., S.W. (PM-223Y), Washington, DC 20460, and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked "Attention: Desk Officer for EPA." The final rule will respond to any public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. XI. References 1. United Nations Environment Programme, World Meteorological Organization, et al. Scientific Assessment of Stratospheric Ozone: 1991 (17 December 1991). 2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, World Meteorological Organization, United Nations Environment Programme. Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment (1990). 3. Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA), 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methyl Chloroform) White Paper (May 1991). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: April 23, 1993. Carol M. Browner, Administrator. Appendix A to the Preamble-Class I and Class II Ozone Depleting Substances Class I and Class II Ozone-Depleting Substances CLASS I Group I: Chlorofluorocarbon-11 CFC-11 (CFCl3) Trichlorofluoromethane Chlorofluorocarbon-12 CFC-12 (CF2Cl2) Dichlorodifluoromethane Chlorofluorocarbon-113 CFC-113 (C2F3Cl3) Trichlorotrifluoroethane Chlorofluorocarbon-114 CFC-114 (C2F4Cl2) Dichlorotetrafluoroethane Chlorofluorocarbon-115 CFC-115 (C2F5Cl) Monochloropentafluoroethane Group II: Halon-1211 (CF2ClBr) Bromochlorodifluoromethane Halon-1301 (CF3Br) Bromotrifluoromethane Halon-2402 (C2F4Br2) Dibromotetrafluoroethane Group III: Chlorofluorocarbon-13 CFC-13 (CF3Cl) Chlorotrifluoromethane Chlorofluorocarbon-111 CFC-111 (C2FCl5) Pentachlorofluoroethane Chlorofluorocarbon-112 CFC-112 (C2F2Cl4) Tetrachlorodifluoroethane Chlorofluorocarbon-211 CFC-211 (C3FCl7) Heptachlorofluoropropane Chlorofluorocarbon-212 CFC-212 (C3F2Cl6) Hexachlorodifluoropropane Chlorofluorocarbon-213 CFC-213 (C3F3Cl5) Pentachlorotrifluoropropane Chlorofluorocarbon-214 CFC-214 (C3F4Cl4) Tetrachlorotetrafluoropropane Chlorofluorocarbon-215 CFC-215 (C3F5Cl3) Trichloropentafluoropropane Chlorofluorocarbon-216 CFC-216 (C3F6Cl2) Dichlorohexafluoropropane Chlorofluorocarbon-217 CFC-217 (C3F7Cl) Monochloroheptafluoropropane Group IV: Carbon Tetrachloride (CCl4) Group V: Methyl Chloroform (C2H3Cl3) 1,1,1 Trichloroethane CLASS II Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-21 HCFC-21 (CHFCl2) Dichlorofluoromethane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-22 HCFC-22 (CHF2Cl) Monochlorodifluoromethane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-31 HCFC-31 (CH2FCl) Monochlorofluoromethane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-121 HCFC-121 (C2HFCl4) Tetrachlorofluoroethane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-122 HCFC-122 (C2HF2Cl3) Trichlorodifluoroethane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-123 HCFC-123 (C2HF3Cl2) Dichlorotrifluoroethane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-124 HCFC-124 (C2HF4Cl) Monochlorotetrafluoroethane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-131 HCFC-131 (C2H2FCl3) Trichlorofluoroethane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-132B HCFC-132B (C2H2F2Cl2) Dichlorodifluoroethane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-133A HCFC-133A (C2H2F3Cl) Monochlorotrifluoroethane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-141B HCFC-141B (C2H3FCl2) Dichlorofluoroethane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-142B HCFC-142B (C2H3F2Cl) Monochlorodifluoroethane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-221 HCFC-221 (C3HFCl6) Hexachlorofluoropropane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-222 HCFC-222 (C3HF2Cl5) Pentachlorodifluoropropane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-223 HCFC-223 (C3HF3Cl4) Tetrachlorotrifluoropropane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-224 HCFC-224 (C3HF4Cl3) Trichlorotetrafluoropropane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-225CA HCFC-225CA (C3HF5Cl2) Dichloropentafluoropropane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-225CB HCFC-225CB (C3HF5Cl2) Dichloropentafluoropropane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-226 HCFC-226 (C3HF6Cl) Monochlorohexafluoropropane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-231 HCFC-231 (C3H2FCl5) Pentachlorofluoropropane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-232 HCFC-232 (C3H2F2Cl4 Tetrachlorodifluoropropane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-233 HCFC-233 (C3H2F3Cl3) Trichlorotrifluoropropane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-234 HCFC-234 (C3H2F4Cl2) Dichlorotetrafluoropropane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-235 HCFC-235 (C3H2F5Cl) Monochloropentafluoropropane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-241 HCFC-241 (C3H3FCl4) Tetrachlorofluoropropane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-242 HCFC-242 (C3H3F2Cl3) Trichlorodifluoropropane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-243 HCFC-243 (C3H3F3Cl2) Dichlorotrifluoropropane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-244 HCFC-244 (C3H3F4Cl) Monochlorotetrafluoropropane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-251 HCFC-251 (C3H4FCl3) Trichlorofluoropropane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-252 HCFC-252 (C3H4F2Cl2) Dichlorodifluoropropane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-253 HCFC-253 (C3H4F3Cl) Monochlorotrifluoropentane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-261 HCFC-261 (C3H5FCl2) Dichlorofluoropropane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-262 HCFC-262 (C3H5F2Cl) Monochlorodifluoropropane Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-271 HCFC-271 (C3H6FCl) Monochlorofluoropropane Appendix B to the Preamble-Preliminary Listing Decisions Refrigerants-Acceptable Substitutes ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Application ³ Substitute ³ Initial decision ³ Proposed conditions ³ Comments ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ³ ³ ³ ³ CFC-11 Centrifugal ³ 1 HCFC-123 ........ ³ Acceptable ........ ³ ³ EPA worker-monitoring studies of Chillers (Retrofits). ³ ³ ³ ³ 123 show that 8-hour TWA can be ³ ³ ³ ³ kept within 1 ppm (less than the ³ ³ ³ ³ OEL of 10 ppm) when recycling and ³ ³ ³ ³ ASHRAE standards are followed. ³ ³ ³ ³ 123 is the only available ³ ³ ³ ³ retrofit for low-pressure systems; ³ ³ ³ ³ it also has (1) the lowest ODP of ³ ³ ³ ³ all available HCFCs and (2) ³ ³ ³ ³ lowest GWP of all available HCFCs ³ ³ ³ ³ and HFCs. CFC-11 Centrifugal ³ 1 HCFC-123......... ³ Acceptable ........ ³ ³ EPA worker-monitoring studies of Chillers (New Equipment/ ³ ³ ³ ³ 123 show that 8-hour TWA can be Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ kept within 1ppm (less than the ³ ³ ³ ³ OEL of 10ppm) when recycling and ³ ³ ³ ³ ASHRAE standards are followed. ³ ³ ³ ³ 123 is the only replacement for ³ ³ ³ ³ low-pressure systems; it also has ³ ³ ³ ³ (1) the lowest ODP of all ³ ³ ³ ³ available HCFCs, and (2) lowest ³ ³ ³ ³ GWP of all available HCFCs and ³ ³ ³ ³ HFCs. ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable ........ ³ ³ Alternative Substance replacement ³ ³ ³ ³ that will allow early transition ³ ³ ³ ³ out of CFCs in some uses. ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Alternative Substance replacement ³ ³ ³ ³ that may be appropriate in some ³ ³ ³ ³ applications. ³ Ammonia Vapor ³ Acceptable ........ ³ ³ .................................. ³ Compression ³ ³ ³ ³ Lithium/bromide/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Alternative Substance equipment ³ water absorption ³ ³ ³ commercially available; can be ³ ³ ³ ³ operated using waste heat (e.g. ³ ³ ³ ³ steam); can be source of heated ³ ³ ³ ³ water supply; (heat recovery). ³ Ammonia-water ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Alternative Substance equipment ³ absorption ³ ³ ³ commercially available for many ³ ³ ³ ³ years. CFC-12 Centrifugal ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable ........ ³ ³ .................................. Chillers (Retrofits). ³ ³ ³ ³ CFC-12 Centrifugal ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. Chillers (New Equipment/ ³ ³ ³ ³ Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ 1 HCFC-123......... ³ Acceptable ........ ³ ³ EPA worker-monitoring studies of ³ ³ ³ ³ 123 show that 8-hour TWA can be ³ ³ ³ ³ kept within 1ppm (less than the ³ ³ ³ ³ OEL of 10ppm) when recycling and ³ ³ ³ ³ ASHRAE standards are followed. ³ ³ ³ ³ 123 is the only replacement for ³ ³ ³ ³ low-pressure systems; it also has ³ ³ ³ ³ (1) the lowest ODP of all ³ ³ ³ ³ available HCFCs, and (2) lowest ³ ³ ³ ³ GWP of all available HCFCs and ³ ³ ³ ³ HFCs. ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable ........ ³ ³ Alternative Substance replacement ³ ³ ³ ³ that will allow early transition ³ ³ ³ ³ out of CFCs in some uses. ³ Ammonia Vapor ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. ³ Compression ³ ³ ³ ³ Ammonia/water ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Alternative Substance equipment ³ absorption ³ ³ ³ commercially available. ³ Lithium/bromide/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Alternative Substance equipment ³ water absorption ³ ³ ³ commercially available; can be ³ ³ ³ ³ operated using waste heat (e.g. ³ ³ ³ ³ steam); can be source of heated ³ ³ ³ ³ water supply, (heat recovery). CFC-12 Reciprocating ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable ........ ³ ³ Can be retrofitted if system is Chillers (Retrofits). ³ ³ ³ ³ flushed. CFC-12 Reciprocating ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ HCFC-22 systems account for Chillers (New Equipment/ ³ ³ ³ ³ majority (98%) of reciprocating Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ chiller market. Readily available, ³ ³ ³ ³ proven reliability. Extensive ³ ³ ³ ³ research underway to identify ³ ³ ³ ³ zero-ODP, energy-efficient ³ ³ ³ ³ substitutes for HCFC-22-as ³ ³ ³ ³ retrofits and in new systems. ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. CFC-12 Household ³ 1 HCFC-22/HFC-152a/ ³ Acceptable ........ ³ ³ To be used as a service Refrigerators, Single. ³ HCFC-124 ³ ³ ³ refrigerant. Precautions must be Evaporator (Retrofits). ³ ³ ³ ³ taken during recycling of blends ³ ³ ³ ³ to avoid mixing with other ³ ³ ³ ³ refrigerants. CFC-12 Household ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable ........ ³ ³ Leading candidate as replacement Refrigerators, Single ³ ³ ³ ³ of CFC-12, but testing still Evaporator (New Equipment ³ ³ ³ ³ underway. /Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ 2 HFC-152a......... ³ Acceptable ........ ³ ³ Flammability concerns believed to ³ ³ ³ ³ be minor [see ADL/UL reference ³ ³ ³ ³ [#64123]; potential for significant ³ ³ ³ ³ energy efficiency. CFC-12 Cold Storage ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable ........ ³ ³ Currently more widely available Warehouses (Retrofits). ³ ³ ³ ³ than 134a, which will allow early ³ ³ ³ ³ transition from CFC-12. ³ 1 HCFC-22/HFC-152a/ ³ Acceptable ........ ³ ³ Users may experience flammability ³ HCFC-124 ³ ³ ³ and/or energy efficiency problems ³ ³ ³ ³ due to potential differential ³ ³ ³ ³ fractionation of this blend in ³ ³ ³ ³ shellside applications. ³ ³ ³ ³ Precautions must be taken during ³ ³ ³ ³ recycling of blends to avoid ³ ³ ³ ³ mixing with other refrigerants. ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable ........ ³ ³ .................................. CFC-12 Cold Storage ³ Ammonia............ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Widely available and practical for Warehouses (New Equipment ³ ³ ³ ³ some (i.e. very large) /Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ applications. ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable ........ ³ ³ Expected to be available for ³ ³ ³ ³ higher temperatures near the ³ ³ ³ ³ middle of the decade. ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Currently, more widely available ³ ³ ³ ³ than HFC-134a, which will allow ³ ³ ³ ³ early transition from CFC-12. ³ High to Low ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. ³ Pressure Stepdown ³ ³ ³ ³ Process ³ ³ ³ CFC-12 Residential ³ 1 HCFC-22/HFC-152a/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Precautions must be taken during Residential Dehumidifiers ³ HCFC-124 ³ ³ ³ recycling of blends to avoid (Retrofits). ³ ³ ³ ³ mixing with other refrigerants. ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. CFC-12 Residential ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. Residential Dehumidifiers ³ ³ ³ ³ (New Equipment/ ³ ³ ³ ³ Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. CFC-12 Residential ³ 1 HCFC-22/HFC-152a/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Precautions must be taken during Freezers (Retrofits). ³ HCFC-124 ³ ³ ³ recycling of blends to avoid ³ ³ ³ ³ mixing with other refrigerants. CFC-12 Residential ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Currently more widely available Freezers (New Equipment/ ³ ³ ³ ³ than HFC-134a, which will allow Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ early transition from CFC-12. ³ 2 HFC-152a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. CFC-12 Commercial Ice ³ 1 HCFC-22/HFC-152a/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Precautions must be taken during Machines (Retrofits). ³ HCFC-124 ³ ³ ³ recycling of blends to avoid ³ ³ ³ ³ mixing with other refrigerants. CFC-12 Commercial Ice ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Currently more widely available Machines (New Equipment/ ³ ³ ³ ³ than HFC-134a, which will allow Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ early transition from CFC-12. ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. ³ Ammonia Vapor ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. ³ Compression ³ ³ ³ CFC-12 Industrial Process ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Currently more widely available Refrigeration (Retrofits) ³ ³ ³ ³ than HFC-134a, which will allow ³ ³ ³ ³ early transition from CFC-12. ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. ³ 1 HCFC-22/HFC-152a/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ User may experience flammability ³ HCFC-124 ³ ³ ³ and/or energy efficiency problems ³ ³ ³ ³ due to potential differential ³ ³ ³ ³ fractionation of this blend in ³ ³ ³ ³ shellside applications. ³ ³ ³ ³ Precautions must be taken during ³ ³ ³ ³ recycling of blends to avoid ³ ³ ³ ³ mixing with other refrigerants. CFC-12 Industrial Process ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Currently more energy efficient (New Equipment/ ³ ³ ³ ³ and more widely available than Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ HFC-134a, which will allow early ³ ³ ³ ³ transition from CFC-12. ³ ³ ³ ³ Technology is available. ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. ³ Ammonia Vapor ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. ³ Compression ³ ³ ³ ³ Chlorine........... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ EPA suggests, but does not require, ³ ³ ³ ³ that this substitute only be used ³ ³ ³ ³ at industrial facilities which ³ ³ ³ ³ manufacture or use chlorine in ³ ³ ³ ³ the process stream. ³ Propane............ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ EPA suggests, but does not require, ³ ³ ³ ³ that this substitute only be used ³ ³ ³ ³ at industrial facilities which ³ ³ ³ ³ manufacture or use hydrocarbons ³ ³ ³ ³ in the process stream. ³ Butane............. ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ EPA suggests, but does not require, ³ ³ ³ ³ that this substitute only be used ³ ³ ³ ³ at industrial facilities which ³ ³ ³ ³ manufacture or use hydrocarbons ³ ³ ³ ³ in the process stream. CFC-12 Refrigerated ³ 1 HCFC-22/HFC-152a/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Precautions must be taken during Transport (Retrofits). ³ HCFC-124 ³ ³ ³ recycling of blends to avoid ³ ³ ³ ³ mixing with other refrigerants. ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Not yet commercially available. CFC-12 Refrigerated ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. Transport (New Equipment/ ³ ³ ³ ³ Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. CFC-12 Retail Food ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Currently more widely available (Retrofits). ³ ³ ³ ³ than HFC-134a, which will allow ³ ³ ³ ³ early transition from CFC-12. ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. ³ 1 HCFC-22/HFC-152a/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Users may experience flammability ³ HCFC-124 ³ ³ ³ and/or energy efficiency problems ³ ³ ³ ³ due to potential differential ³ ³ ³ ³ fractionation of this blend in ³ ³ ³ ³ shellside applications. ³ ³ ³ ³ Precautions must be taken during ³ ³ ³ ³ recycling of blends to avoid ³ ³ ³ ³ mixing with other refrigerants. CFC-12 Retail Food (New ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Currently more widely available Equipment/Alternative ³ ³ ³ ³ than HFC-134a, which will allow Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ early transition from CFC-12. ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. ³ Ammonia Vapor ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. ³ Compression ³ ³ ³ CFC-12 Vending Machines ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Currently more widely available (Retrofits). ³ ³ ³ ³ than HFC-134a, which will allow ³ ³ ³ ³ early transition from CFC-12. ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. ³ 1 HCFC-22/HFC-152a/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Users may experience flammability ³ HCFC-124 ³ ³ ³ and/or energy efficiency problems ³ ³ ³ ³ due to potential differential ³ ³ ³ ³ fractionation of this blend in ³ ³ ³ ³ shellside applications. ³ ³ ³ ³ Precautions must be taken during ³ ³ ³ ³ recycling of blends to avoid ³ ³ ³ ³ mixing with other refrigerants. CFC-12 Vending Machines ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Currently more widely available (New Equipment/ ³ ³ ³ ³ than HFC-134a, which will allow Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ early transition from CFC-12. ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. CFC-12 Water Coolers ³ 1 HCFC-22/HFC-152a/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Precautions must be taken during (Retrofits). ³ HCFC-124 ³ ³ ³ recycling of blends to avoid ³ ³ ³ ³ mixing with other refrigerants. CFC-12 Water Coolers (New ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Currently more widely available Equipment/Alternative ³ ³ ³ ³ than HFC-134a, which will allow Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ early transition from CFC-12. ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. CFC-12 Mobile Air ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. Conditioners (Retrofits). ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ 1 HCFC-22/HFC-152a/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ To be used as a service ³ HCFC-124 ³ ³ ³ refrigerant. Precautions must be ³ ³ ³ ³ taken during recycling of blends ³ ³ ³ ³ to avoid mixing with other ³ ³ ³ ³ refrigerants. CFC-12 Mobile Air ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. Conditioners (New ³ ³ ³ ³ Equipment/Alternative ³ ³ ³ ³ Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ CFC-114 Centrifugal ³ 1 HCFC-124......... ³ Acceptable ........ ³ ³ .................................. Chillers (Retrofits). ³ ³ ³ ³ CFC-114 Centrifugal ³ 1 HCFC-124 ........ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. Chillers (New Equipment/ ³ ³ ³ ³ Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ 1 HCFC-142b........ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. CFC-500 Centrifugal ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. Chillers (Retrofits). ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ 1 HCFC-22/HFC-152a/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Users may experience flammability ³ HCFC-124 ³ ³ ³ and/or energy efficiency problems ³ ³ ³ ³ due to potential differential ³ ³ ³ ³ fractionation of this blend in ³ ³ ³ ³ shellside applications. ³ ³ ³ ³ Precautions must be taken during ³ ³ ³ ³ recycling of blends to avoid ³ ³ ³ ³ mixing with other refrigerants. CFC-500 Centrifugal ³ 2 HFC-134.......... ³ Acceptable ........ ³ ³ .................................. Chillers (New Equipment/ ³ ³ ³ ³ Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ 1 HCFC-22 ......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. ³ 1 HCFC-123......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ EPA worker-monitoring studies of ³ ³ ³ ³ 123 show that 8-hour TWA can be ³ ³ ³ ³ kept within 1ppm (less than the ³ ³ ³ ³ OEL of 10ppm) when recycling and ³ ³ ³ ³ ASHRAE standards are followed. ³ ³ ³ ³ 123 is the only replacement for ³ ³ ³ ³ low-pressure systems; it also has ³ ³ ³ ³ (1) the lowest ODP of all ³ ³ ³ ³ available HCFCs, and (2) lowest ³ ³ ³ ³ GWP of all available HCFCs and ³ ³ ³ ³ HFCs. ³ Ammonia Vapor ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. ³ Compression ³ ³ ³ ³ Lithium/bromide/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Alternative Substance equipment ³ water absorption ³ ³ ³ commercially available; can be ³ ³ ³ ³ operated using waste heat (e.g. ³ ³ ³ ³ steam); can be source of heated ³ ³ ³ ³ water supply, (heat recovery). CFC-500 Residential ³ 1 HCFC-22/HFC-152a/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Precautions must be taken during Dehumidifiers (Retrofits) ³ HCFC-124 ³ ³ ³ recycling of blends to avoid ³ ³ ³ ³ mixing with other refrigerants. CFC-500 Residential ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Currently more widely available Dehumidifiers (New ³ ³ ³ ³ than HFC-134a, which will allow Equipment/Alternative. ³ ³ ³ ³ early transition from CFC-12. Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. CFC-500 Refrigerated ³ 1 HCFC-22/HFC-152a/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Precautions must be taken during Transport (Retrofits). ³ HCFC-124 ³ ³ ³ recycling of blends to avoid ³ ³ ³ ³ mixing with other refrigerants. ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. ³ 1 HCFC-22/Propane/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Precautions must be taken during ³ HFC-125 ³ ³ ³ recycling of blends to avoid ³ ³ ³ ³ mixing with other refrigerants. CFC-500 Refrigerated ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Currently more widely available Transport (New Equipment/ ³ ³ ³ ³ than HFC-134a, which will allow Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ early transition from CFC-12. ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. ³ 1 HCFC-22/Propane/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Flammability is a concern. ³ HFC-125 ³ ³ ³ Precautions must be taken during ³ ³ ³ ³ recycling of blends to avoid ³ ³ ³ ³ mixing with other refrigerants. CFC-502 Cold Storage ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. Warehouses (Retrofits). ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ 1 HCFC-22/Propane/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Flammability is a concern. ³ HFC-125 ³ ³ ³ Precautions must be taken during ³ ³ ³ ³ recycling of blends to avoid ³ ³ ³ ³ mixing with other refrigerants. CFC-502 Cold Storage ³ 1 HCFC-22 ......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Currently more widely available Warehouses (New Equipment ³ ³ ³ ³ than 125, which will allow early /Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ transition from CFC-12. ³ 1 HCFC-22/Propane/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Flammability is a concern. ³ HFC-125 ³ ³ ³ Precautions must be taken during ³ ³ ³ ³ recycling of blends to avoid ³ ³ ³ ³ mixing with other refrigerants. ³ Ammonia Vapor ³ Acceptable ........ ³ ³ .................................. ³ Compression ³ ³ ³ CFC-502 Residential ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. Freezers (New Equipment/ ³ ³ ³ ³ Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ CFC-502 Commercial Ice ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. Machines (New Equipment/ ³ ³ ³ ³ Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ Ammonia Vapor ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. ³ Compression ³ ³ ³ CFC-502 Industrial Process ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Currently more widely available Refrigeration (Retrofits) ³ ³ ³ ³ than HFC-134a, which will allow ³ ³ ³ ³ early transition from CFC-12. ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. ³ 1 HCFC-22/Propane/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Flammability is a concern. ³ HFC-125 ³ ³ ³ Precautions must be taken during ³ ³ ³ ³ recycling of blends to avoid ³ ³ ³ ³ mixing with other refrigerants. CFC-502 Industrial Process ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Currently more efficient and more Refrigeration (New ³ ³ ³ ³ widely available than HFC-134a, Equipment/Alternative ³ ³ ³ ³ which will allow early transition Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ from CFC-12. ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. ³ Ammonia Vapor ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. ³ Compression ³ ³ ³ ³ Chlorine........... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ EPA suggests, but does not require, ³ ³ ³ ³ that this substitute only be used ³ ³ ³ ³ at industrial facilities which ³ ³ ³ ³ manufacture or use chlorine in ³ ³ ³ ³ the process stream. ³ 1 HCFC-22/Propane/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Flammability is a concern. ³ HFC-125 ³ ³ ³ Precautions must be taken during ³ ³ ³ ³ recycling of blends to avoid ³ ³ ³ ³ mixing with other refrigerants. CFC-502 Refrigerated ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. Transport (Retrofits). ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable ........ ³ ³ .................................. ³ 1 HCFC-22/Propane/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Flammability is a concern. ³ HFC-125 ³ ³ ³ Precautions must be taken during ³ ³ ³ ³ recycling of blends to avoid ³ ³ ³ ³ mixing with other refrigerants. CFC-502 Refrigerated ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. Transport (New Equipment/ ³ ³ ³ ³ Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ 2 HFC-134a......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. ³ 1 HCFC-22/Propane/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Flammability is a concern. ³ HFC-125 ³ ³ ³ Precautions must be taken during ³ ³ ³ ³ recycling of blends to avoid ³ ³ ³ ³ mixing with other refrigerants. CFC-502 Retail Food ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ .................................. (Retrofit). ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ 1 HCFC-22/Propane/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Flammability is a concern. ³ HFC-125 ³ ³ ³ Precautions must be taken during ³ ³ ³ ³ recycling of blends to avoid ³ ³ ³ ³ mixing with other refrigerants. CFC-502 Retail Food (New ³ 1 HCFC-22.......... ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Currently more widely available Equipment/Alternative ³ ³ ³ ³ than 125, which will allow early Substances). ³ ³ ³ ³ transition from CFC-12. ³ 1 HCFC-22/Propane/ ³ Acceptable......... ³ ³ Flammability is a concern. ³ HFC-125 ³ ³ ³ Precautions must be taken during ³ ³ ³ ³ recycling of blends to avoid ³ ³ ³ ³ mixing with other refrigerants. ³ Ammonia............ ³ Acceptable ........ ³ ³ .................................. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Additional Requirements: 1 Use of HCFCs is subject to (1) no venting during servicing prohibition under section 608, which was effective July 1, 1992, (2) recycling requirements under section 608 once they are promulgated, (3) section 609 motor vehicle air conditioning regulations, (4) the phaseout schedule for all Class II chemicals under section 605, which is currently being revised under EPA's efforts to accelerate the phaseout of all ozone-depleting chemicals, and (5) mandatory recycling. 2 Use of HFCs is subject to the no venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2), which takes effect November 15, 1995, at the latest. Refrigerants Unacceptable Substitutes ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Application ³ Substitute ³ Initial decision ³ Comments ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ³ ³ ³ CFC-11 Centrifugal Chillers (New Equipment ³ HCFC-141b........................... ³ Proposed Unacceptable........ ³ Flammability may be an issue. Has /Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ a high ODP and is not generally ³ ³ ³ available in new equipment. CFC-12 Centrifugal Chillers (Retrofit).... ³ HCFC-22/HCFC-142b/CFC-12............ ³ Proposed Unacceptable........ ³ As a blend of both Class I and ³ ³ ³ Class II chemicals, it poses a ³ ³ ³ higher risk of ozone depletion ³ ³ ³ than use of Class II alone. CFC-12 Centrifugal Chillers (New Equipment ³ HCFC-22/HCFC-142b/CFC-12............ ³ Proposed Unacceptable........ ³ As a blend of both Class I and /Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ Class II chemicals, it poses a ³ ³ ³ higher risk of ozone depletion ³ ³ ³ than use of Class II alone. CFC-12 Reciprocating Chillers (Retrofit).. ³ HCFC-22/HCFC-142b/CFC-12............ ³ Proposed Unacceptable........ ³ As a blend of both Class I and ³ ³ ³ Class II chemicals, it poses a ³ ³ ³ higher risk of ozone depletion ³ ³ ³ than use of Class II alone. CFC-12 Reciprocating Chillers (New ³ HCFC-22/HCFC-142b/CFC-12............ ³ Proposed Unacceptable........ ³ As a blend of both Class I and Equipment/Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ Class II chemicals, it poses a ³ ³ ³ higher risk of ozone depletion ³ ³ ³ than use of Class II alone. CFC-12 Household Refrigerators, Single ³ HCFC-22/HCFC-142b/CFC-12............ ³ Proposed Unacceptable........ ³ As a blend of both Class I and Evaporator (Retrofit). ³ ³ ³ Class II chemicals, it poses a ³ ³ ³ higher risk of ozone depletion ³ ³ ³ than use of Class II alone. CFC-12 Cold Storage Warehouses (Retrofit). ³ HCFC-22/HCFC-142b/CFC-12............ ³ Proposed Unacceptable........ ³ As a blend of both Class I and ³ ³ ³ Class II chemicals, it poses a ³ ³ ³ higher risk of ozone depletion ³ ³ ³ than use of Class II alone. CFC-12 Cold Storage Warehouses (New ³ HCFC-22/HCFC-142b/CFC-12............ ³ Proposed Unacceptable........ ³ As a blend of both Class I and Equipment/Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ Class II chemicals, it poses a ³ ³ ³ higher risk of ozone depletion ³ ³ ³ than use of Class II alone. CFC-12 Residential Freezers (Retrofits)... ³ HCFC-22/HCFC-142b/CFC-12 ........... ³ Proposed Unacceptable........ ³ As a blend of both Class I and ³ ³ ³ Class II chemicals, it poses ³ ³ ³ higher risk to ozone depletion ³ ³ ³ than use of Class II chemicals ³ ³ ³ alone. CFC-12 Residential Freezers (New Equipment ³ HCFC-22/HCFC-142b/CFC-12............ ³ Proposed Unacceptable........ ³ As a blend of both Class I and /Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ Class II chemicals, it poses a ³ ³ ³ higher risk of ozone depletion ³ ³ ³ than use of Class II chemicals ³ ³ ³ alone. CFC-12 Industrial Process (Retrofit)...... ³ HCFC-22/HCFC-142b/CFC-12............ ³ Proposed Unacceptable........ ³ As a blend of both Class I and ³ ³ ³ Class II chemicals, it poses a ³ ³ ³ higher risk of ozone depletion ³ ³ ³ than use of Class II chemicals ³ ³ ³ alone. CFC-12 Retail Food (Retrofit)............. ³ HCFC-22/HCFC-142b/CFC-12............ ³ Proposed Unacceptable........ ³ As a blend of both Class I and ³ ³ ³ Class II chemicals, it poses a ³ ³ ³ higher risk of ozone depletion ³ ³ ³ than use of Class II chemicals ³ ³ ³ alone. CFC-12 Mobile Air Conditioners (Retrofits) ³ HCFC-22/HCFC-142b/Isobutane ........ ³ Proposed Unacceptable ....... ³ Flammability may be a serious ³ ³ ³ issue. Data on flammability, ³ ³ ³ fractionation and hose ³ ³ ³ permeability is required for full ³ ³ ³ evaluation. ³ HCFC-22/HCFC-142b/CFC-12............ ³ Proposed Unacceptable........ ³ As a blend of both Class I and ³ ³ ³ Class II chemicals, it poses a ³ ³ ³ higher risk of ozone depletion ³ ³ ³ than use of Class II chemicals ³ ³ ³ alone. CFC-12 Mobile Air Conditioners (New ³ HCFC-22/HCFC-142b/CFC-12............ ³ Proposed Unacceptable........ ³ As a blend of both Class I and Equipment/Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ Class II chemicals, it poses a ³ ³ ³ higher risk of ozone depletion ³ ³ ³ than use of Class II chemicals ³ ³ ³ alone. All CFC-12 Refrigeration Uses............. ³ Hydrocarbon Blend A................. ³ Proposed Unacceptable........ ³ Flammability may be a serious ³ ³ ³ issue. Data on flammability, ³ ³ ³ materials compatibility and hose ³ ³ ³ permeability is required for full ³ ³ ³ evaluation. CFC-500 Centrifugal Chillers (Retrofit)... ³ HCFC-22/HCFC-142b/CFC-12............ ³ Proposed Unacceptable........ ³ As a blend of both Class I and ³ ³ ³ Class II chemicals, it poses a ³ ³ ³ higher risk of ozone depletion ³ ³ ³ than use of Class II chemicals ³ ³ ³ alone. All HCFC-22 Refrigeration Uses............ ³ HCFC-22/HCFC-142b/CFC-12 ........... ³ Proposed Unacceptable........ ³ As a blend of both Class I and ³ ³ ³ Class II chemicals, it poses ³ ³ ³ higher risk to ozone depletion ³ ³ ³ than use of Class II chemicals ³ ³ ³ alone. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Refrigerants-Pending Decisions ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Application ³ Substitute ³ Comments ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ³ ³ CFC-12 Household Refrigerators, ³ HCFC/HFC/ ³ As discussed earlier, EPA is concerned about the potential Single Evaporator (Retrofit). ³ fluoroalkane ³ wide use of perfluorinated compounds, particularly in ³ Blend A ³ situations where containment may be difficult to assure. As ³ ³ a result, EPA will be reviewing perfluorinated compound ³ ³ uses to assess the aggregate quantity likely to be used and ³ ³ to determine any necessary emission control. ³ HCFC-22/HCFC-142b. ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. CFC-12 Household Refrigerators, ³ HCFC/HFC/ ³ As discussed earlier, EPA is concerned about the potential Single Evaporator (New Equipment/ ³ fluoroalkane ³ wide use of perfluorinated compounds, particularly in Alternative Substances). ³ Blend A ³ situations where containment may be difficult to assure. As ³ ³ a result, EPA will be reviewing perfluorinated compound ³ ³ uses to assess the aggregate quantity likely to be used and ³ ³ to determine any necessary emission control. ³ HCFC-22/HCFC-142b. ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. ³ R200b............. ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. CFC-12 Residential Freezers ³ HCFC/HFC/ ³ As discussed earlier, EPA is concerned about the potential (Retrofits). ³ fluoroalkane ³ wide use of perfluorinated compounds, particularly in ³ Blend A ³ situations where containment may be difficult to assure. As ³ ³ a result, EPA will be reviewing perfluorinated compound ³ ³ uses to assess the aggregate quantity likely to be used and ³ ³ to determine any necessary emission control. CFC-12 Residential Freezers (New ³ HCFC/HFC/ ³ As discussed earlier, EPA is concerned about the potential Equipment/Alternative Substances) ³ fluoroalkane ³ wide use of perfluorinated compounds, particularly in ³ Blend A ³ situations where containment may be difficult to assure. As ³ ³ a result, EPA will be reviewing perfluorinated compound ³ ³ uses to assess the aggregate quantity likely to be used and ³ ³ to determine any necessary emission control. CFC-12 Commercial Ice Machines ³ HFC-125/HFC-143a/ ³ Final decision pending receipt of data on flammability (New Equipment/Alternative. ³ HFC-134a ³ controls and constituent toxicity of HFC-143a. Precautions Substances). ³ ³ must be taken during recycling of blends to avoid mixing ³ ³ with other refrigerants. CFC-12 Refrigerated Transport (New ³ HFC-125/HFC-143a/ ³ Final decision pending receipt of data on flammability Equipment/Alternative Substances) ³ HFC-134a ³ controls and constituent toxicity of HFC-143a. Precautions ³ ³ must be taken during recycling of blends to avoid mixing ³ ³ with other refrigerants. CFC-12 Cold Storage............... ³ R200a............. ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. CFC-12 Mobile Air Conditioners ³ HCFC/HFC/ ³ As discussed earlier, EPA is concerned about the potential (Retrofits). ³ fluoroalkane ³ wide use of perfluorinated compounds, particularly in ³ Blend A ³ situations where containment may be difficult to assure. As ³ ³ a result, EPA will be reviewing perfluorinated compound ³ ³ uses to assess the aggregate quantity likely to be used and ³ ³ to determine any necessary emission control. CFC-12 Mobile Air Conditioners ³ HCFC/HFC/ ³ As discussed earlier, EPA is concerned about the potential (New Equipment/Alternative ³ fluoroalkane ³ wide use of perfluorinated compounds, particularly in Substances). ³ Blend A ³ situations where containment may be difficult to assure. As ³ ³ a result, EPA will be reviewing perfluorinated compound ³ ³ uses to assess the aggregate quantity likely to be used and ³ ³ to determine any necessary emission control. CFC-12 Chillers, Heat Pumps and ³ HFC-227ea ........ ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. Commercial Refrigeration Systems. ³ ³ CFC-12 Refrigerant ............... ³ HCFC-142b......... ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. CFC-13 Refrigerant................ ³ HFC-23............ ³ EPA requests additional data on the use of this substitute. CFC-114 Centrifugal Chillers (New ³ R200b............. ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. Equipment/Alternative Substances) ³ ³ ³ R200c............. ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. ³ R200d ............ ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. ³ R200e............. ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. ³ R200f............. ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. ³ R200g............. ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. ³ R200j............. ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. ³ R200i............. ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. CFC-114 Chillers, Heat Pumps and ³ HFC-227ea ........ ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. Commercial Refrigeration Systems. ³ ³ CFC-502 Air Conditioning, Heat ³ HFC-143a.......... ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. Pumps, and Chillers. ³ ³ CFC-502 Cold Storage Warehouses ³ HFC-125........... ³ Final decision pending data addressing efficiency concerns. (New Equipment/Alternative ³ ³ Can be used as a component in mixtures. Not yet widely Substances). ³ ³ available. ³ HFC-125/HFC-143a/ ³ Final decision pending receipt of data on flammability ³ HFC-134a ³ controls and constituent toxicity of HFC-143a. Precautions ³ ³ must be taken during recycling of blends to avoid mixing ³ ³ with other refrigerants. CFC-502 Cold Storage.............. ³ R200a............. ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. CFC-502 Commercial Ice Machines ³ HFC-125/HFC-143a/ ³ Final decision pending receipt of data on flammability (New Equipment/Alternative. ³ HFC-134a ³ controls and constituent toxicity of HFC-143a. Precautions Substances). ³ ³ must be taken during recycling of blends to avoid mixing ³ ³ with other refrigerants. CFC-502 Industrial Process ³ HFC-143a.......... ³ Pending receipt of data on flammability. Material has high Refrigeration (New Equipment/. ³ ³ potential GWP. Alternative Substances). ³ ³ ³ HFC-125/HFC-143a/ ³ Final decision pending receipt of data on flammability ³ HFC-134a ³ controls and constituent toxicity of HFC-143a. Precautions ³ ³ must be taken during recycling of blends to avoid mixing ³ ³ with other refrigerants. CFC-502 Refrigerated Transport ³ HFC-125/HFC-143a/ ³ Final decision pending receipt of data on flammability (New Equipment/Alternative. ³ HFC-134a ³ controls and constituent toxicity of HFC-143a. Precautions Substances). ³ ³ must be taken during recycling of blends to avoid mixing ³ ³ with other refrigerants. CFC-502 Retail Food (New Equipment ³ HFC-125 .......... ³ HFC-125 can be used as a component in mixtures. Data on /Alternative Substances). ³ ³ efficiency is needed to fully evaluate. ³ HFC-125/HFC-143a/ ³ Final decision pending receipt of data on flammability ³ HFC-134a ³ controls and constituent toxicity of HFC-143a. Precautions ³ ³ must be taken during recycling of blends to avoid mixing ³ ³ with other refrigerants. ³ HFC-143a.......... ³ Pending receipt of data on flammability. Material has high ³ ³ potential GWP. Heat Pumps ....................... ³ HFC-134a.......... ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. ³ HFC-152a.......... ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. ³ HFC-32............ ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. ³ HFC-125/HFC-134a/ ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. ³ HFC-32 ³ ³ R200a............. ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. Mobile Air Conditioning........... ³ CO2............... ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. Commercial and Residential Air ³ Evaporative ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. Conditioners, Cold Storage. ³ Cooling ³ Warehouses, Industrial Cooling, ³ ³ Mobile Air Conditioning. ³ ³ Conventional Air Conditioning..... ³ Dessicant- based ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. ³ Dehumidi- ³ ³ fication ³ ³ Dessicant-based ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. ³ Natural Gas ³ ³ HFC-125/HFC-134a/ ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. ³ HFC-32 ³ ³ R200a............. ³ EPA has not yet concluded review of the data. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Foams-Acceptable Substitutes ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Application ³ Substitute ³ Initial decision ³ Proposed ³ Comments ³ ³ ³ conditions ³ ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ³ ³ ³ ³ CFC-11 Polyurethane, ³ HCFC-123............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Recent worker monitoring studies indicate Rigid Laminated ³ ³ ³ ³ OEL for 123 (10 ppm) can be achieved Boardstock. ³ ³ ³ ³ with increased ventilation, where needed. ³ ³ ³ ³ Very easy to use as a retrofit; energy ³ ³ ³ ³ efficiency close to CFC-11. Current ³ ³ ³ ³ availability is limited. ³ HCFC-141b............ ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Only chemical alternative that is or soon ³ ³ ³ ³ will be available in sufficient ³ ³ ³ ³ quantities to meet demand of industry. ³ ³ ³ ³ Has highest ODP of HCFCs. Will allow ³ ³ ³ ³ virtually immediate transition out of ³ ³ ³ ³ CFC-11. Fairly good energy efficiency ³ ³ ³ ³ properties. ³ HCFC-142b............ ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology not yet available in most ³ ³ ³ ³ applications to allow near-term use. ³ ³ ³ ³ Increases in thermal conductivity may ³ ³ ³ ³ reduce energy efficiency. ³ HCFC-22 ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. ³ HCFC-22/HCFC-141b.... ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. HCFC-141b ³ ³ ³ ³ is only chemical alternative that is ³ ³ ³ ³ currently available in sufficient ³ ³ ³ ³ quantities to meet demand of industry ³ ³ ³ ³ and has fairly good energy efficiency ³ ³ ³ ³ properties. ³ HCFC-141b/ HCFC-123.. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Recent worker monitoring studies indicate ³ ³ ³ ³ OEL for 123 (10 ppm) can be achieved ³ ³ ³ ³ with increased ventilation, where needed. ³ ³ ³ ³ Fairly good energy efficiency properties. ³ HCFC-22/ HCFC-142b... ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology not yet available in most ³ ³ ³ ³ applications to allow near-term use. ³ ³ ³ ³ Increases in thermal conductivity may ³ ³ ³ ³ reduce energy efficiency. ³ HFC-134a............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology not yet available in most ³ ³ ³ ³ applications to allow near-term use. ³ ³ ³ ³ Potentially large increases in thermal ³ ³ ³ ³ conductivity which will reduce energy ³ ³ ³ ³ efficiency. ³ HFC-152a............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology not yet available in most ³ ³ ³ ³ applications to allow near-term use. ³ ³ ³ ³ Potentially large increases in thermal ³ ³ ³ ³ conductivity which will reduce energy ³ ³ ³ ³ efficiency. Flammability may be an issue ³ ³ ³ ³ for workers and consumers. ³ Hydrocarbons (Pentane ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology not yet available in most ³ etc.) ³ ³ ³ applications to allow near-term use. ³ ³ ³ ³ Potentially large increases in thermal ³ ³ ³ ³ conductivity which will reduce energy ³ ³ ³ ³ efficiency. Flammability may be an issue ³ ³ ³ ³ for workers and consumers. Major sources ³ ³ ³ ³ of VOC emissions are subject to the New ³ ³ ³ ³ Source Review (NSR) program. ³ 2-Chloro-propane..... ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. ³ ³ ³ ³ Flammability may be an issue for workers ³ ³ ³ ³ and consumers. ³ Carbon Dioxide....... ³ Acceptable ³ ³ CFC-11 Polyurethane, ³ HCFC-22 ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Increases Rigid Appliance. ³ ³ ³ ³ in thermal conductivity may reduce ³ ³ ³ ³ energy efficiency. ³ HCFC-123............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Recent worker monitoring studies indicate ³ ³ ³ ³ OEL for 123 (10 ppm) can be achieved ³ ³ ³ ³ with increased ventilation, where needed. ³ ³ ³ ³ Easy to use as a retrofit; energy ³ ³ ³ ³ efficiency close to CFC-11. Current ³ ³ ³ ³ availability is limited. ³ HCFC-141b............ ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Only chemical alternative that is or will ³ ³ ³ ³ soon be available in sufficient ³ ³ ³ ³ quantities to meet demand of industry. ³ ³ ³ ³ Has highest ODP of HCFCs. Will allow ³ ³ ³ ³ virtually immediate transition out of ³ ³ ³ ³ CFC-11. Fairly good energy efficiency ³ ³ ³ ³ properties. ³ HCFC-142b ........... ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Increases ³ ³ ³ ³ in thermal conductivity may reduce ³ ³ ³ ³ energy efficiency. ³ HCFC-22/HCFC-141b ... ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. HCFC-141b ³ ³ ³ ³ is only chemical alternative that is ³ ³ ³ ³ currently available in sufficient ³ ³ ³ ³ quantities to meet demand of industry ³ ³ ³ ³ and has fairly good energy efficiency ³ ³ ³ ³ properties. ³ HCFC-22/HCFC-142b.... ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Increases ³ ³ ³ ³ in thermal conductivity may reduce ³ ³ ³ ³ energy efficiency. ³ HCFC-123/HCFC-141b .. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Recent worker monitoring studies indicate ³ ³ ³ ³ OEL for 123 (10 ppm) can be achieved ³ ³ ³ ³ with increased ventilation, where needed. ³ ³ ³ ³ Fairly good energy efficiency properties. ³ HFC-134a............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology not yet available in most ³ ³ ³ ³ applications to allow near-term use. ³ ³ ³ ³ Potential increases in thermal ³ ³ ³ ³ conductivity which will reduce energy ³ ³ ³ ³ efficiency. ³ HFC-152a............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology not yet available in most ³ ³ ³ ³ applications to allow near-term use. ³ ³ ³ ³ Potential increases in thermal ³ ³ ³ ³ conductivity will reduce energy ³ ³ ³ ³ efficiency. Flammability may be an issue ³ ³ ³ ³ for workers and consumers. ³ Hydrocarbons (Pentane,³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology not yet available in most ³ Isopentane, Hexane ³ ³ ³ applications to allow near-term use. ³ etc.) ³ ³ ³ Potentially large increases in thermal ³ ³ ³ ³ conductivity which will reduce energy ³ ³ ³ ³ efficiency. Flammability may be an issue ³ ³ ³ ³ for workers and consumers. Major sources ³ ³ ³ ³ of VOC emissions are subject to the New ³ ³ ³ ³ Source Review (NSR) program. ³ Carbon Dioxide....... ³ Acceptable............................... ³ ³ CFC-11 Polyurethane, ³ HCFC-22.............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Increases Rigid Commercial ³ ³ ³ ³ in thermal conductivity may reduce Refrigeration Foams, ³ ³ ³ ³ energy efficiency. Spray Foams and ³ ³ ³ ³ Sandwich Panel Foams ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ HCFC-123............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Recent worker monitoring studies indicate ³ ³ ³ ³ OEL for 123 (10 ppm) can be achieved ³ ³ ³ ³ with use of increased ventilation, where ³ ³ ³ ³ needed. Easy to use as a retrofit; ³ ³ ³ ³ energy efficiency close to CFC-11. ³ ³ ³ ³ Current availability is limited. ³ HCFC-141b............ ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Only chemical alternative currently or ³ ³ ³ ³ soon to be available in sufficient ³ ³ ³ ³ quantities to meet demand of industry. ³ ³ ³ ³ Has highest ODP of the HCFCs. Will allow ³ ³ ³ ³ virtually immediate transition out of ³ ³ ³ ³ CFC-11. Fairly good energy efficiency ³ ³ ³ ³ properties. CFC-11 Polyurethane, ³ HCFC-142b............ ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Potential Rigid Commercial ³ ³ ³ ³ increases in thermal conductivity which Refrigeration Foams, ³ ³ ³ ³ will reduce energy efficiency. etc. (continued). ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ HCFC-22/142b......... ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Potential ³ ³ ³ ³ increases in thermal conductivity which ³ ³ ³ ³ will reduce energy efficiency. ³ HFC-134a............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Potential ³ ³ ³ ³ increases in thermal conductivity which ³ ³ ³ ³ will reduce energy efficiency. ³ HFC-152a............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Potential ³ ³ ³ ³ increases in thermal conductivity which ³ ³ ³ ³ will reduce energy efficiency. ³ ³ ³ ³ Flammability may be an issue for workers ³ ³ ³ ³ and consumers. ³ Hydrocarbons (Pentane,³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Potential ³ Isopentane, Hexane ³ ³ ³ increases in thermal conductivity which ³ etc.) ³ ³ ³ will reduce energy efficiency. ³ ³ ³ ³ Flammability may be an issue for workers ³ ³ ³ ³ and consumers. Major sources of VOC ³ ³ ³ ³ emissions are subject to the New Source ³ ³ ³ ³ Review (NSR) program. ³ Carbon Dioxide....... ³ Acceptable............................... ³ ³ CFC-11 Polyurethane, ³ HCFC-22.............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Increases Rigid Slabstock and ³ ³ ³ ³ in thermal conductivity may reduce Other. ³ ³ ³ ³ energy efficiency. ³ HCFC-141b............ ³ Acceptable for use in insulating and ³ .............. ³ Only chemical alternative that is or soon ³ ³ flotation foams only ³ ³ will be available in sufficient ³ ³ ³ ³ quantities to meet demand of industry. ³ ³ ³ ³ Will allow virtually immediate ³ ³ ³ ³ transition out of CFC-11. Fairly good ³ ³ ³ ³ energy efficiency properties. HCFC-141b ³ ³ ³ ³ has an ODP of 0.11, almost equivalent to ³ ³ ³ ³ that of methyl chloroform, a Class I ³ ³ ³ ³ substance. The Agency believes that, ³ ³ ³ ³ with the exception of flotation ³ ³ ³ ³ applications, there are other non-ODP ³ ³ ³ ³ alternatives, or alternatives with lower ³ ³ ³ ³ ODPs, available for use in packaging, ³ ³ ³ ³ decorative, and other noninsulating ³ ³ ³ ³ applications. Use of HCFC-141b for ³ ³ ³ ³ flotation foams may be restricted ³ ³ ³ ³ further under section 610 Non-Essential ³ ³ ³ ³ Use Ban. See HCFC discussion in Preamble ³ ³ ³ ³ for detail. ³ HCFC-123............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Recent worker monitoring studies indicate ³ ³ ³ ³ OEL for 123 (10 ppm) can be achieved ³ ³ ³ ³ increased ventilation, where needed. ³ ³ ³ ³ Easy to use as a retrofit; energy ³ ³ ³ ³ efficiency close to CFC-11. Current ³ ³ ³ ³ availability is limited. ³ Hydrocarbons (Pentane,³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Potential ³ Isopentane, Butane, ³ ³ ³ increases in thermal conductivity which ³ Isobutane etc.) ³ ³ ³ will reduce energy efficiency. ³ ³ ³ ³ Flammability may be an issue for workers ³ ³ ³ ³ and consumers. Major sources of VOC ³ ³ ³ ³ emissions are subject to the New Source ³ ³ ³ ³ Review (NSR) program. ³ Carbon Dioxide....... ³ Acceptable............................... ³ ³ CFC-12 Polystyrene, ³ HCFC-22.............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Increases Extruded Boardstock. ³ ³ ³ ³ in thermal conductivity may reduce ³ ³ ³ ³ energy efficiency. ³ HCFC-142b............ ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Increases ³ ³ ³ ³ in thermal conductivity may reduce ³ ³ ³ ³ energy efficiency ³ HCFC-22/142b......... ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Increases ³ ³ ³ ³ in thermal conductivity may reduce ³ ³ ³ ³ energy efficiency. ³ HFC-134a............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Potential ³ ³ ³ ³ increases in thermal conductivity which ³ ³ ³ ³ will reduce energy efficiency ³ HFC-152a............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Potential ³ ³ ³ ³ increases in thermal conductivity which ³ ³ ³ ³ will reduce energy efficiency. ³ ³ ³ ³ Flammability may be an issue for workers ³ ³ ³ ³ and consumers. ³ Hydrocarbons (Pentane,³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Potential ³ Isopentane, Butane, ³ ³ ³ increases in thermal conductivity which ³ Isobutane etc.) ³ ³ ³ will reduce energy efficiency. ³ ³ ³ ³ Flammability may be an issue for workers ³ ³ ³ ³ and consumers. Major sources of VOC ³ ³ ³ ³ emissions are subject to the New Source ³ ³ ³ ³ Review (NSR) program. ³ HCFC-22/Hydrocarbons ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Increases ³ (Isopentane etc.) ³ ³ ³ in thermal conductivity may reduce ³ ³ ³ ³ energy efficiency. Flammability may be ³ ³ ³ ³ an issues for workers and consumers. ³ Carbon Dioxide....... ³ Acceptable .............................. ³ ³ CFC-11, CFC-113 ³ HCFC-141b............ ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Only chemical alternative that is or soon Phenolic, Insulation ³ ³ ³ ³ will be available in sufficient Board. ³ ³ ³ ³ quantities to meet demand of industry. ³ ³ ³ ³ Has highest OPD of HCFCs. Will allow ³ ³ ³ ³ virtually immediate transition out of ³ ³ ³ ³ CFC-11. Fairly good energy efficiency ³ ³ ³ ³ properties. ³ HCFC-142b............ ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Increases ³ ³ ³ ³ in thermal conductivity may reduce ³ ³ ³ ³ energy efficiency. ³ HCFC-22.............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Increases ³ ³ ³ ³ in thermal conductivity may reduce ³ ³ ³ ³ energy efficiency. ³ HCFC-22/142b......... ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Increases ³ ³ ³ ³ in thermal conductivity may reduce ³ ³ ³ ³ energy efficiency. ³ HCFC-22/Hydrocarbons ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Potential ³ (Isopentane etc.) ³ ³ ³ increases in thermal conductivity which ³ ³ ³ ³ will reduce energy efficiency. ³ ³ ³ ³ Flammability may be an issue for workers ³ ³ ³ ³ and consumers. ³ Hydrocarbons (Pentane,³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Potential ³ Isopentane etc.) ³ ³ ³ increases in thermal conductivity which ³ ³ ³ ³ will reduce energy efficiency. Major ³ ³ ³ ³ sources of VOC emissions are subject to ³ ³ ³ ³ the New Source Review (NSR) program. ³ ³ ³ ³ Flammability may be an issue for workers ³ ³ ³ ³ and consumers. ³ 2-Chloropropane...... ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Proprietary technology. Flammability may ³ ³ ³ ³ be an issue for workers and consumers. ³ Carbon Dioxide ³ Acceptable ³ ³ CFC-11 Polyurethane, ³ HCFC-123............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Current availability is extremely limited. Flexible. ³ ³ ³ ³ Recent worker monitoring studies ³ ³ ³ ³ indicate OEL for 123 (10 ppm) can be ³ ³ ³ ³ achieved with increased ventilation, ³ ³ ³ ³ where needed. Subject to section 610 Non ³ ³ ³ ³ -essential Use Ban. ³ HFC-134a............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. ³ HFC-152a............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. ³ ³ ³ ³ Flammability may be an issue for workers ³ ³ ³ ³ and consumers. ³ Methylene Chloride... ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Revised OSHA PELs have been proposed at ³ ³ ³ ³ 25 ppm (TWA) for methylene chloride (Nov. ³ ³ ³ ³ 7, 1991). Subject to meeting all future ³ ³ ³ ³ ambient air controls for hazardous air ³ ³ ³ ³ pollutants under Title III of the 1990 ³ ³ ³ ³ CAAA. ³ Acetone.............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Regulated as a VOC under Title I of the ³ ³ ³ ³ Clean Air Act. Major sources of VOC ³ ³ ³ ³ emissions are subject to the New Source ³ ³ ³ ³ Review (NSR) program. Flammability may ³ ³ ³ ³ be an issue for workers and consumers. ³ AB Technology........ ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ AB generates more carbon monoxide (CO) ³ ³ ³ ³ than other blowing agents. OSHA has set ³ ³ ³ ³ a PEL for CO at 35 ppm TWA with a ³ ³ ³ ³ ceiling of 200 ppm. ³ Carbon Dioxide....... ³ Acceptable .............................. ³ ³ CFC-11 Polyurethane, ³ HCFC-22.............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology not yet available in most Integral Skin. ³ ³ ³ ³ applications to allow near-team use. ³ ³ ³ ³ Subject to section 610 Non-essential Use ³ ³ ³ ³ Ban. ³ HCFC-123............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Recent worker monitoring studies ³ ³ ³ ³ indicates OEL for HCFC-123 (10 ppm) can ³ ³ ³ ³ be achieved with increased ventilation, ³ ³ ³ ³ where needed. Very easy to use as a ³ ³ ³ ³ retrofit; energy efficiency close to CFC ³ ³ ³ ³ -11. Current availability is extremely ³ ³ ³ ³ limited. Subject to section 610 Non- ³ ³ ³ ³ essential Use Ban. ³ HCFC-141b............ ³ Acceptable only for uses which provide ³ .............. ³ Only chemical alternative that is ³ ³ for motor vehicle safety in accordance ³ ³ currently available in sufficient ³ ³ with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety ³ ³ quantities to meet demand of industry. ³ ³ Standards ³ ³ Will allow virtually immediate ³ ³ ³ ³ transition out of CFC-11. HCFC-141b has ³ ³ ³ ³ an ODP of 0.11, almost equivalent to ³ ³ ³ ³ that of methyl chloroform, a Class I ³ ³ ³ ³ substance. The Agency believes that, ³ ³ ³ ³ with the exception of motor vehicle ³ ³ ³ ³ safety foams, there are other non-ODP ³ ³ ³ ³ alternatives, or alternatives with lower ³ ³ ³ ³ ODPs, available for use in integral skin ³ ³ ³ ³ foams. See HCFC discussion in Preamble ³ ³ ³ ³ for detail on section 610 Non-Essential ³ ³ ³ ³ Use Ban and motor vehicle safety foams ³ ³ ³ ³ exemption. CFC-11 Polyurethane, ³ HCFC-22/HCFC-141b.... ³ Acceptable only for uses which provide ³ .............. ³ HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11, almost Integral Skin ³ ³ for motor vehicle safety in accordance ³ ³ equivalent to that of methyl chloroform, (continued). ³ ³ with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety ³ ³ a Class I substance. The Agency believes ³ ³ Standards ³ ³ that, with the exception of motor ³ ³ ³ ³ vehicle safety foams, there are other ³ ³ ³ ³ non-ODP alternatives, or alternatives ³ ³ ³ ³ with lower ODPs, available for use in ³ ³ ³ ³ integral skin foams. See HCFC discussion ³ ³ ³ ³ in Preamble for detail on section 610 ³ ³ ³ ³ Non-Essential Use Ban and motor vehicle ³ ³ ³ ³ safety foams exemption. ³ HFC-134a............