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