| Entities
potentially regulated by this action are those that
manufacture Halon blends, owners of containing-containing
equipment, and persons who test, repair, or dispose of total
flooding systems or hand- held fire extinguishers or who
employ technicians to service such equipment. Other entities
potentially impacted by the prohibition of the intentional
release of Halons during technician training and during
testing, repair, and disposal of equipment are U.S. military
institutions. Regulated categories and entities include:
Examples
of regulated entities
Category:
Industry
Manufacturers
of Halon blends; owners of Halon- containing equipment;
persons who test, maintain, service, repair, or dispose of
containing-containing equipment, who employ technicians to
perform such services, or who use such equipment for
technician training.
Category:
Military
Military
entities that dispose of containing-containing equipment,
that employ technicians who service containing-containing
equipment, or that release Halons during technician training
or during testing, repair, or disposal of equipment
This
table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. This table lists the types of
entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be affected.
To determine whether your company is regulated by this
action, you should carefully examine the applicability
criteria discussed below. If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
II.
Background
-
Stratospheric Protection
The stratospheric ozone layer protects the Earth from
penetration of harmful ultraviolet (UV-B) radiation.
National and international consensus exists that releases of
certain man-made halocarbons, including chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs), Halons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and
methyl bromide contribute to the depletion of the
stratospheric ozone layer and should be controlled. Ozone
depletion harms human health and the environment through
increased incidence of certain skin cancers and cataracts,
suppression of the immune system, damage to plants including
crops and aquatic organisms, increased formation of
ground-level ozone and increased weathering of outdoor
plastics. Ozone-depleting substances have been designated as
either class I or class II substances (see 40 CFR part 82,
appendices A and B to subpart A). Class I substances include
chlorofluorocarbons, Halons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl
chloroform, methyl bromide and hydrobromofluorocarbons;
class II substances include hydrochlorofluorocarbons. Halon
is commonly used in fire suppression. Halon blends
consisting of Halon 1211 and Halon 1301 were once widely
manufactured for use in hand-held portable extinguishers and
aerosol containers. However, since January 1, 1994, in
accordance with the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol), Halon
production in, and importation of virgin Halon into the U.S.
has been prohibited (40 CFR 82.4(b), 82.7; 58 FR 65018).
There are limited exceptions to this ban for production for
export to countries covered under Article V of the Montreal
Protocol (Section 82.9(a)(1)); production/import for
essential uses (Section 82.4(r)); and production using
destruction/transformation credits under Section 82.9(f) (for
persons nominated for essential use exemptions only).
-
Section 608(a) of the Clean Air
Ac
Section
608 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ("the Act"
or "CAA") requires EPA to establish a
comprehensive program to limit emissions of ozone-depleting
substances during their use and disposal. Section 608(a)
requires EPA to promulgate regulations "establishing
standards and requirements regarding the use and disposal"
of both class I and class II substances. The regulations are
to "reduce the use and emission of such substances to
the lowest achievable level" and to "maximize the
recapture and recycling of such substances."
On May 14, 1993, EPA promulgated regulations under section
608(a) of the Act, establishing standards and requirements
for the use and disposal of class I and II substances during
the servicing, repair and disposal of air-conditioning and
refrigeration equipment (58 FR 28660). Statutory authority
for today's proposal is found in section 608(a)(2) of the
Act, which directs EPA to establish standards and
requirements regarding use and disposal of class I and II
substances other than refrigerants. Section 608(a)(2)
requires EPA to promulgate additional regulations that
establish standards and requirements regarding the use and
disposal of both class I and class II substances not covered
by the initial set of regulations, i.e., non-refrigerant
uses of class I and class II substances.
The goal of subsection 608(a) is to reduce the use and
emission of ozone-depleting substances to the lowest
achievable level and maximize the recapture and recycling of
such substances. Today's requirements regarding disposal of
containing-containing equipment and technician training,
together with the bans on the manufacture of Halon blends
and the intentional release of Halon during repair, testing,
and disposal of equipment, and during technician training,
are designed to meet the intent of section 608(a) by
reducing potential emissions of Halon, a significant ozone
depleter.