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. ³ HFC-152a............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. ³ ³ ³ ³ Flammability may be an issue for workers ³ ³ ³ ³ and consumers. ³ Hydrocarbons (Pentane,³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Major ³ Isopentane, Butane ³ ³ ³ sources of VOC emissions are subject to ³ etc.) ³ ³ ³ the New Source Review (NSR) program. ³ ³ ³ ³ Flammability may be an issue for workers ³ ³ ³ ³ and consumers. ³ Methylene Chloride... ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Revised OSHA PELs have been proposed at ³ ³ ³ ³ 25 ppm (TWA) for methylene chloride (Nov. ³ ³ ³ ³ 7, 1991). Subject to meeting all future ³ ³ ³ ³ ambient air controls for hazardous air ³ ³ ³ ³ pollutant under Title III of the 1990 ³ ³ ³ ³ CAAA. ³ Carbon Dioxide....... ³ Acceptable .............................. ³ ³ CFC-12 Polystyrene, ³ HFC-134a............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology not yet available in most Extruded Sheet. ³ ³ ³ ³ applications to allow near-term use. ³ HFC-152a............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology not yet available in most ³ ³ ³ ³ applications to allow near-term use. ³ ³ ³ ³ Flammability may be an issue for workers ³ ³ ³ ³ and consumers. ³ Hydrocarbons (Pentane,³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Major sources of VOC emissions are ³ Isopentane, Butane, ³ ³ ³ subject to the New Source Review (NSR) ³ Isobutane etc.) ³ ³ ³ program. Flammability may be an issue ³ ³ ³ ³ for workers and consumers. ³ Carbon Dioxide ...... ³ Acceptable .............................. ³ ³ CFC-12, CFC-114, CFC- ³ HCFC-22.............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology not yet available in most 11 Polyolefin. ³ ³ ³ ³ applications to allow near-term use. ³ HCFC-142b ........... ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology not yet available in most ³ ³ ³ ³ applications to allow near-term use. ³ HCFC-22/HCFC-142b.... ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology not yet available in most ³ ³ ³ ³ applications to allow near-term use. ³ HCFC-22/Hydrocarbons ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Major ³ (Isopentane etc.) ³ ³ ³ sources of VOC emissions are subject to ³ ³ ³ ³ the New Source Review (NSR) program. ³ ³ ³ ³ Flammability may be an issue for workers ³ ³ ³ ³ and consumers. ³ HFC-134a............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology not yet available in most ³ ³ ³ ³ applications to allow near-term use. ³ HFC-152a............. ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology not yet available in most ³ ³ ³ ³ applications to allow near-term use. ³ ³ ³ ³ Flammability may be an issue for workers ³ ³ ³ ³ and consumers. ³ Hydrocarbons (Butane, ³ Acceptable............................... ³ .............. ³ Technology under development. Major ³ Isopentane etc.) ³ ³ ³ sources of VOC emissions are subject to ³ ³ ³ ³ the New Source Review (NSR) program. ³ ³ ³ ³ Flammability may be an issue for workers ³ ³ ³ ³ and consumers. ³ Carbon Dioxide....... ³ Acceptable............................... ³ ³ ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Foams.-Unacceptable Substitutes ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Application ³ Substitute ³ Initial decisions ³ Comments ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ³ ³ ³ CFC-11 ³ HCFC-141b (or ³ Proposed ³ HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11, almost equivalent to that of polyurethane, ³ blends thereof) ³ unacceptable ³ methyl chloroform, a Class I substance. The Agency believes rigid slabstock ³ ³ except for ³ that, with the exception of flotation applications, there and other. ³ ³ insulation and ³ are other non-ODP alternatives, or alternatives with lower ³ ³ flotation foams ³ ODPs, available for use in packaging, decorative, and other ³ ³ ³ noninsulating applications. Use of HCFC-141b may be ³ ³ ³ restricted further under section 610 Non-Essential Use Ban. ³ ³ ³ See HCFC discussion in Preamble for details. CFC-11 ³ HCFC-141b (or ³ Proposed ³ HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11, almost equivalent to that of polyurethane, ³ blends thereof) ³ unacceptable ³ methyl chloroform, a Class I substance. The Agency believes flexible. ³ ³ ³ that non-ODP alternatives are sufficiently available to ³ ³ ³ render the use of HCFC-141b unnecessary in flexible ³ ³ ³ polyurethane foams. CFC-11 ³ HCFC-141b (or ³ Proposed ³ HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11, almost equivalent to that of polyurethane, ³ blends thereof) ³ unacceptable ³ methyl chloroform, a Class I substance. The Agency believes integral skin. ³ ³ except for use in ³ that, with the exception of motor vehicle safety foams, ³ ³ motor vehicle ³ there are other non-ODP alternatives, or alternatives with ³ ³ safety foams. ³ lower ODPs, available for use in integral skin foams. See ³ ³ ³ HCFC discussion in Preamble for details on section 610 Non- ³ ³ ³ Essential Use Ban and motor vehicle safety foams CFC-114, CFC-12, ³ HCFC-141b (or ³ Proposed ³ HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11, almost equivalent to that of CFC-11 polyolefin ³ blends thereof) ³ unacceptable ³ methyl chloroform, a Class I substance. The Agency believes ³ ³ ³ that non-ODP alternatives, or alternatives with lower ODPs, ³ ³ ³ are sufficiently available to render the use of HCFC-141b ³ ³ ³ unnecessary in polyolefin foams. See HCFC discussion in ³ ³ ³ Preamble for details on section 610 Non-Essential Use Ban ³ ³ ³ and motor vehicle safety foams. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Foams.-Pending Substitutes ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Application ³ Substitute ³ Comments ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ³ ³ CFC-11, CFC-113 polyurethane, ³ Alternative products: expanded polystyrene, ³ Agency has not completed review of data. rigid laminated boardstock. ³ fiberboard, fiberglass ³ CFC-11, CFC-113 rigid polyurethane,³ Alternative products: fiberglass, vacuum panels ... ³ Agency has not completed review of data. appliance foams. ³ ³ CFC-11 polyurethane, rigid ³ Alternative products: fiberglass, expanded ³ Agency has not completed review of data. slabstock and other. ³ polystyrene ³ CFC-11 polyurethane, rigid spray ³ Alternative products: fiberglass, expanded ³ Agency has not completed review of data. and commercial refrigeration. ³ polystyrene ³ foams, and sandwich panels. ³ ³ CFC-11, CFC-113 phenolic ......... ³ HFC-143a .......................................... ³ Pending receipt of additional data. ³ Alternative products: fiberglass, expanded ³ Agency has not completed review of data. ³ polystyrene ³ CFC-11 polyurethane, flexible..... ³ Alternative technologies: new polyol technologies.. ³ Agency has not completed review of data. ³ Enviro-Cure Process................................ ³ Agency has not completed review of data. ³ Alternative products: fiberfill, natural latex ³ Agency has not completed review of data. ³ foams, polyester batting ³ Foams, alternative process ....... ³ Electroset process ................................ ³ Insufficient data. Also need information on ³ ³ proposed end-use. CFC-12, CFC-114 polystyrene, ³ HCFC-22/isopentane blend........................... ³ Agency has not completed review of data. Also need extruded. ³ ³ more data on proposed end use: sheet and/or ³ ³ boardstock. ³ HFC-124 ........................................... ³ Insufficient data. Also need information of ³ ³ proposed end-use: sheet and/or boardstock. ³ HFC-125 ........................................... ³ Insufficient data. Also need information of ³ ³ proposed end-use: sheet and/or boardstock. ³ HFC-143a .......................................... ³ Insufficient data. Also need information of ³ ³ proposed end-use: sheet and/or boardstock. CFC-12, CFC-114 polystyrene, ³ Alternative products: expanded polystyrene, ³ Agency has not completed review of data. extruded boardstock. ³ fiberboard ³ CFC-12, CFC-114 polyolefin ....... ³ HFC-143a........................................... ³ Agency has not completed review of data. ³ Alternative products: paper, cardboard, expanded ³ Agency has not completed review of data. ³ polystyrene ³ Polyurethane, rigid/frothing ³ HFC-143a .......................................... ³ Insufficient data. process. ³ ³ Polyurethane, rigid .............. ³ HFC-356 ........................................... ³ Insufficient data. Also need information on ³ ³ proposed end-use. Blowing Agent .................... ³ ³ ³ HFC-227ea/pentane ................................. ³ Insufficient data. Also need information on ³ ³ proposed end-uses. ³ HFC-227ea/2-methylpropane ......................... ³ Insufficient data. Also need information on ³ ³ proposed end-uses. ³ Nitrogen gas ...................................... ³ Insufficient data. Also need information on ³ ³ proposed end-uses. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Solvent Cleaning-Acceptable Substitutes ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Application ³ Substitute ³ Initial decision ³ Proposed ³ Comments ³ ³ ³ condition ³ ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ³ ³ ³ ³ Metals cleaning w/ CFC- ³ Aqueous cleaners.................. ³ Acceptable ......... ³ ............. ³ EPA expects to issue effluent 113, MCF. ³ ³ ³ ³ guidelines for this industry ³ ³ ³ ³ under the Clean Water Act by 1994. ³ ³ ³ ³ Constituents should be drawn from ³ ³ ³ ³ the Agency's list of cleaner ³ ³ ³ ³ components, available from the ³ ³ ³ ³ SNAP Coordinator. ³ Semi-aqueous cleaners (terpenes/ ³ Acceptable ......... ³ ............. ³ EPA expects to issue effluent ³ surfactants) ³ ³ ³ guidelines for this industry ³ ³ ³ ³ under the Clean Water Act by 1994. ³ ³ ³ ³ Constituents should be drawn from ³ ³ ³ ³ the Agency's list of cleaner ³ ³ ³ ³ components, available from the ³ ³ ³ ³ SNAP Coordinator. ³ Semi-aqueous cleaners (alcohols).. ³ Acceptable ......... ³ ............. ³ EPA expects to issue effluent ³ ³ ³ ³ guidelines for this industry ³ ³ ³ ³ under the Clean Water Act by 1994. ³ ³ ³ ³ Constituents should be drawn from ³ ³ ³ ³ the Agency's list of cleaner ³ ³ ³ ³ components, available from the ³ ³ ³ ³ SNAP Coordinator. ³ Semi-aqueous cleaners (petroleum- ³ Acceptable ......... ³ ............. ³ EPA expects to issue effluent ³ based) ³ ³ ³ guidelines for this industry ³ ³ ³ ³ under the Clean Water Act by 1994. ³ ³ ³ ³ Constituents should be drawn from ³ ³ ³ ³ the Agency's list of cleaner ³ ³ ³ ³ components, available from the ³ ³ ³ ³ SNAP Coordinator. ³ Organic solvents (esters, ketones, ³ Acceptable.......... ³ ............. ³ OSHA standards must be met, if ³ ethers, etc.) ³ ³ ³ applicable. EPA investigating ³ ³ ³ ³ workplace exposures where no OSHA ³ ³ ³ ³ standards exist. ³ Trichloro-ethylene, perchloro- ³ Acceptable ......... ³ ............. ³ OSHA standards must be met. EPA ³ ethylene, methylene chloride ³ ³ ³ expects to issue Maximum ³ ³ ³ ³ Achievable Control Technology ³ ³ ³ ³ requirements under the Clean Air ³ ³ ³ ³ Act for this application by 1994. ³ Supercritical fluids, plasma ³ Acceptable ......... ³ ............. ³ OSHA standards for ozone must be ³ cleaning, UV/Ozone cleaning ³ ³ ³ met. Electronics cleaning w/ ³ Aqueous cleaners.................. ³ Acceptable ......... ³ ............. ³ EPA expects to issue effluent CFC-113, MCF. ³ ³ ³ ³ guidelines for this industry ³ ³ ³ ³ under the Clean Water Act by 1994. ³ ³ ³ ³ Constituents should be drawn from ³ ³ ³ ³ the Agency's list of cleaner ³ ³ ³ ³ components, available from the ³ ³ ³ ³ SNAP Coordinator. ³ Semi-aqueous cleaners (terpenes/ ³ Acceptable ......... ³ ............. ³ EPA expects to issue effluent ³ surfactants) ³ ³ ³ guidelines for this industry ³ ³ ³ ³ under the Clean Water Act by 1994. ³ ³ ³ ³ Constituents should be drawn from ³ ³ ³ ³ the Agency's list of cleaner ³ ³ ³ ³ components, available from the ³ ³ ³ ³ SNAP Coordinator. ³ Semi-aqueous cleaners (alcohols).. ³ Acceptable ......... ³ ............. ³ EPA expects to issue effluent ³ ³ ³ ³ guidelines for this industry ³ ³ ³ ³ under the Clean Water Act by 1994. ³ ³ ³ ³ Constituents should be drawn from ³ ³ ³ ³ the Agency's list of cleaner ³ ³ ³ ³ components, available from the ³ ³ ³ ³ SNAP Coordinator. ³ Semi-aqueous cleaners (petroleum- ³ Acceptable ......... ³ ............. ³ EPA expects to issue effluent ³ based) ³ ³ ³ guidelines for this industry ³ ³ ³ ³ under the Clean Water Act by 1994. ³ ³ ³ ³ Constituents should be drawn from ³ ³ ³ ³ the Agency's list of cleaner ³ ³ ³ ³ components, available from the ³ ³ ³ ³ SNAP Coordinator. ³ Organic solvents (esters, ketones,³ Acceptable.......... ³ ............. ³ OSHA standards must be met, if ³ ethers, etc.) ³ ³ ³ applicable. ³ Trichloro-ethylene, perchloro- ³ Acceptable ......... ³ ............. ³ OSHA standards must be met. EPA ³ ethylene, methylene chloride ³ ³ ³ expects to issue Maximum ³ ³ ³ ³ Achievable Control Technology ³ ³ ³ ³ requirements under the Clean Air ³ ³ ³ ³ Act for this application by 1994. ³ No-clean alternatives............. ³ Acceptable.......... ³ ............. ³ Approval covers low solids fluxes ³ ³ ³ ³ and inert gas soldering. ³ Supercritical fluids, plasma ³ Acceptable ......... ³ ............. ³ OSHA standards for ozone must be ³ cleaning, UV/Ozone cleaning ³ ³ ³ met. ³ Perfluoro-carbons................. ³ Acceptable for spot- ³ ............. ³ Under SNAP, EPA has reviewed and ³ ³ free cleaning and ³ ³ found acceptable only certain ³ ³ drying of high- ³ ³ narrowly defined uses of ³ ³ performance ³ ³ perfluorinated compounds. Wider ³ ³ computer components ³ ³ use of perfluorinated compounds ³ ³ where no other ³ ³ (e.g., basic metal cleaning or ³ ³ alternative exists ³ ³ circuit board defluxing) is of ³ ³ ³ ³ concern due to long atmospheric ³ ³ ³ ³ lifetimes, and potential to ³ ³ ³ ³ contribute to global warming. Precision cleaning w/CFC ³ Aqueous cleaners.................. ³ Acceptable ......... ³ ............. ³ EPA expects to issue effluent -113, MCF. ³ ³ ³ ³ guidelines for this industry ³ ³ ³ ³ under the Clean Water Act by 1994. ³ ³ ³ ³ Constituents should be drawn from ³ ³ ³ ³ the Agency's list of cleaner ³ ³ ³ ³ components, available from the ³ ³ ³ ³ SNAP Coordinator. ³ Semi-aqueous cleaners (terpenes/ ³ Acceptable ......... ³ ............. ³ EPA expects to issue effluent ³ surfactants) ³ ³ ³ guidelines for this industry ³ ³ ³ ³ under the Clean Water Act by 1994. ³ ³ ³ ³ Constituents should be drawn from ³ ³ ³ ³ the Agency's list of cleaner ³ ³ ³ ³ components, available from the ³ ³ ³ ³ SNAP Coordinator. ³ Semi-aqueous cleaners (alcohols).. ³ Acceptable ......... ³ ............. ³ EPA expects to issue effluent ³ ³ ³ ³ guidelines for this industry ³ ³ ³ ³ under the Clean Water Act by 1994. ³ ³ ³ ³ Constituents should be drawn from ³ ³ ³ ³ the Agency's list of cleaner ³ ³ ³ ³ components, available from the ³ ³ ³ ³ SNAP Coordinator. ³ Semi-aqueous cleaners (petroleum- ³ Acceptable.......... ³ ............. ³ EPA expects to issue effluent ³ based) ³ ³ ³ guidelines for this industry ³ ³ ³ ³ under the Clean Water Act by 1994. ³ ³ ³ ³ Constituents should be drawn from ³ ³ ³ ³ the Agency's list of cleaner ³ ³ ³ ³ components, available from the ³ ³ ³ ³ SNAP Coordinator. ³ Organic solvents (esters, ketones, ³ Acceptable.......... ³ ............. ³ OSHA standards must be met, if ³ ethers, etc.) ³ ³ ³ applicable. EPA investigating ³ ³ ³ ³ workplace exposures where no OSHA ³ ³ ³ ³ standards exist. ³ Trichloro-ethylene, perchloro- ³ Acceptable ......... ³ ............. ³ OSHA standards must be met. EPA ³ ethylene, methylene chloride ³ ³ ³ expects to issue Maximum ³ ³ ³ ³ Achievable Control Technology ³ ³ ³ ³ requirements for this application ³ ³ ³ ³ by 1994. ³ Supercritical fluids, plasma ³ Acceptable ......... ³ ............. ³ OSHA standards for ozone must be ³ cleaning, UV/Ozone cleaning ³ ³ ³ met. ³ Perfluoro-carbons................. ³ Acceptable for spot- ³ ............. ³ Under SNAP, EPA has reviewed and ³ ³ free cleaning and ³ ³ found acceptable only certain ³ ³ drying of high- ³ ³ narrowly defined uses of ³ ³ performance ³ ³ perfluorinated compounds. Wider ³ ³ computer components ³ ³ use of perfluorinated compounds ³ ³ where no other ³ ³ (e.g., circuit board defluxing or ³ ³ alternative exists ³ ³ basic metal cleaning) is of ³ ³ ³ ³ concern due to long atmospheric ³ ³ ³ ³ lifetimes, and potential to ³ ³ ³ ³ contribute to global warming. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Solvent Cleaning-Unacceptable Substitutes ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Application ³ Substitute ³ Initial decision ³ Comments ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ³ ³ ³ Metals cleaning w/ ³ HCFC 141b and ³ Proposed unacceptable with limited ³ High ODP; other alternatives exist. Effective date: CFC-113. ³ blends with ³ critical use exemptions ³ As of 30 days after final rule for new equipment; ³ alcohols ³ ³ as of January 1, 1996 for existing equipment. EPA ³ ³ ³ will grant limited critical use exemptions where ³ ³ ³ all other substitutes fail to meet safety or ³ ³ ³ performance standards. Metals cleaning w/ ³ HCFC 141b blends ³ Proposed unacceptable ............ ³ High ODP; other alternatives exist. Effective date: MCF. ³ with alcohols ³ ³ As of 30 days after final rule for new equipment; ³ ³ ³ as of January 1, 1996 for existing equipment. Electronics ³ HCFC 141b and ³ Proposed unacceptable with limited ³ High ODP; other alternatives exist. Effective date: cleaning w/CFC-. ³ blends with ³ critical use exemptions ³ As of 30 days after final rule for new equipment; 113. ³ alcohols ³ ³ as of January 1, 1996 for existing equipment. EPA ³ ³ ³ will grant limited critical use exemptions where ³ ³ ³ all other substitutes fail to meet safety or ³ ³ ³ performance standards. Electronics ³ HCFC 141b blends ³ Proposed unacceptable ............ ³ High ODP; other alternatives exist. Effective date: cleaning w/MCF. ³ with alcohols ³ ³ As of 30 days after final rule for new equipment; ³ ³ ³ as of January 1, 1996 for existing equipment. Precision cleaning ³ HCFC 141b and ³ Proposed unacceptable with limited ³ High ODP; other alternatives exist. Effective date: w/CFC-113. ³ blends with ³ critical use exemptions ³ As of 30 days after final rule for new equipment; ³ alcohols ³ ³ as of January 1, 1996 for existing equipment. EPA ³ ³ ³ will grant limited critical use exemptions where ³ ³ ³ all other substitutes fail to meet safety or ³ ³ ³ performance standards. Precision cleaning ³ HCFC 141b blends ³ Proposed unacceptable............. ³ High ODP; other alternatives exist. Effective date: w/MCF. ³ with alcohols ³ ³ As of 30 days after final rule for new equipment; ³ ³ ³ as of January 1, 1996 for existing equipment. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Solvent Cleaning-Pending Decisions ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Application ³ Substitute ³ Comments ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ³ ³ Metals cleaning w/ ³ Monochloro-toluene/benzo- ³ Agency has not completed review of data. CFC-113, MCF. ³ trifluorides ³ ³ Brominated hydrocarbons........... ³ Agency has not completed review of data. ³ Volatile methyl siloxanes......... ³ Agency has not completed review of data. ³ ³ Preliminary indications are that this substitute ³ ³ merits approval. Electronics ³ Brominated hydrocarbons........... ³ Agency has not completed review of data. Cleaning w/CFC- ³ ³ 113, MCF. ³ ³ Precision cleaning ³ Brominated hydrocarbons .......... ³ Agency has not completed review of data. w/CFC-113, MCF. ³ ³ ³ HCFC-123 ......................... ³ More information needed on feasibility of achieving ³ ³ OEL. EPA investigating toxicity concerns. ³ HCFC-225.......................... ³ Toxicity data yet to be completed. HCFC-225cb ³ ³ isomer is of commercial interest, but toxicity ³ ³ concerns may limit interest in the ca-isomer. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Halons-Acceptable Substitutes ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Application ³ Substitute ³ Initial decision ³ Proposed ³ Comments ³ ³ ³ conditions ³ ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ³ ³ ³ ³ Halon 1211 ³ HBFC-22B1......... ³ Acceptable in non- ³ .................. ³ ODP of compound (.74) precludes Streaming Agents- ³ ³ residential uses ³ ³ acceptability of widespread use Consumer. ³ ³ only ³ ³ in consumer applications. Will be Applications. ³ ³ ³ ³ phased out (except for essential ³ ³ ³ ³ uses) January 1, 1996. ³ ³ ³ ³ Anticipated exposure levels in ³ ³ ³ ³ consumer applications exceed ³ ³ ³ ³ toxic levels. ³ ³ ³ ³ This agent was submitted to the ³ ³ ³ ³ Agency as a Premanufacture Notice ³ ³ ³ ³ (PMN) and is presently subject to ³ ³ ³ ³ requirements contained in a Toxic ³ ³ ³ ³ Substance Control Act (TSCA) ³ ³ ³ ³ Consent Order. ³ HCFC-123 ......... ³ Acceptable........ ³ ³ ³ [HCFC Blend] B ... ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ Contains small percentage of PFC ³ ³ ³ ³ which has an unusually long ³ ³ ³ ³ atmospheric lifetime, and could ³ ³ ³ ³ potentially contribute to global ³ ³ ³ ³ climate change. EPA suggests but ³ ³ ³ ³ does not require that users ³ ³ ³ ³ minimize emissions by minimizing ³ ³ ³ ³ use during training, and by ³ ³ ³ ³ recovery and recycling during ³ ³ ³ ³ maintenance and servicing. ³ [CFC Blend]....... ³ Acceptable in non- ³ .................. ³ Not commercialized for residential ³ ³ residential uses ³ ³ use. ³ ³ only ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ [CFC Blend] can help transition ³ ³ ³ ³ away from halon 1211 in ³ ³ ³ ³ applications requiring a highly ³ ³ ³ ³ effective fire extinguishant with ³ ³ ³ ³ low toxicity. ³ ³ ³ ³ Because CFCs are a Class I ³ ³ ³ ³ substance, production will be ³ ³ ³ ³ phased out by January 1, 1996. ³ ³ ³ ³ The manufacturer notes that this ³ ³ ³ ³ agent is not suitable for Class B ³ ³ ³ ³ fires involving escaping gases. ³ Carbon Dioxide.... ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ Not rated for use against Class A ³ ³ ³ ³ fires. ³ Dry Chemical...... ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ Can result in temporary loss of ³ ³ ³ ³ visibility if discharged in ³ ³ ³ ³ confined areas. ³ Water............. ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ Not suitable for use against ³ ³ ³ ³ electrical fires (Class C). ³ Foam.............. ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ Effective against flammable ³ ³ ³ ³ liquids. Can also be used against ³ ³ ³ ³ Class A fires. ³ ³ ³ ³ Not suitable for discharge onto ³ ³ ³ ³ live electrical equipment. Halon 1211 ³ HBFC-22B1 ........ ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ Proper procedures regarding the Streaming Agents- ³ ³ ³ ³ operation of the extinguisher and Commercial/ ³ ³ ³ ³ ventilation following dispensing Industrial ³ ³ ³ ³ the extinguishant is recommended. Applications. ³ ³ ³ ³ Worker exposure may be a concern ³ ³ ³ ³ in small office areas. ³ ³ ³ ³ Acceptability in commercial ³ ³ ³ ³ applications will accelerate the ³ ³ ³ ³ transition away from Halon 1211 ³ ³ ³ ³ which has a significantly higher ³ ³ ³ ³ ODP. ³ ³ ³ ³ HBFC-22B1 is considered an interim ³ ³ ³ ³ substitute for Halon 1211. ³ ³ ³ ³ Because the HBFC-22B1 has an ODP ³ ³ ³ ³ of .74, production will be phased ³ ³ ³ ³ out (except for essential uses) ³ ³ ³ ³ on January 1, 1996. ³ ³ ³ ³ This agent was submitted to the ³ ³ ³ ³ Agency as a Premanufacture Notice ³ ³ ³ ³ (PMN) and is presently subject to ³ ³ ³ ³ requirements contained in a Toxic ³ ³ ³ ³ Substance Control Act (TSCA) ³ ³ ³ ³ Consent Order. ³ HCFC-123 ......... ³ Acceptable ....... ³ .................. ³ .................................. ³ [HCFC Blend] B ... ³ Acceptable ....... ³ .................. ³ Contains small percentage of PFC ³ ³ ³ ³ which has an unusually long ³ ³ ³ ³ atmospheric lifetime, and could ³ ³ ³ ³ potentially contribute to global ³ ³ ³ ³ climate change. EPA suggests but ³ ³ ³ ³ does not require that users ³ ³ ³ ³ minimize emissions by minimizing ³ ³ ³ ³ use during training, and by ³ ³ ³ ³ recovery and recycling during ³ ³ ³ ³ maintenance and servicing. ³ [CFC Blend] ...... ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ [CFC Blend] can help transition ³ ³ ³ ³ away from halon 1211 in ³ ³ ³ ³ applications requiring a highly ³ ³ ³ ³ effective fire extinguishant with ³ ³ ³ ³ low toxicity. ³ ³ ³ ³ Because CFCs are a Class I ³ ³ ³ ³ substance, production will be ³ ³ ³ ³ phased out by January 1, 1996. ³ ³ ³ ³ The manufacturer notes that this ³ ³ ³ ³ agent is not suitable for Class B ³ ³ ³ ³ fires involving escaping gases. ³ Dry Chemical...... ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ Can result in temporary loss of ³ ³ ³ ³ visibility if discharged in ³ ³ ³ ³ confined areas. ³ Carbon Dioxide.... ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ Not rated for use against Class A ³ ³ ³ ³ fires. ³ Water............. ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ Not suitable for use against ³ ³ ³ ³ electrical fires (Class C). ³ Foam ............. ³ Acceptable ....... ³ .................. ³ Effective against flammable ³ ³ ³ ³ liquids. Can also be used against ³ ³ ³ ³ Class A fires. ³ ³ ³ ³ Not suitable for discharge onto ³ ³ ³ ³ live electrical equipment. Halon 1211 ³ HBFC-22B1 ........ ³ Acceptable ....... ³ .................. ³ Acceptability in commercial Streaming Agents- ³ ³ ³ ³ applications will accelerate the Military ³ ³ ³ ³ transition away from Halon 1211 Applications. ³ ³ ³ ³ which has a significantly higher ³ ³ ³ ³ ODP. ³ ³ ³ ³ HBFC-22B1 is considered an interim ³ ³ ³ ³ substitute for Halon 1211. ³ ³ ³ ³ Because the HBFC-22B1 has an ODP ³ ³ ³ ³ of .74, production will be phased ³ ³ ³ ³ out on January 1, 1996. ³ ³ ³ ³ This agent was submitted to the ³ ³ ³ ³ Agency as a Premanufacture Notice ³ ³ ³ ³ (PMN) and is presently subject to ³ ³ ³ ³ requirements contained in a Toxic ³ ³ ³ ³ Substance Control Act (TSCA) ³ ³ ³ ³ Consent Order. ³ HCFC-123.......... ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ .................................. ³ [HCFC Blend] B.... ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ Contains small percentage of PFC ³ ³ ³ ³ which has an unusually long ³ ³ ³ ³ atmospheric lifetime, and could ³ ³ ³ ³ potentially contribute to global ³ ³ ³ ³ climate change. EPA suggests but ³ ³ ³ ³ does not require that users ³ ³ ³ ³ minimize emissions by minimizing ³ ³ ³ ³ use during training, and by ³ ³ ³ ³ recovery and recycling during ³ ³ ³ ³ maintenance and servicing. ³ FC 5-1-14......... ³ Acceptable for use ³ FC 5-1-14 shall ³ Under SNAP, EPA has reviewed and ³ ³ in military ³ not be used ³ found acceptable only certain ³ ³ flightlines, ³ during training ³ narrowly defined uses of ³ ³ inside military ³ exercises. ³ perfluorinated compounds. Wider ³ ³ aircraft; and in ³ FC 5-1-14 must be ³ use of perfluorinated compounds ³ ³ military computer ³ recovered from ³ is of concern due to long ³ ³ and telecom- ³ the fire ³ atmospheric lifetimes and ³ ³ munication ³ protection system ³ potential to contribute to global ³ ³ facilities ³ prior to ³ warming. ³ ³ ³ servicing and ³ ³ ³ ³ recycled for ³ ³ ³ ³ later use. ³ ³ [CFC Blend]....... ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ [CFC Blend] can help transition ³ ³ ³ ³ away from halon 1211 in ³ ³ ³ ³ applications requiring a highly ³ ³ ³ ³ effective fire extinguisher with ³ ³ ³ ³ low toxicity. ³ ³ ³ ³ Because CFCs are a Class I ³ ³ ³ ³ substance, production will be ³ ³ ³ ³ phased out by January 1, 1996. ³ ³ ³ ³ The manufacturer notes that this ³ ³ ³ ³ agent is not suitable for Class B ³ ³ ³ ³ fires involving escaping gases. ³ Dry Chemical ..... ³ Acceptable ....... ³ .................. ³ Does not penetrate well behind ³ ³ ³ ³ obstacles. ³ Carbon Dioxide ... ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ Not rated for use against Class A ³ ³ ³ ³ fires. ³ Water ............ ³ Acceptable ....... ³ .................. ³ Not suitable for use against ³ ³ ³ ³ electrical fires (Class C). ³ Foam ............. ³ Acceptable ....... ³ .................. ³ Effective against flammable ³ ³ ³ ³ liquids. Can also be used against ³ ³ ³ ³ Class A fires. ³ ³ ³ ³ Not suitable for discharge onto ³ ³ ³ ³ live electrical equipment. Halon 1301 Total ³ HBFC-22B1......... ³ Acceptable........ ³ For occupied areas ³ HBFC-22B1 can be utilized in Flooding-Occupied ³ ³ ³ from which ³ existing equipment with only Areas. ³ ³ ³ personnel cannot ³ minor modifications and can thus ³ ³ ³ be evacuated in ³ facilitate a more rapid ³ ³ ³ one minute, use ³ transition away from Halon 1301. ³ ³ ³ is permitted only ³ The design concentration is ³ ³ ³ up to ³ approximately 5.3% while its ³ ³ ³ concentrations ³ cardiotoxic LOAEL is 1%. ³ ³ ³ not exceeding the ³ Evacuation must be complete ³ ³ ³ cardiotoxic NOAEL.³ before 1% concentration is ³ ³ ³ For occupied areas ³ reached. ³ ³ ³ from which ³ Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 ³ ³ ³ personnel can be ³ Subpart L Section 1910.160 of the ³ ³ ³ evacuated or ³ U.S. Code. This section requires ³ ³ ³ egress can occur ³ that employees be alerted to ³ ³ ³ between 30 and 60 ³ impending system discharge by ³ ³ ³ seconds, use is ³ suitable alarms and provided with ³ ³ ³ permitted up to a ³ sufficient time to safely exit ³ ³ ³ concentration not ³ the area prior to system ³ ³ ³ exceeding the ³ discharge. ³ ³ ³ LOAEL. ³ Per OSHA requirements, protective ³ ³ ³ All personnel must ³ gear (SCBA) must be available in ³ ³ ³ be evacuated ³ the event personnel must reenter ³ ³ ³ before ³ the area. ³ ³ ³ concentration of ³ HBFC-22B1 can be considered only ³ ³ ³ HBFC-22B1 exceeds ³ an interim substitute for Halon ³ ³ ³ 1%. ³ 1301. HBFC-22B1 has an ODP of .74; ³ ³ ³ ³ thus, production will be phased ³ ³ ³ ³ out on January 1, 1996. ³ ³ ³ ³ This agent was submitted to the ³ ³ ³ ³ Agency as a Premanufacture Notice ³ ³ ³ ³ (PMN) and is presently subject to ³ ³ ³ ³ requirements contained in a Toxic ³ ³ ³ ³ Substances Control Act (TSCA) ³ ³ ³ ³ Consent Order. ³ HCFC-22........... ³ Acceptable........ ³ For occupied areas ³ The design concentration is ³ ³ ³ from which ³ approximately 13.9% while its ³ ³ ³ personnel cannot ³ cardiotoxic NOAEL is 2.5% and the ³ ³ ³ be evacuated in ³ LOAEL is 5%. ³ ³ ³ one minute, use ³ Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 ³ ³ ³ is permitted only ³ Subpart L Section 1910.160 of the ³ ³ ³ up to ³ U.S. Code. This section requires ³ ³ ³ concentrations ³ that employees be alerted to ³ ³ ³ not exceeding the ³ impending system discharge by ³ ³ ³ cardiotoxic NOAEL ³ suitable alarms and provided with ³ ³ ³ ³ sufficient time to safely exit ³ ³ ³ For occupied areas ³ the area prior to system ³ ³ ³ from which ³ discharge. ³ ³ ³ personnel can be ³ Per OSHA requirements, protective ³ ³ ³ evacuated or ³ gear (SCBA) must be available in ³ ³ ³ egress can occur ³ the event personnel must reenter ³ ³ ³ between 30 and 60 ³ the area. ³ ³ ³ seconds, use is ³ ³ ³ ³ permitted up to a ³ ³ ³ ³ concentration not ³ ³ ³ ³ exceeding the ³ ³ ³ ³ LOAEL ³ ³ ³ ³ All personnel must ³ ³ ³ ³ be evacuated ³ ³ ³ ³ before ³ ³ ³ ³ concentration of ³ ³ ³ ³ HCFC-22 exceeds 5 ³ ³ ³ ³ % ³ ³ HCFC-124.......... ³ Acceptable........ ³ For occupied areas ³ The design concentration is ³ ³ ³ from which ³ approximately 9.8% while its ³ ³ ³ personnel cannot ³ cardiotoxic NOAEL is 1.0% and its ³ ³ ³ be evacuated in ³ LOAEL is 2.5%. ³ ³ ³ one minute, use ³ Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 ³ ³ ³ is permitted only ³ Subpart L Section 1910.160 of the ³ ³ ³ up to ³ U.S. Code. This section requires ³ ³ ³ concentrations ³ that employees be alerted to ³ ³ ³ not exceeding the ³ impending system discharge by ³ ³ ³ cardiotoxic NOAEL ³ suitable alarms and provided with ³ ³ ³ ³ sufficient time to safely exit ³ ³ ³ For occupied areas ³ the area prior to system ³ ³ ³ from which ³ discharge. ³ ³ ³ personnel can be ³ Per OSHA requirements, protective ³ ³ ³ evaluated or ³ gear (SCBA) must be available in ³ ³ ³ egress can occur ³ the event personnel must reenter ³ ³ ³ between 30 and 60 ³ the area. ³ ³ ³ seconds, use is ³ ³ ³ ³ permitted up to a ³ ³ ³ ³ concentration not ³ ³ ³ ³ exceeding the ³ ³ ³ ³ LOAEL ³ ³ ³ ³ All personnel must ³ ³ ³ ³ be evacuated ³ ³ ³ ³ before ³ ³ ³ ³ concentration of ³ ³ ³ ³ HCFC-124 exceeds ³ ³ ³ ³ 2.5% ³ ³ [HCFC BLEND] A.... ³ Acceptable........ ³ For occupied areas ³ The design concentration is ³ ³ ³ from which ³ approximately 10.3%. Preliminary ³ ³ ³ personnel cannot ³ data indicates that the NOAEL is ³ ³ ³ be evacuated in ³ at least 10.0%, and therefore the ³ ³ ³ one minute, use ³ LOAEL is likely to be higher. ³ ³ ³ is permitted only ³ Until the Agency receives the ³ ³ ³ up to ³ LOAEL data, this agent is ³ ³ ³ concentrations ³ approved to the design ³ ³ ³ not exceeding the ³ concentration of 10.3%. ³ ³ ³ cardiotoxic NOAEL ³ Evacuation must be complete ³ ³ ³ ³ before 10.3% concentration is ³ ³ ³ For occupied areas ³ exceeded. EPA awaits the final ³ ³ ³ from which ³ report on cardiotoxicity test ³ ³ ³ personnel can be ³ data. ³ ³ ³ evacuated or ³ Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 ³ ³ ³ egress can occur ³ Subpart L Section 1910.160 of the ³ ³ ³ between 30 and 60 ³ U.S. Code. This section requires ³ ³ ³ seconds, use is ³ that employees be alerted to ³ ³ ³ permitted up to a ³ impending system discharge by ³ ³ ³ concentration not ³ suitable alarms and provided with ³ ³ ³ exceeding the ³ sufficient time to safely exit ³ ³ ³ LOAEL ³ the area prior to system ³ ³ ³ All personnel must ³ discharge. ³ ³ ³ be evacuated ³ Per OSHA requirements, protective ³ ³ ³ before ³ gear (SCBA) must be available in ³ ³ ³ concentration of ³ the event personnel must reenter ³ ³ ³ [HCFC BLEND] A ³ the area. ³ ³ ³ exceeds the ³ ³ ³ ³ design ³ ³ ³ ³ concentration of ³ ³ ³ ³ 10.3% ³ ³ HFC-23............ ³ Acceptable for ³ For occupied areas ³ The design concentration is ³ ³ high value ³ from which ³ approximately 14.9% while ³ ³ applications such ³ personnel cannot ³ preliminary data indicates that ³ ³ as those ³ be evacuated in ³ its cardiotoxic NOAEL is 30% ³ ³ involving the ³ one minute, use ³ without added oxygen and 50% with ³ ³ protection of ³ is permitted only ³ added oxygen. Its LOAEL is likely ³ ³ public safety or ³ up to ³ to exceed 50%. Evacuation must be ³ ³ national security;³ concentrations ³ complete before 30% concentration ³ ³ telecommunication ³ not exceeding the ³ is reached. EPA awaits the final ³ ³ or computer ³ cardiotoxic NOAEL ³ report on cardiotoxicity test ³ ³ equipment related ³ ³ data. ³ ³ to public safety ³ For occupied areas ³ Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 ³ ³ or national ³ from which ³ Subpart L Section 1910.160 of the ³ ³ security; or life ³ personnel can be ³ U.S. Code. This section requires ³ ³ support functions ³ evacuated or ³ that employees be alerted to ³ ³ ³ egress can occur ³ impending system discharge by ³ ³ ³ between 30 and 60 ³ suitable alarms and provided with ³ ³ ³ seconds, use is ³ sufficient time to safely exit ³ ³ ³ permitted up to a ³ the area prior to system ³ ³ ³ concentration not ³ discharge. ³ ³ ³ exceeding the ³ ³ ³ ³ LOAEL ³ ³ ³ ³ All personnel must ³ ³ ³ ³ be evacuated ³ ³ ³ ³ before ³ ³ ³ ³ concentration of ³ ³ ³ ³ HFC-23 exceeds 30 ³ ³ ³ ³ % ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ Per OSHA requirements, protective ³ ³ ³ ³ gear (SCBA) must be available in ³ ³ ³ ³ the event personnel must reenter ³ ³ ³ ³ the area. ³ ³ ³ ³ Due to concerns about this agent's ³ ³ ³ ³ Global Warming Potential, the ³ ³ ³ ³ agency is currently restricting ³ ³ ³ ³ its use until further analysis is ³ ³ ³ ³ complete. ³ ³ ³ ³ Required extinguishing ³ ³ ³ ³ concentration and storage volume ³ ³ ³ ³ ratio are the highest of all ³ ³ ³ ³ potential candidates, but weight ³ ³ ³ ³ ratio is only 2.0. ³ HFC-134a.......... ³ Acceptable........ ³ For occupied areas ³ The design concentration is ³ ³ ³ from which ³ approximately 12.6% while its ³ ³ ³ personnel cannot ³ cardiotoxic LOAEL is ³ ³ ³ be evacuated in ³ approximately 8.0% Evacuation ³ ³ ³ one minute, use ³ must be complete before 8.0% ³ ³ ³ is permitted only ³ concentration is reached. ³ ³ ³ up to ³ ³ ³ ³ concentrations ³ ³ ³ ³ not exceeding the ³ ³ ³ ³ cardiotoxic NOAEL ³ ³ ³ ³ For occupied areas ³ Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 ³ ³ ³ from which ³ Subpart L Section 1910.160 of the ³ ³ ³ personnel can be ³ U.S. Code. This section requires ³ ³ ³ evacuated or ³ that employees be alerted to ³ ³ ³ egress can occur ³ impending system discharge by ³ ³ ³ between 30 and 60 ³ suitable alarms and provided with ³ ³ ³ seconds, use is ³ sufficient time to safely exit ³ ³ ³ permitted up to a ³ the area prior to system ³ ³ ³ concentration not ³ discharge. ³ ³ ³ exceeding the ³ ³ ³ ³ LOAEL ³ ³ ³ ³ All personnel must ³ Per OSHA requirements, protective ³ ³ ³ be evacuated ³ gear (SCBA) must be available in ³ ³ ³ before ³ the event personnel must reenter ³ ³ ³ concentration of ³ the area. ³ ³ ³ HFC-134a exceeds ³ ³ ³ ³ 8.0% ³ ³ HFC-227ea......... ³ Acceptable........ ³ For occupied areas ³ The design concentration is ³ ³ ³ from which ³ approximately 7.1% while ³ ³ ³ personnel cannot ³ preliminary data indicates that ³ ³ ³ be evacuated in ³ its cardiotoxic NOAEL is 8.1% and ³ ³ ³ one minute, use ³ its LOAEL is greater than 10.5%. ³ ³ ³ is permitted only ³ Evacuation must be complete ³ ³ ³ up to ³ before a concentration of 10.5% ³ ³ ³ concentrations ³ is exceeded. EPA awaits the final ³ ³ ³ not exceeding the ³ report on cardiotoxicity test ³ ³ ³ cardiotoxic NOAEL ³ data. ³ ³ ³ For occupied areas ³ Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 ³ ³ ³ from which ³ Subpart L Section 1910.160 of the ³ ³ ³ personnel can be ³ U.S. Code. This section requires ³ ³ ³ evacuated or ³ that employees be alerted to ³ ³ ³ egress can occur ³ impending system discharge by ³ ³ ³ between 30 and 60 ³ suitable alarms and provided with ³ ³ ³ seconds, use is ³ sufficient time to safely exit ³ ³ ³ permitted up to a ³ the area prior to system ³ ³ ³ concentration not ³ discharge. ³ ³ ³ exceeding the ³ ³ ³ ³ LOAEL ³ ³ ³ ³ All personnel must ³ Per OSHA requirements, protective ³ ³ ³ be evacuated ³ gear (SCBA) must be available in ³ ³ ³ before ³ the event personnel must reenter ³ ³ ³ concentration of ³ the area. ³ ³ ³ HFC-227ea exceeds ³ ³ ³ ³ 10.5% ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ This agent was submitted to the ³ ³ ³ ³ Agency as a Premanufacture Notice ³ ³ ³ ³ (PMN) agent and is presently ³ ³ ³ ³ subject to requirements contained ³ ³ ³ ³ in a Toxic Substances Control Act ³ ³ ³ ³ (TSCA) Significant New Use Rule ³ ³ ³ ³ (SNUR). ³ FC 3-1-10......... ³ Acceptable for ³ For occupied areas ³ The design concentration is ³ ³ applications ³ from which ³ approximately 6.6% while its ³ ³ involving the ³ personnel cannot ³ cardiotoxic NOAEL is 40% and its ³ ³ protection of ³ be evacuated in ³ LOAEL is over 40%. ³ ³ public safety or ³ one minute, use ³ Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 ³ ³ national security;³ is permitted only ³ Subpart L Section 1910.160 of the ³ ³ tele- communi- ³ up to ³ U.S. Code. This section requires ³ ³ cation or ³ concentrations ³ that employees be alerted to ³ ³ computer ³ not exceeding the ³ impending system discharge by ³ ³ equipment related ³ cardiotoxic NOAEl ³ suitable alarms and provided with ³ ³ to public safety ³ For occupied areas ³ sufficient time to safely exit ³ ³ or national ³ from which ³ the area prior to system ³ ³ security; or life ³ personnel can be ³ discharge. ³ ³ support functions ³ evacuated or ³ Per OSHA requirements, protective ³ ³ ³ egress can occur ³ gear (SCBA) must be available in ³ ³ ³ between 30 and 60 ³ the event personnel must reenter ³ ³ ³ seconds, use is ³ the area. ³ ³ ³ permitted up to a ³ ³ ³ ³ concentration not ³ ³ ³ ³ exceeding the ³ ³ ³ ³ LOAEL ³ ³ ³ ³ All personnel must ³ ³ ³ ³ be evacuated ³ ³ ³ ³ before ³ ³ ³ ³ concentration of ³ ³ ³ ³ FC 3-1-10 exceeds ³ ³ ³ ³ 40% ³ ³ ³ ³ FC 3-1-10 shall ³ Under SNAP, EPA has reviewed and ³ ³ ³ not be used to ³ found acceptable only certain ³ ³ ³ test total ³ narrowly defined uses of ³ ³ ³ flooding systems ³ perfluorinated compounds. Wider ³ ³ ³ unless captured ³ use of perfluorinated compounds ³ ³ ³ and recycled or ³ is of concern due to long ³ ³ ³ destroyed ³ atmospheric lifetimes, and ³ ³ ³ ³ potential to contribute to global ³ ³ ³ ³ warming. ³ ³ ³ Fire detection ³ .................................. ³ ³ ³ should be cross- ³ ³ ³ ³ zoned to avoid ³ ³ ³ ³ unnecessary ³ ³ ³ ³ discharge and ³ ³ ³ ³ maintained to ³ ³ ³ ³ high reliability ³ ³ ³ ³ FC 3-1-10 must be ³ .................................. ³ ³ ³ recovered from ³ ³ ³ ³ the fire ³ ³ ³ ³ protection system ³ ³ ³ ³ prior to ³ ³ ³ ³ servicing and ³ ³ ³ ³ must be recycled ³ ³ ³ ³ for later use ³ ³ [Inert Gas Blend]. ³ Acceptable........ ³ The design ³ Studies have shown that healthy, ³ ³ ³ concentration ³ young individuals can remain in a ³ ³ ³ must result in at ³ 12% to 14% oxygen atmosphere for ³ ³ ³ least 14% oxygen ³ 30 to 40 minutes without ³ ³ ³ and 4% CO2 ³ impairment. However, in a fire ³ ³ ³ If the oxygen ³ emergency, the oxygen level may ³ ³ ³ concentration of ³ be reduced below safe levels, and ³ ³ ³ the atmosphere ³ the decomposition products formed ³ ³ ³ falls below 12%, ³ by the fire are likely to cause ³ ³ ³ personnel must be ³ harm. Thus, the Agency does not ³ ³ ³ evacuated and ³ contemplate personnel remaining ³ ³ ³ egress must occur ³ in the space after system ³ ³ ³ within 30 seconds ³ discharge during a fire without ³ ³ ³ ³ Self Contained Breathing ³ ³ ³ ³ Apparatus (SCBA) as required by ³ ³ ³ ³ OSHA. ³ CO2............... ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ System design must adhere to OSHA ³ ³ ³ ³ 1910.162(b)5 and NFPA Standard 12. ³ Water............. ³ Acceptable........ ³ ³ Halon 1301 Total ³ HBFC-22B1 ........ ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ HBFC-22B1 can be considered only Flooding- ³ ³ ³ ³ an interim substitute for Halon Unoccupied Areas. ³ ³ ³ ³ 1301. HBFC-22B1 has an ODP of .74; ³ ³ ³ ³ thus, production will be phased ³ ³ ³ ³ out January 1, 1996. ³ ³ ³ ³ This agent was submitted to the ³ ³ ³ ³ Agency as a Premanufacture Notice ³ ³ ³ ³ (PMN) and is presently subject to ³ ³ ³ ³ requirements contained in a Toxic ³ ³ ³ ³ Substance Control Act (TSCA) ³ ³ ³ ³ Consent Order. ³ ³ ³ ³ OSHA requires that protective gear ³ ³ ³ ³ (SCBA) be worn by personnel ³ ³ ³ ³ entering the space until oxygen ³ ³ ³ ³ levels return to 19.5% and ³ ³ ³ ³ relevant decomposition products ³ ³ ³ ³ decrease to OSHA limits. ³ HCFC-22........... ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ OSHA requires that protective gear ³ ³ ³ ³ (SCBA) be worn by personnel ³ ³ ³ ³ entering the space until oxygen ³ ³ ³ ³ levels return to 19.5% and ³ ³ ³ ³ relevant decomposition products ³ ³ ³ ³ decrease to OSHA limits. ³ HCFC-124.......... ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ OSHA requires that protective gear ³ ³ ³ ³ (SCBA) be worn by personnel ³ ³ ³ ³ entering the space until oxygen ³ ³ ³ ³ levels return to 19.5% and ³ ³ ³ ³ relevant decomposition products ³ ³ ³ ³ decrease to OSHA limits. ³ [HCFC BLEND] A ... ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ OSHA requires that protective gear ³ ³ ³ ³ (SCBA) be worn by personnel ³ ³ ³ ³ entering the space until oxygen ³ ³ ³ ³ levels return to 19.5% and ³ ³ ³ ³ relevant decomposition products ³ ³ ³ ³ decrease to OSHA limits. ³ HFC-23............ ³ Acceptable for ³ ³ Due to concerns about this agent's ³ ³ high value ³ ³ Global Warming Potential, its use ³ ³ applications such ³ ³ is restricted pending further ³ ³ as those ³ ³ review by the Agency. ³ ³ involving the ³ ³ Required extinguishing ³ ³ protection of ³ ³ concentration and storage volume ³ ³ public safety or ³ ³ ratio are the highest of all ³ ³ national security;³ ³ potential candidates, but weight ³ ³ telecommunication ³ ³ ratio is only 2.0. ³ ³ or computer ³ ³ ³ ³ equipment related ³ ³ ³ ³ to public safety ³ ³ ³ ³ or national ³ ³ ³ ³ security; Life ³ ³ ³ ³ support functions ³ ³ ³ ³ such as Armored ³ ³ ³ ³ Personnel ³ ³ ³ ³ Vehicles and ³ ³ ³ ³ related vehicles; ³ ³ ³ ³ and for explosion ³ ³ ³ ³ inertion/suppres- ³ ³ ³ ³ sion with ³ ³ ³ ³ flammable liquids ³ ³ ³ ³ and gases ³ ³ ³ HFC-125 .......... ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ OSHA requires that protective gear ³ ³ ³ ³ (SCBA) be worn by personnel ³ ³ ³ ³ entering the space until oxygen ³ ³ ³ ³ levels return to 19.5% and ³ ³ ³ ³ relevant decomposition products ³ ³ ³ ³ decrease to OSHA limits. ³ HFC-134a ......... ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ OSHA requires that protective gear ³ ³ ³ ³ (SCBA) be worn by personnel ³ ³ ³ ³ entering the space until oxygen ³ ³ ³ ³ levels return to 19.5% and ³ ³ ³ ³ relevant decomposition products ³ ³ ³ ³ decrease to OSHA limits. ³ HFC-227ea ........ ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ OSHA requires that protective gear ³ ³ ³ ³ (SCBA) be worn by personnel ³ ³ ³ ³ entering the space until oxygen ³ ³ ³ ³ levels return to 19.5% and ³ ³ ³ ³ relevant decomposition products ³ ³ ³ ³ decrease to OSHA limits. ³ ³ ³ ³ This agent was submitted to the ³ ³ ³ ³ Agency as a Premanufacture Notice ³ ³ ³ ³ (PMN) and is presently subject to ³ ³ ³ ³ requirements contained in a Toxic ³ ³ ³ ³ Substance Control Act (TSCA) ³ ³ ³ ³ Significant New Use Rule (SNUR). ³ FC 3-1-10......... ³ Acceptable for ³ FC 3-1-10 may not ³ Under SNAP, EPA has reviewed and ³ ³ applications ³ be used for ³ found acceptable only certain ³ ³ involving the ³ training ³ narrowly defined uses of ³ ³ protection of ³ exercises ³ perfluorinated compounds. Wider ³ ³ public safety or ³ Detection should ³ use of perfluorinated compounds ³ ³ national security;³ be cross-zoned to ³ is of concern due to long ³ ³ telecommunication ³ avoid unnecessary ³ atmospheric lifetimes, and ³ ³ or computer ³ discharge and ³ potential to contribute to global ³ ³ equipment related ³ maintained to ³ warming. ³ ³ to public safety ³ high reliability ³ OSHA requires that protective gear ³ ³ or national ³ Recycling/recovery ³ (SCBA) be worn by personnel ³ ³ security; Life ³ equipment must be ³ entering the space until oxygen ³ ³ support functions ³ used during ³ levels return to 19.5% and ³ ³ such as Armored ³ servicing of fire ³ relevant decomposition products ³ ³ Personnel ³ protection system ³ decrease to OSHA limits. ³ ³ Vehicles and ³ ³ ³ ³ related vehicles; ³ ³ ³ ³ and for explosion ³ ³ ³ ³ inertion/ ³ ³ ³ ³ suppression with ³ ³ ³ ³ flammable liquids ³ ³ ³ ³ and gases ³ ³ ³ [Inert Gas Blend]. ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ OSHA requires that protective gear ³ ³ ³ ³ (SCBA) be worn by personnel ³ ³ ³ ³ entering the space until oxygen ³ ³ ³ ³ levels return to 19.5% and ³ ³ ³ ³ relevant decomposition products ³ ³ ³ ³ decrease to OSHA limits. ³ Carbon Dioxide.... ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ OSHA requires that protective gear ³ ³ ³ ³ (SCBA) be worn by personnel ³ ³ ³ ³ entering the space until oxygen ³ ³ ³ ³ levels return to 19.5% and ³ ³ ³ ³ relevant decomposition products ³ ³ ³ ³ decrease to OSHA limits. ³ Water............. ³ Acceptable ³ .................. ³ Halon 1301 ³ HBFC-22B1......... ³ Acceptable only in ³ .................. ³ HBFC-22B1 can be considered only Explosion ³ ³ normally ³ ³ an interim substitute for Halon Inertion. ³ ³ unoccupied areas ³ ³ 1301. HBFC-22B1 has an ODP of .74; ³ ³ ³ ³ thus, production will be phased ³ ³ ³ ³ out on January 1, 1996. ³ ³ ³ ³ This agent was submitted to the ³ ³ ³ ³ Agency as a Premanufacture Notice ³ ³ ³ ³ (PMN) and is presently subject to ³ ³ ³ ³ requirements contained in a Toxic ³ ³ ³ ³ Substance Control Act (TSCA) ³ ³ ³ ³ Consent Order. ³ ³ ³ ³ OSHA requires that protective gear ³ ³ ³ ³ (SCBA) be worn by personnel ³ ³ ³ ³ entering the space until oxygen ³ ³ ³ ³ levels return to 19.5% and ³ ³ ³ ³ relevant decomposition products ³ ³ ³ ³ decrease to OSHA limits. ³ HFC-23............ ³ Acceptable for ³ .................. ³ Preliminary analysis of ³ ³ high value ³ ³ cardiotoxicity tests indicates ³ ³ applications such ³ ³ that the no effect level for ³ ³ as those ³ ³ cardiac sensitization exceeds 50% ³ ³ involving the ³ ³ . ³ ³ protection of ³ ³ Design concentrations vary for ³ ³ public safety or ³ ³ different atmospheres. The design ³ ³ national security;³ ³ concentration should not exceed ³ ³ telecommunication ³ ³ the cardiotoxic LOAEL of 50% in ³ ³ or computer ³ ³ an occupied area. ³ ³ equipment related ³ ³ Due to concerns about this agent's ³ ³ to public safety ³ ³ Global Warming Potential, its use ³ ³ or national ³ ³ is restricted pending further ³ ³ security; life ³ ³ Agency review. ³ ³ support functions;³ ³ Required extinguishing ³ ³ and for explosion ³ ³ concentration and storage volume ³ ³ inertion/ ³ ³ ratio are the highest of all ³ ³ suppression with ³ ³ potential candidates, but weight ³ ³ flammable liquids ³ ³ ratio is only 2.0. ³ ³ and gases ³ ³ ³ HFC-125 .......... ³ Acceptable only in ³ .................. ³ OSHA requires that protective gear ³ ³ normally ³ ³ (SCBA) be worn by personnel ³ ³ unoccupied areas ³ ³ entering the space until oxygen ³ ³ ³ ³ levels return to 19.5% and ³ ³ ³ ³ relevant decomposition products ³ ³ ³ ³ decrease to OSHA limits. ³ HFC-227ea......... ³ Acceptable ....... ³ .................. ³ Design concentrations vary for ³ ³ ³ ³ different atmospheres. The design ³ ³ ³ ³ concentration must not exceed the ³ ³ ³ ³ cardiotoxic LOAEL of 10.5% in an ³ ³ ³ ³ occupied area. ³ ³ ³ ³ OSHA requires that protective gear ³ ³ ³ ³ (SCBA) be worn by personnel ³ ³ ³ ³ entering the space until oxygen ³ ³ ³ ³ levels return to 19.5% and ³ ³ ³ ³ relevant decomposition products ³ ³ ³ ³ decrease to OSHA limits. ³ ³ ³ ³ This agent was submitted to the ³ ³ ³ ³ Agency as a Premanufacture Notice ³ ³ ³ ³ (PMN) and is subject to ³ ³ ³ ³ requirements contained in a Toxic ³ ³ ³ ³ Substance Control Act (TSCA) ³ ³ ³ ³ Significant New Use Rule (SNUR). ³ FC 3-1-10......... ³ Acceptable for ³ FC 3-1-10 shall ³ Design concentrations vary for ³ ³ applications ³ not be used to ³ different atmospheres. The design ³ ³ involving the ³ test explosion ³ concentration must not exceed the ³ ³ protection of ³ inertion systems ³ cardiotoxic LOAEL of 40% in an ³ ³ public safety or ³ unless captured ³ occupied area. ³ ³ national security;³ and recycled or ³ ³ ³ telecommunication ³ destroyed ³ ³ ³ or computer ³ ³ ³ ³ equipment related ³ ³ ³ ³ to public safety ³ ³ ³ ³ or national ³ ³ ³ ³ security; life ³ ³ ³ ³ support functions;³ ³ ³ ³ and for explosion ³ ³ ³ ³ inertion/ ³ ³ ³ ³ suppression with ³ ³ ³ ³ flammable liquids ³ ³ ³ ³ and gases ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ FC 3-1-10 must be ³ Under SNAP, EPA has reviewed and ³ ³ ³ recovered from ³ found acceptable only certain ³ ³ ³ the explosion ³ narrowly defined uses of ³ ³ ³ inertion system ³ perfluorinated compounds. Wider ³ ³ ³ prior to ³ use of perfluorinated compounds ³ ³ ³ servicing and ³ is of concern due to long ³ ³ ³ must be recycled ³ atmospheric lifetimes, and ³ ³ ³ for later use ³ potential to contribute to global ³ ³ ³ ³ warming. ³ ³ ³ ³ OSHA requires that protective gear ³ ³ ³ ³ (SCBA) be worn by personnel ³ ³ ³ ³ entering the space until oxygen ³ ³ ³ ³ levels return to 19.5% and ³ ³ ³ ³ relevant decomposition products ³ ³ ³ ³ decrease to OSHA limits. ³ [Inert Gas Blend]. ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ Efficacy data required for ³ ³ ³ ³ acceptance in normally occupied ³ ³ ³ ³ areas. ³ ³ ³ ³ OSHA requires that protective gear ³ ³ ³ ³ (SCBA) be worn by personnel ³ ³ ³ ³ entering the space until oxygen ³ ³ ³ ³ levels return to 19.5% and ³ ³ ³ ³ relevant decomposition products ³ ³ ³ ³ decrease to OSHA limits. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Halons-Unacceptable Substitutes ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Application ³ Substitute ³ Initial decision ³ Comments ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ³ ³ ³ Halon 1211 ....................... ³ [CFC-11] ³ Proposed ³ This agent has been proposed for large outdoor fires for ³ ³ Unacceptable ³ which non-ozone depleting alternatives are currently used. Streaming Agents-Commercial/ ³ ³ ³ Industrial Applications. ³ ³ ³ ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Halons-Pending Decisions ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Application ³ Substitute ³ Comments ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ³ ³ Halon 1211 ....................... ³ HFC-227ea......... ³ Cardiotoxicity and personnel monitoring data required. Streaming Agents-Consumer ³ ³ Applications ³ ³ Halon 1211 ....................... ³ HFC-227ea......... ³ Cardiotoxicity and personnel monitoring data required. Streaming Agents-Commercial/ ³ HBFC-22B1/HFC- ³ Cardiotoxicity, decomposition product, and personnel Industrial Applications. ³ 227ea Blend ³ monitoring data required. ³ ³ HBFC-22B1 is considered an interim substitute for Halon 1211. ³ ³ Because the HBFC-22B1 has an ODP of .74, production will be ³ ³ phased out (except for essential uses) on January 1, 1996. Halon 1211 ....................... ³ HFC-227ea......... ³ Cardiotoxicity and personnel monitoring data required. Streaming Agents-Military ³ HBFC-22B1/HFC- ³ Cardiotoxicity, decomposition product, and personnel Applications. ³ 227ea Blend ³ monitoring data required. ³ ³ HBFC-22B1 is considered an interim substitute for Halon 1211. ³ ³ Because the HBFC-22B1 has an ODP of .74, production will be ³ ³ phased out (except for essential uses) on January 1, 1996. Halon 1301 ....................... ³ HBFC-22B1/HFC- ³ Cardiotoxicity and decomposition product data required. ³ 227ea Blend ³ Total Flooding-Occupied Areas .... ³ .................. ³ HBFC-22B1 is considered an interim substitute for halon. ³ ³ Because the HBFC-22B1 has an ODP of .74, production will be ³ ³ phased out (except for essential uses) on January 1, 1996. ³ HFC-32 ........... ³ Need additional information on potential flammability. ³ ³ Cardiotoxicity data is required. ³ ³ No company has proposed commercialization of this agent as a ³ ³ halon substitute. ³ ³ Due to its potential flammability, this agent may require ³ ³ blending with another agent. ³ Water Mist/Fog.... ³ This newly developing technology for use on Class A, B and C ³ ³ fires is of high interest. The Agency has not yet received ³ ³ a formal submission in order to complete its evaluation. ³ HFC-125........... ³ Need additional information on cardiotoxicity. ³ SF6............... ³ This agent has been proposed as an alternative for discharge ³ ³ testing of halon systems. Halon 1301 ....................... ³ Water Mist/Fog.... ³ This newly developing technology for use on Class A, B, and ³ ³ C fires is of high interest. The Agency has not yet ³ ³ received a formal submission in order to complete its ³ ³ evaluation. Total Flooding-Unoccupied Areas ³ ³ Halon 1301........................ ³ [HCFC BLEND] A.... ³ Explosion inertion test data on blend required. Explosion Inertion ............... ³ SF6............... ³ This agent has been proposed as an alternative for discharge ³ ³ testing of halon systems. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Sterilants-Acceptable Substitutes ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Application ³ Substitute ³ Initial ³ Proposed ³ Comments ³ ³ decision ³ conditions ³ ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ³ ³ ³ ³ 12/88 Blend of EtO ³ CO2/EtO ³ Acceptable.... ³ ³ CO2/ETO blends can serve as drop-in replacements to 12/88 in /CFC-12. ³ ³ ³ ³ some but not in all existing equipment because they require ³ ³ ³ ³ a higher operating pressure. Sterilant ³ ³ ³ ³ Maximum EtO concentration in a CO2/EtO blend may have to be ³ ³ ³ ³ reduced to 8-9 percent to reduce flammability. ³ HCFC-124/ETO ³ Acceptable.... ³ ³ In a blend with EtO, HCFC-124 is the only available drop-in ³ ³ ³ ³ replacement for about half of the equipment now using 12/88. ³ ³ ³ ³ However, HCFC-124 is an ozone depleting substance; it ³ ³ ³ ³ should be use to sterilize only that equipment that cannot ³ ³ ³ ³ be sterilized using other alternatives such as steam or CO2 ³ ³ ³ ³ /EtO blends. ³ ³ ³ ³ Because HCFC-124 is a Class II substance, its use may be ³ ³ ³ ³ subject to future regulation promulgated under Section 608 ³ ³ ³ ³ of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. ³ ³ ³ ³ As a HAP, use of EtO must comply with Title III of the CAA. 12/88 Blend of EtO ³ Pure ETO ³ Acceptable.... ³ ³ EtO is a toxic, carcinogenic substance and is considered a /CFC-12. ³ ³ ³ ³ hazardous air pollutant. Potential exposures of the general ³ ³ ³ ³ population to EtO releases can be limited either through ³ ³ ³ ³ the use of catalytic converters which convert waste EtO ³ ³ ³ ³ into CO2 and water, or through the use of acid water ³ ³ ³ ³ scrubbers which convert waste EtO into ethylene glycol. Sterilant ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ Must be used in accordance with manufacturer recommendations ³ ³ ³ ³ to address flammability concerns. ³ ³ ³ ³ Must be used in accordance with OSHA standards to limit ³ ³ ³ ³ occupational exposures. ³ Steam ³ Acceptable.... ³ ³ Applicable only to devices resistant to heat and moisture. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Sterilants-Pending Decisions ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Application ³ Substitute ³ Comments ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ³ ³ 12/88 blend of EtO/CFC-12 ³ [HCFC Blend] A.... ³ Agency has not completed review of data. sterilant. ³ ³ ³ HFC-125/EtO....... ³ Agency has not completed review of data. ³ HFC-227ea/EtO .... ³ Need exposure data. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Aerosols-Acceptable Substitutes ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Application ³ Substitute ³ Initial Decision ³ Proposed ³ Comments ³ ³ ³ Conditions ³ ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ³ ³ ³ ³ CFC-11, HCFC-22, ³ Hydrocarbons ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ Hydrocarbons are flammable HCFC-142b as ³ (Propane, ³ ³ ³ materials and must be used with aerosol. ³ Isobutane, n- ³ ³ ³ the necessary precautions. propellants. ³ butane) ³ ³ ³ ³ Dimethyl ether.... ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ DME is flammable and must be used ³ ³ ³ ³ with the necessary precautions. ³ ³ ³ ³ Blends of DME with HCFCs would be ³ ³ ³ ³ subject to section 610 ³ ³ ³ ³ restrictions. ³ HFC-152a, HFC-134a ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ Expense of these compounds is ³ ³ ³ ³ likely to limit widespread use. ³ Alternative ³ Acceptable........ ³ ³ ³ processes (pumps, ³ ³ ³ ³ mechanical ³ ³ ³ ³ pressure ³ ³ ³ ³ dispensers, non- ³ ³ ³ ³ spray dispensers) ³ ³ ³ ³ Compressed Gases ³ Acceptable........ ³ ³ ³ (Carbon dioxide, ³ ³ ³ ³ air, nitrogen, ³ ³ ³ ³ nitrous oxide) ³ ³ ³ CFC-11 as aerosol ³ HCFC-142b......... ³ Acceptable ....... ³ .................. ³ Use of HCFC-142b, either by itself propellant. ³ ³ ³ ³ or blended with other compounds ³ ³ ³ ³ will be prohibited January 1, ³ ³ ³ ³ 1994 under section 610 (d). ³ HCFC-22 .......... ³ Acceptable ....... ³ .................. ³ Use of HCFC-22, either by itself ³ ³ ³ ³ or blended with other compounds ³ ³ ³ ³ will be prohibited January 1, ³ ³ ³ ³ 1994 under section 610 (d). CFC-11, CFC-113, ³ Petroleum ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ Petroleum distillates are MCF, HCFC-141b as ³ Distillates (C-6 ³ ³ ³ flammable materials and must be aerosol solvents. ³ to C-10 paraffins ³ ³ ³ used with the necessary ³ and light ³ ³ ³ precautions. Pesticide aerosols ³ aromatics) ³ ³ ³ must adhere to FIFRA standards. ³ Chlorinated ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ EPA expects to issue control ³ solvents ³ ³ ³ technology requirements under ³ ( ³ ³ ³ Title III of the Clean Air Act. ³ trichloroethylene ³ ³ ³ Pesticide aerosols must adhere to ³ , ³ ³ ³ FIFRA standards. Not suitable for ³ perchloroethylene ³ ³ ³ use in consumer products. ³ , methylene ³ ³ ³ ³ chloride) ³ ³ ³ ³ Organic solvents ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ These substitutes are flammable ³ (e.g., methanol, ³ ³ ³ materials and must be used with ³ ethanol, ³ ³ ³ the necessary precautions. ³ isopropanol, ³ ³ ³ ³ acetone) ³ ³ ³ ³ Terpenes ......... ³ Acceptable........ ³ .................. ³ These substitutes are flammable ³ ³ ³ ³ materials and must be used with ³ ³ ³ ³ the necessary precautions. ³ Water-Based ³ Acceptable........ ³ ³ ³ Formulations ³ ³ ³ CFC-11, CFC-113, ³ HCFC-141b......... ³ Acceptable ....... ³ .................. ³ Use of HCFC-141b, either by itself MCF as aerosol ³ ³ ³ ³ or blended with other compounds solvents. ³ ³ ³ ³ will be prohibited January 1, ³ ³ ³ ³ 1994 under Section 610 (d). ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Aerosols-Pending Decisions ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Application ³ Substitute ³ Comments ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ³ ³ CFC-12 as aerosol propellant...... ³ HFC-227........................... ³ FDA approval still required in metered dose inhalers. Likely ³ ³ to have low environmental impacts. CFC-11, CFC-113, MCF, HCFC-141b as ³ Monochloro/toluene/benzo- ³ aerosol solvents. ³ trifluorides ³ ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Tobacco Expansion-Acceptable Substitutes ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Application ³ Substitute ³ Initial decision ³ Proposed ³ Comments ³ ³ ³ conditions ³ ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ³ ³ ³ ³ CFC-11 Tobacco ³ Carbon dioxide.... ³ Acceptable........ ³ ³ Carbon dioxide cannot be used as a expansion. ³ ³ ³ ³ drop-in or a retrofit, but ³ ³ ³ ³ requires new equipment. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Tobacco Expansion-Pending Substitutes ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Application ³ Substitute ³ Comments ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ³ ³ CFC-11 Tobacco expansion.......... ³ HCFC-123.......... ³ Agency has not completed review of data. Potential ³ ³ drop-in replacement. ³ HFC-227ea......... ³ Agency has not completed review of data. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Adhesives, Coatings, and Inks-Acceptable Substitutes ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Application ³ Substitute ³ Initial decision ³ Proposed ³ Comments ³ ³ ³ conditions ³ ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ³ ³ ³ ³ Methyl Chloroform, Adhesives, ³ Petroleum distillates ............ ³ Acceptable........ ³ ³ OSHA standards exist for many of Coatings, and Inks. ³ ³ ³ ³ these chemicals. Formulators ³ ³ ³ ³ should use chemicals with lowest ³ ³ ³ ³ toxicity, where possible. ³ Organic solvents (Alcohols, ³ Acceptable........ ³ ³ OSHA standards exist for many of ³ Ketones, Ethers, and Esters) ³ ³ ³ these chemicals. Formulators ³ ³ ³ ³ should use chemicals with lowest ³ ³ ³ ³ toxicity, where possible. ³ Chlorinated solvents (methylene ³ Acceptable........ ³ ³ High inherent toxicity. Use only ³ chloride, trichloro-ethylene, ³ ³ ³ when necessary. ³ perchloro-ethylene) ³ ³ ³ ³ Terpenes.......................... ³ Acceptable........ ³ ³ ³ Water-based formulations ......... ³ Acceptable ....... ³ ³ ³ High-solid formulations .......... ³ Acceptable ....... ³ ³ ³ Alternative technologies (e.g., ³ Acceptable........ ³ ³ ³ powder, hot melt, thermoplastic ³ ³ ³ ³ plasma spray, radiation-cured, ³ ³ ³ ³ moisture-cured, chemical-cured, ³ ³ ³ ³ and reactive liquid) ³ ³ ³ ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Adhesives, Coating, and Inks-Pending Decisions ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Application ³ Substitute ³ Comments ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ³ ³ Methyl Chloroform Adhesives, ³ Monochloro-toluene/benzo- ³ Agency has not completed review of Coatings and Inks. ³ trifluorides ³ data. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Appendix C to the Preamble-Data Confidentiality Claims Data Confidentiality Claims 1. Special Requirements for Submitting Data to the Docket Data submissions must be provided in three copies. If information is claimed as confidential, all CBI must be deleted from the third copy which will become part of the public docket. If no claims of confidentiality are made for the submission, the third copy should be identical to the other two. When portions of the submission are claimed as CBI, the first two copies will include the CBI material as provided in section V of this notice. The following special preparation is required for the third copy: -Remove the "Supplemental Statement of Data Confidentiality Claims." (see Appendix C, 2) -Excise from the body of the study any information you claim as confidential. Replace with generic information if it is available. -Mark the third copy plainly on both its cover and its title page with the phrase "Public Docket Material-contains no information claimed as confidential." 2. Supplemental Statement of Data Confidentiality Claims For any portion of a submission that is claimed as confidential, the following information must be included within a Supplementary Statement of Data Confidentiality Claims: -Identify specifically by page and line number(s) each portion of the study for which you claim confidentiality. -Give the reasons why the cited passage qualifies for confidential treatment. -Indicate the length of time-until a specific date or event, or permanently-for which the information should be treated as confidential. -Identify the measures taken to guard against undesired disclosure of this information. -Describe the extent to which the information has been disclosed, and what precautions have been taken in connection with these disclosures. -Enclose copies of any determinations of confidentiality made by EPA, other Federal agencies, or courts concerning this information. -If you assert that disclosure of this information would be likely to result in substantial harmful effects to you, describe those harmful effects and explain why they should be viewed as substantial. -If you assert that the information is voluntarily submitted, indicate whether you believe disclosure of this information might tend to lessen the availability to EPA of similar information in the future, and if so, how. If required substantiation is not provided along with the submission of information claimed as confidential, EPA may make the complete submitted information available to the public without further notice to the submitter. For the reasons set out in the preamble, EPA is hereby proposing to amend 40 CFR Part 82 as follows: PART 82-PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 1. Authority: The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q. 2. Part 82 is proposed to be amended by adding Subpart G to read as follows: Subpart G-Significant New Alternatives Policy Program Sec. 82.170 Purpose and scope. 82.172 Definitions. 82.174 Prohibitions. 82.176 Applicability. 82.178 Information required to be submitted. 82.180 Agency review of SNAP submissions. 82.182 Confidentiality of data. 82.184 Petitions. 82.170 Purpose and scope. (a) The purpose of the regulations in this subpart is to implement section 612 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, regarding the safe alternatives policy on acceptability of substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds. This program will henceforth be referred to as the "Significant New Alternatives Policy" (SNAP) program. The objective of this program is to identify substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds, to evaluate the acceptability of those substitutes, and to promote the use of those substitutes believed to present lower overall risks to human health and the environment. (b) The regulations in this subpart describe persons and substitutes subject to reporting requirements under the SNAP program and explain preparation and submission of notices and petitions on substitutes. The regulations also establish Agency procedures for reviewing, processing, and for making public EPA's notices and petitions on substitutes. Finally, the regulations prohibit the use of alternatives which EPA has determined may have adverse effects on human health or the environment where EPA has identified alternatives that on an overall basis, reduce risk to human health and the environment and are currently or potentially available. 82.172 Definitions. (a) Act means the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Agency means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Class I or II means the specific ozone-depleting compounds described in section 602 of the Act. Commerce means trade, traffic, transportation, or other commerce that could potentially occur between a place in a state of the United States and any place outside of such state. Critical use means uses of a substitute where no other substitute exists that meets existing performance or technical standards. Decision means any final determination made by the Agency under section 612 of the Act on the acceptability or unacceptability of a substitute for a Class I or II compound. EPA means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Formulator means any person engaged in the preparation or formulation of a substitute, after chemical manufacture of the substitute or its components, for distribution or use in commerce. Health and safety study or study means any study of any effect of a substitute or its components on health or the environment or on both, including underlying data and epidemiological studies, studies of occupational, ambient, and consumer exposure to a substitute, toxicological, clinical, and ecological, or other studies of a substitute and its components, and any other pertinent test. Chemical identity is always part of a health and safety study. (1) Information which arises as a result of a formal, disciplined study is included in the definition. Also included is information relating to the effects of a substitute or its components on health or the environment. Any available data that bear on the effects of a substitute or its components on health or the environment would be included. (2) Examples include: (i) Long- and short-term tests of mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, or teratogenicity; data on behavioral disorders; dermatoxicity; pharmacological effects; mammalian absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion; cumulative, additive, and synergistic effects; acute, subchronic, and chronic effects; and structure/activity analyses; (ii) Tests for ecological or other environmental effects on invertebrates, fish, or other animals, and plants, including: acute toxicity tests, chronic toxicity tests, critical life stage tests, behavioral tests, algal growth tests, seed germination tests, microbial function tests, bioconcentration or bioaccumulation tests, and model ecosystem (microcosm) studies; (iii) Assessments of human and environmental exposure, including workplace exposure, and effects of a particular substitute on the environment, including surveys, tests, and studies of: biological, photochemical, and chemical degradation; air, water and soil transport; biomagnification and bioconcentration; and chemical and physical properties, e.g., boiling point, vapor pressure, evaporation rates from soil and water, octanol/water partition coefficient, and water solubility; (iv) Monitoring data, when they have been aggregated and analyzed to measure the exposure of humans or the environment to a substitute; (v) Any assessments of risk to health or the environment resulting from the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of the substitute or its components. Importer means any person who imports a chemical substitute into the United States. "Importer" includes the person primarily liable for the payment of any duties on the merchandise or an authorized agent acting on his or her behalf. The term also includes, as appropriate: (1) The consignee; (2) The importer of record; (3) The actual owner if an actual owner's declaration and superseding bond has been filed; or (4) The transferee, if the right to draw merchandise in a bonded warehouse has been transferred. Major industrial use sector means a sector which EPA has reviewed under the SNAP program with consumption patterns of ozone-depleting substances comparable to those for refrigeration, foam-blowing, fire extinguishing, solvent cleaning, aerosols, sterilants, tobacco puffing, pesticides, or adhesives, coatings and inks. Manufacturer means any person engaged in the direct chemical manufacture of a substitute. Mixture means any mixture or blend of two or more individual chemical compounds. Person means any natural person, firm, company, corporation, joint-venture, partnership, sole proprietorship, association, or any other business entity, any state or political subdivision thereof, any municipality, any interstate body, and any department, agency or instrumentality of the Federal government. Pesticide has the meaning contained in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. Section 136 et seq. and the regulations issued under it. Premanufacture Notice Program has the meaning described in 40 CFR part 720 subpart A under the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2601 et seq. Producer means any person who manufactures or formulates a substitute for distribution or use in commerce. Research and development means quantities of a substitute manufactured, imported, or processed or proposed to be manufactured, imported, or processed solely for research and development. Significant new use means use of a substitute in a major industrial use sector as a result of the phase-out of ozone- depleting compounds. Small uses means uses of a substitute outside of a major industrial use sector (see definition of major industrial use sector in this section) or uses of a substitute of less than 10,000 lbs per year within a major industrial use sector or any other sector. Substitute means any chemical, product substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or new, that could replace a Class I or II compound. Test marketing means the distribution in commerce of a substitute to no more than a defined number of potential customers to explore market capability in a competitive situation during a limited testing period prior to the broader distribution of that substitute in commerce. Use means any application of a substitute, whether for use in a manufacturing process or product, consumption by the end- user, or in intermediate uses such as formulation or packaging for other subsequent uses. 82.174 Prohibitions. (a) No person may use a substitute before the expiration of 90 days after a notice is submitted to EPA under 82.176(a). (b) No person may use a substitute which a person knew or has reason to know was manufactured, processed, or imported in violation of the regulations in this subpart or in violation of any condition in the acceptability determination. (c) No person may use a substitute without adhering to the conditions set by the acceptability decision. (d) No person may use a substitute after the effective date of any rulemaking adding such substitute to the list of unacceptable substitutes. 82.176 Applicability. (a) Any producer of a substitute must submit a notice of intent to introduce a substitute into commerce 90 days prior to such introduction. Any producer or formulator of a substitute already in commerce must submit a notice as of 90 days after [THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], if such substitute has not already been reviewed and approved by the Agency. (b) Substitutes exempt from reporting requirements under the SNAP program are listed in paragraph (c) of this section. (c) The following substitutes are exempt from notification requirements: (1) Substitutes already listed as acceptable. Producers of substitutes need not resubmit notices of a substitute if the substitute has already been listed under existing Agency decisions as acceptable. (2) Small use. Substitutes covered by the Agency's definition of small uses in 82.172 are exempt from notification requirements. However, the Agency may evaluate a substitute classified as a small use if it has reason to believe the substitute could present a risk of significant adverse effects on human health and the environment, and require submissions to support such evaluations. EPA will announce the obligation to make such submissions through the quarterly Federal Register notifications or to individual affected parties. (3) Test marketing. Production of substitutes for the sole purpose of test marketing is exempt from reporting requirements. Persons taking advantage of this exemption are, however, required to notify the Agency in writing. (4) Research and development. Production of substitutes for the sole purpose of research and development is exempt from reporting requirements. Persons taking advantage of this exemption are, however, required to notify the Agency in writing. (5) Second-generation substitutes. Substitutes that replace first-generation substitutes that are not ozone-depleting chemicals are exempt from reporting. However, if the second generation substitute is replacing a compound that contributes to stratospheric ozone depletion, information must be submitted to EPA for review under SNAP. (6) Formulation changes. In cases where substitution of Class I or II compounds causes formulators to change other components in a product, these auxiliary formulation changes are exempt from reporting. (7) Substitutes for export only. Substitutes entirely produced for export only are not subject to reporting. (8) Substitutes used as feedstocks. Substitutes used as feedstocks which are largely or entirely consumed, transformed or destroyed in the manufacturing or use process are exempt from reporting. 