-
Sierra Club Suit
On March 31, 1995, the Sierra Club filed a complaint against
EPA, claiming that EPA had not met the requirements of
section 608(a)(2) of the Act by taking regulatory steps to
minimize use and emissions of ozone-depleting substances
other than refrigerants. This action resulted in
negotiations between EPA and the Sierra Club that led to a
consent decree of which notice was published on September
17, 1996, in the Federal Register (61 FR 48950). In the
consent decree, EPA agreed to take the following actions
with regard to Halons: (1) To issue a proposed rule
regarding a ban of the sale of all Halon blends and to take
final action on the proposal; (2) to issue a proposed rule
or rules regarding the intentional release of Halons during
repair and testing of equipment containing Halons; training
concerning the use of such equipment; disposal of Halons;
and removal or disposal of equipment containing Halons at
the end of the life of such equipment; and to take final
action on the proposal; and (3) to issue either a proposed
rule requiring the certification of recycling and recovery
equipment for Halons and allowing the removal of Halons only
through use of certified equipment or a direct final
determination that no such rule is necessary or appropriate;
and to take final action if a proposal is issued or if
adverse comment is received on the direct final
determination. EPA will address the third of these
commitments in a separate action from today's.
-
Halons
Halons are gaseous or easily vaporized halocarbons used
primarily for putting out fires, but also for explosion
protection. The two Halons most widely used in the United
States are Halon 1211 and Halon 1301. Halon 1211 is used
primarily in streaming applications and Halon 1301 is
typically used in total flooding applications. 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. Today's action is
not expected to affect the supply of unblended Halons for
these important uses.
Halons are used in a wide range of fire protection
applications because they combine four 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 dissipate rapidly, leaving no
residue, and thereby avoid secondary damage to the property
they are protecting. Third, Halons do not conduct
electricity and can be used in areas containing live
electrical equipment where they can penetrate to 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. With 0.2
ozone-depleting potential (ODP) representing the threshold
for classification as a class I substance, Halon 1301 has an
estimated ODP of 10; Halon 1211 has an estimated ODP of 3.
Thus, while total Halon production (measured in metric tons)
comprised just 2 percent of the
[Page 11086]
total production of class I substances in 1986, Halons
represented 23 percent of the total estimated ozone
depletion attributable to class I substances produced during
that year.
Prior to the early 1990's, the greatest releases of Halon
into the atmosphere occurred 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 indicated that
only 15 percent of annual Halon 1211 emissions and 18
percent of annual Halon 1301 emissions occur as a result of
use to extinguish actual fires. These figures indicated that
significant gains could 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 alternatives. The
fire protection community began to conserve Halon reserves
in response to the impending ban of the production and
import of Halons 1211, 1301, and 2402 that occurred January
1, 1994. Through standards, research, and field practice,
the fire protection community eliminated most discharge
testing with Halons and minimized use of Halon for testing
and training. Additionally, fire equipment distributors
began to service and maintain fire suppression equipment
regularly to avoid leaks, false discharges, and other
unnecessary emissions.
-
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On July 7, 1997, EPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
proposing several actions relative to the sale and emission
of Halon as mandated by the Sierra Club consent decree (62
FR 36428). First, EPA proposed to ban the sale of Halon
blends. The proposed ban did not affect the sale of
unblended Halons.
Second, EPA proposed a ban on the intentional release of
Halons during repair, testing, and disposal of equipment
that contains Halon and during technician training. For
safety reasons, EPA proposed to grant an exemption from this
ban for Halon release used as part of the test of fire
extinguishing systems in class C and class D compartments
aboard aircraft when such a test is required by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) under its Airworthiness
Standards.
Third, EPA proposed to require Halon equipment service
companies, Halon recyclers, Halon equipment manufacturers,
and other organizations that employ technicians who service
containing-containing equipment to provide training
regarding Halon emission reduction during the servicing of
containing-containing equipment.
Finally, EPA proposed to require owners of equipment
containing Halon to dispose of this equipment by returning
the containing-containing equipment to the manufacturer, a
fire equipment distributor or Halon recycler for Halon
recovery. EPA also proposed to require persons disposing of
Halon to send it to a Halon recycler.
The proposed action was consistent with the provisions in
the consent decree agreed to by EPA and the Sierra Club,
which obligate EPA to take certain actions in regard to the
requirements contained in section 608(a)(2) of the CAA. EPA
developed the provisions of the proposal with input from
representatives of the Halon industry, fire protection
community, environmental groups and affected trade
associations. Since the Halon industry has successfully been
making significant strides towards reducing Halon emission
through the use of technician training and efficient Halon
removal and disposal practices for containing-containing
equipment, EPA believed that the proposal generally
reflected existing industry standards and practices. EPA had
also understood that only one manufacturer of Halon blends
existed and that entity claimed it would be willing to end
its minimal production of Halon blends. As a result, EPA
also believed that the proposal would not significantly
impact members of the fire protection community.