82.178 Information required to be submitted. (a) Persons whose substitutes are subject to reporting requirements pursuant to 82.176 must provide the following information: (1) Name and description of the substitute. The substitute should be identified by its (i) Commercial name; (ii) Chemical name; (iii) Trade name(s); (iv) identification numbers (e.g., Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) registry, National Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (NIOSH RTECS), EPA hazardous waste identification number, OHM-TADS, DOT/UN/NA/IMCO shipping, HSDB, NCI); (v) Chemical formula; and (vi) Chemical structure. (2) Physical and chemical information. Key properties to EPA will use to characterize the substitute include: molecular weight; physical state; melting point; boiling point; density; taste and/or odor threshold; solubility; partition coefficients (Log Kow, Log Koc); vapor pressure; and Henry's Law Constant. (3) Substitute applications. Identification of the applications in which the substitutes are likely to be used. (4) Process description. For each application identified, descriptive data on processing, including in-place pollution controls. (5) Ozone depletion potential. The predicted ozone depletion potential (ODP) of substitute chemicals. The submitter must also provide supporting documentation. (6) Global warming potential. Submitters must provide data on the total global warming potential of the substitute, including information on direct and indirect contributions to global warming caused by the production or use of the substitute (e.g., energy changes). (7) Toxicity data. Health and safety studies on the effects of a substitute, its components, its impurities, and its degradation products on any organism (e.g., humans, mammals, fish, wildlife, and plants). For tests on mammals, the Agency requires a minimum submission of the following tests to characterize substitute risks: A range-finding study that considers the appropriate exposure pathway for the specific use (e.g., oral ingestion, inhalation, etc), and a 90-day subchronic repeated dose study in an appropriate rodent species. For substitutes being evaluated as fire suppressants, a cardiotoxicity study is also required. Additional mammalian toxicity tests may be identified based on the substitute and application in question. To sufficiently characterize aquatic toxicity concerns, both acute and chronic toxicity data for a variety of species are required. For this purpose, the Agency requires a minimum data set as described in "Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and their Uses," which is available through the National Technical Information Service (#PB-85-227049). Other relevant information and data summaries, such as the Material Safety Data Sheets, should also be submitted. To assist in locating any studies referred to but not included in a submission, the submitter must provide citations for the date and type of submission to ensure that these studies can be located quickly. (8) Environmental fate and transport. Where available, EPA requests information on the environmental fate and transport of substitutes. Such data shall include information on bioaccumulation, biodegradation, adsorption, volatility, transformation, and other data necessary to characterize movement and reaction of substitutes in the environment. (9) Flammability. Data on the flammability of a substitute chemical or mixture. Specifically, data on flash point and flammability limits must be submitted, as well as information on the procedures used for determining the flammability limits. For substitutes that will be used in consumer applications, documentation of testing results conducted by independent laboratories should be submitted where appropriate. Detail on any suggested abatement techniques to minimize the risks associated with the use of flammable substances or blends should also be provided. (10) Exposure data. Modeling or monitoring data on exposures associated with the manufacture, formulation, transport, and use of a substitute. Descriptive process information for each substitute application, as described in this section, will be used to develop exposure estimates where exposure data are not readily available. Depending on the application, exposure profiles will be needed for workers, consumers, and the general population. (11) Environmental release data. Data on emissions from the substitute application and equipment, as well as pollutant releases or discharge to all environmental media (ambient air, surface and groundwater, hazardous/solid waste). Submitters should provide information on release locations. Any information on any pollution controls used or that could be used in association with the substitute (e.g., emissions reduction technologies, wastewater treatment, treatment of hazardous waste) and the costs of such technology is also requested. (12) Replacement ratio for a chemical substitute. The Agency must receive information on the replacement ratio for a chemical substitute versus the Class I or II substances being replaced. The term "replacement ratio" means how much of a substitute must be used to replace a given quantity of Class I or II substance being replaced. (13) Required changes in use technology. Detail on the changes in technology needed to use the alternative is required. Such information should include a description of whether the substitute can be used in existing equipment-with or without some retrofit- or only in new equipment. Data on the cost (capital and operating expenditures) and estimated life of the technology modifications should also be submitted. (14) Cost of substitute. Data on the expected average cost of the alternative. In addition, information is needed on the expected equipment lifetime for an alternative technology. Other critical cost considerations should be identified, as appropriate. (15) Availability of substitute. If the substitute is not currently available, the timing of availability of a substitute. (16) Anticipated market share. Data on the anticipated near- term and long-term nationwide substitute sales. (17) Applicable regulations under other environmental statutes. Information on whether the substitute(s) is (are) regulated under other statutory authorities, in particular the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, or other titles under the Clean Air Act (CAA). (18) Information already submitted to the Agency. Information requested in the SNAP program notice that has been previously submitted to the Agency as part of past regulatory and information- gathering activities may be referenced. Submitters that cannot provide references to data sent previously to the Agency should include all requested information in the SNAP notice. (19) Information already available in the literature. If any of the data needed to complete the SNAP program notice are available in the literature, complete references for such information should be provided. (b) The Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) form is designed to provide the Agency with the information necessary to reach a decision on the acceptability of a substitute. (1) Submitters requesting review under the SNAP program only should send the SNAP form to the address for the SNAP coordinator provided on the form. (2) Submitters filing jointly under SNAP and PMN should send the SNAP addendum along with the PMN form to the PMN coordinator identified on the SNAP form. Submitters must also send both documents to the SNAP coordinator, with a reference to indicate the notice has been furnished to the Agency under the PMN program. Submitters providing information on new chemicals for joint review under the Premanufacture Notice program and SNAP must adhere to the TSCA minimum testing requirements described in TSCA section 4. (3) Submitters filing jointly under SNAP and under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act should send the SNAP form to the Office of Pesticide Programs, Registration Division, as well as to the SNAP coordinator. 82.180 Agency review of SNAP submissions. (a) Processing of SNAP Notices. (1) 90-day review process. The 90-day review process will begin once EPA receives a submission and determines that such submission includes data on the substitute that are complete and adequate, as described in 82.178. The Agency may suspend or extend the review period to allow for submission of additional data needed to complete the review of the notice. (2) Letter of receipt. The SNAP coordinator will send a letter of receipt to the submitter once the Agency receives the SNAP notice. The SNAP coordinator will also assign the SNAP notice a tracking number, which will be identified in the letter of receipt. (3) Initial review of notice. The SNAP coordinator will review the notice to ensure that basic information necessary to process the submission is present (i.e., name of company, identification of substitute, etc.). The SNAP coordinator will also review substantiation of any claim of confidentiality. (4) Determination of data adequacy. Upon receipt of the SNAP submission, the Agency will review the completeness of the information supporting the application. If additional data are needed, the submitter will be contacted following completion of this review. The 90-day review period will not commence until EPA has received data it judges adequate to support analysis of the submission. (5) Availability of new information during review period. If critical new information becomes available during the review period that may influence the Agency's evaluation of a substitute, the submitter must notify the Agency about the existence of such information within 10 days of learning of such data. The submitter must also inform the Agency of new studies underway, even if the results will not be available within the 90-day review period. The Agency may contact the submitter to explore extending or suspending the review period depending on the type of information received and the stage of review. (6) Completion of detailed review. Once the preliminary data review steps have been completed, the Agency will complete a detailed evaluation of the notice. If during any time the Agency perceives a lack of information necessary to reach a SNAP determination, it will contact the submitter and request the missing data. (7) Criteria for review. To determine whether a substitute is acceptable or unacceptable as a replacement for Class I or II compounds, the Agency will evaluate: (i) Atmospheric effects and related health impacts; (ii) General population risks from ambient exposure to compounds with direct toxicity and to increased ground-level ozone; (iii) Ecosystem risks; (iv) Occupational risks; (v) Consumer risks; and (vi) Cost and availability of the substitute. (8) Communication of decision. (i) Communication of decision to the submitter. Once the SNAP program notice review has been completed, the Agency will notify the submitter in writing of the decision. Sale or manufacture may continue if the Agency fails to reach a decision within 90 days or fails to communicate that decision or the need for additional data to the submitter. (ii) Communication of decision to the public. The Agency will publish in the Federal Register every three months a complete list of the acceptable and unacceptable alternatives that have been reviewed to date. In the case of substitutes proposed for placement on the unacceptable list or for removal from either list, a formal rule-making process will ensue. (b) Types of listing decisions. When reviewing and listing substitutes, the Agency will place substitutes in one of 5 categories: (1) General acceptance. Where the Agency has reviewed a substitute and found no reason to prohibit its use, it will list the alternative as acceptable for the applications listed in the notice. (2) Approval subject to use limitations. After reviewing a notice, the Agency may make a determination that a substitute is acceptable if certain conditions are met to minimize risks to human health and the environment. (3) General prohibition. This designation will apply to substitutes where the Agency's review indicates that the substitute poses risk of adverse effects to human health and the environment and that alternatives exist that reduce overall risk. (4) Prohibition with limited exemptions for critical use. Even though the Agency can restrict the use of a substitute based on the potential for adverse effects, it may be necessary to grant a limited number of exemptions because of the lack of alternatives for specialized uses within the application. The Agency will refer to such exemptions as "critical use exemptions." Critical use exemptions will be granted only for the time period necessary to develop and implement alternatives not yet available. These exemptions are discussed further in 82.184. (5) Substitutes pending completion of review. Submissions for which the Agency has not reached a determination will be described as pending. For all substitutes in this category, the Agency will work with the submitter to obtain any missing information and to determine a schedule for providing the missing information if the Agency wishes to extend the 90-day review period. EPA will use the authority under section 114 of the Clean Air Act to gather this information, if necessary. In some instances, the Agency may also explore using additional statutory provisions (e.g., section 4 of TSCA) to collect the needed data. (c) Outreach. The Agency will publish the SNAP determinations and any revisions four times a year in the Federal Register. In addition to the quarterly publications, the Agency will communicate decisions through a clearinghouse and its outreach program. The outreach program includes a hotline and presentations at conferences and in trade journals. The Agency will maintain a list of vendors that sell substitutes that EPA has determined present lower environmental risks than the Class I and II compounds. (d) Joint processing under SNAP and FIFRA. The Agency will coordinate reviews of substitutes submitted for evaluation under both FIFRA and the CAA. (e) Joint processing under SNAP and TSCA. The Agency will coordinate reviews of substitutes submitted for evaluation under both the TSCA PMN program and the CAA. 82.182 Confidentiality of data. (a) Clean Air Act provisions. Anyone submitting information must assert a claim of confidentiality at the time of submission for any data they wish to have treated as confidential business information (CBI) under 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. Failure to assert a claim of confidentiality at the time of submission may result in disclosure of the information by the Agency without further notice. The submitter should also be aware that under section 114(c) of the Clean Air Act, emissions data may not be claimed as confidential. (b) Substantiation of confidentiality claims. At the time of submission, EPA requires a substantiation of any confidentiality claims made. Moreover, under 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, confidentiality assertions may later be reviewed even when confidentiality claims are received. The submitter will also be contacted as part of this evaluation process. (c) Confidential provisions for toxicity data. In the event that toxicity or health and safety studies are listed as confidential, this information cannot be maintained as confidential where such data is also submitted under TSCA or FIFRA because of specific disclosure provisions in those statutes. However, information contained in the toxicity study that is not relevant to the effects of a substance on human health and the environment (e.g., discussion of process information, proprietary blends) can be maintained as confidential subject to 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. (d) Joint submissions under other statutes. Information submitted as part of a joint submission to either SNAP/TSCA or SNAP/FIFRA must adhere to CBI practices under those statutes. For such submissions, the SNAP handling of such notices will follow CBI requirements under those statutes. 82.184 Petitions. (a) Who may petition. Any person may petition the Agency to amend existing listing decisions under the SNAP program, or to add a new substance to the SNAP lists. (b) Types of petitions. Four types of petitions exist: (1) Petitions to add a substitute not previously reviewed under the SNAP program to the approved list. This type of petition is comparable to the 90-day notifications, except that it would only be initiated by entities other than the companies that manufacture, formulate, or use the substitute. Companies that manufacture, formulate, or use substitutes that want to have their substitutes added to the approved list must submit information on the substitute under the 90-day review program; (2) Petitions to add a substitute not previously reviewed under the SNAP program to the prohibited list; (3) Petitions to delete a substitute from the approved list and add it to the prohibited list; (4) Petitions to delete a substitute from the prohibited list and add it to the approved list. (c) Content of the petition. A petition must contain the information described in 82.178, which lists the items to be submitted in a 90-day notification. The Agency also requires that the petitioner submit information on the type of action requested and the rationale for the petition. For petitions that request approval for substitutes on "critical use" grounds, the Agency requires the information described in paragraph (e) in this section on critical uses. For petitions that request a re-examination of a substitute previously reviewed under the SNAP program, the submitter must reference the prior submittal. (d) Petition process. (1) Notification of affected companies. If the petition concerns a substitute previously either approved or restricted under the SNAP program, the Agency will contact the manufacturer(s) of that substitute. (2) Review for data adequacy. The Agency will review the petition for adequacy of data. As with the 90-day notices, the Agency may suspend review until the petitioner submits the information necessary to evaluate the petition. To reach a timely decision on substitutes, EPA may use collection authorities such as those contained in section 114 of the Clean Air Act as well as information collection provisions of other environmental statutes. (3) Review procedures. To evaluate the petition, the Agency may submit the petition for review to appropriate experts. (4) Timing of determinations. If data are adequate, as described in 82.180, the Agency will respond to the petition within 90 days of receiving a complete petition. If the petition is inadequately supported, the Agency will query the petitioner to fill any data gaps before the 90-day review period begins, or may deny the petition because data are inadequate. (5) Rulemaking procedures. EPA will initiate rulemaking whenever EPA grants a petition to add a substance to the list of unacceptable substitutes, remove a substance from either list, approve an alternative with conditions that are not otherwise required, or grant a critical use exemption. (6) Communication of decision. The Agency will inform petitioners within 90 days whether their request has been granted or denied. If a petition is denied, the Agency will publish in the Federal Register an explanation of the determination. If a petition is granted, the Agency will publish the revised SNAP list incorporating the final petition decision within 6 months of reaching a determination or in the next scheduled update, if sooner. (e) Critical use petitioners. Petitioners may request the Agency, based on technology or safety concerns, to allow limited exemptions for specialized uses of a substitute that has previously been placed on the prohibited list. For such petitions, the Agency requires that the petitioner provide documentation on the critical use in question. This documentation shall include descriptions of substitutes examined and rejected, process or product in which the critical use substitute is needed, reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards, and anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. [FR Doc. 93-10422 Filed 5-11-93; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P