III.
Today's Action
-
Summary of Major Public Comments
EPA received a total of 25 written comments on the proposed
rule during the 30-day public comment period. These comments
are contained in Docket A-98-02. EPA also received
supplementary materials from some commenters clarifying or
elaborating on issues raised in their comments. These
materials are also contained in Docket A-98-02. Several
commenters requested exemptions from two of the chief
provisions of the proposed rule (the ban on the sale of
Halon blends, and the ban on intentional releases of Halons
during testing). Many commenters requested important
clarifications of terms used in the proposed rule or
clarifications of the intended scope of certain provisions.
Numerous requests for minor clarifications were received.
Comments were also received to the effect that some of the
major provisions of the rule were unnecessary as the
practices they required had already been instituted. In
addition, numerous commenters from industries using Halons
in fire extinguishing systems, from the Halon recycling
industry, and from other parties, expressed support and
commendation for the purpose and intent of the rule.
-
Responses to Public Comments
1. Banning the Manufacture of Halon Blends
The proposed ban on the sale of Halon blends
was expected to reduce the use of such
blends in accordance with section 608(a)(3)
of the Act by preventing newly manufactured
blends from being introduced into the
marketplace.
Halon blends are extremely effective fire
suppression agents primarily used in
portable fire extinguishers and also in some
total flooding fire extinguisher systems.
Although the market for these blends is
small, the inability to recycle and reuse
Halon blends economically represents a
significant environmental risk. Recycled
Halon is necessary to bridge the gap between
the end of Halon production in 1994 and the
commercial availability of replacements, and
to provide for critical uses for which
satisfactory substitutes or alternative fire
protection measures cannot be found. Prior
to the 1994 ban on the production of Halons,
the Halon Alternatives Research Corporation
(HARC) helped to sponsor a study on issues
related to Halon recycling and the
establishment of a national recycling
program. This program included the creation
of a national Halon bank. Currently, this
Halon bank brokers transfers of Halon
between users and may eventually arrange for
storage facilities to accommodate
fluctuations in supply and demand of Halon.
Halon blends can be recycled adequately, but
only at significant cost. Therefore, Halon
blends are not commonly recycled or
forwarded to a Halon bank for critical uses.
Portable Halon fire extinguishers are sold,
distributed, installed, and maintained by
fire equipment dealers and distributors;
accidental release and leakage can be
reduced through regular maintenance by the
distributor. Fire extinguishers that contain
Halon blends can be returned to equipment
dealers or recyclers for Halon recovery but
generally not for Halon recycling. The
proposed ban on the sale of Halon blends was
designed to prevent the development of a
widely distributed pool of complex Halon
mixtures which could not readily be recycled.
As stated earlier, such a pool represents a
significant environmental risk because the
costs of recycling are very high. Members of
the Halon recycling
[Page 11087]
industry, contacted during EPA research for
the drafting of the proposed and final rule
stated that, while technically feasible,
Halon blend recycling capacity does not
currently exist as a conventional,
commercially available option for Halon
product users. EPA has learned of a single
exception where the manufacturer of fire
extinguishing equipment which employs a
Halon blend extinguishing agent recovers
Halon blends both from portable fire
extinguishers as well as its own
decommissioned units and purportedly
separates the individual Halons solely for
reuse in its units. However, the
overwhelming majority of the estimated
hundreds to thousands of entities engaged in
Halon recycling have not invested in the
fractional distillation technology necessary
to separate and reclaim Halon blends because
the Halon blend market has been deemed so
small that recycling Halon blends has been
held to be unprofitable. Thus, the ability
to recycle Halon blends is generally not
commercially available.
It could be argued that if the market value
for unblended Halons declines, unblended
Halons as well may be widely distributed,
with little economic incentive for their
recovery and recycling. However, a critical
difference between the Halon blend and
unblended Halon situations is that with
respect to unblended Halons, an extensively
developed recovery and recycling
infrastructure exists, with a history of
proven effectiveness in coordinating
environmentally responsible Halon
management. No such community or history has
been established with respect to Halon
blends.
Furthermore, EPA believes that there is only
one other U.S. manufacturer currently
producing Halon blends. EPA had contacted
this manufacturer to determine the impact,
if any, a ban of the sale of all Halon
blends may have on this manufacturer. This
manufacturer claimed that Halon blends
represent less than 2% of its business and
that a ban on the sale of Halon blends would
minimally impact this organization's
profitability. Furthermore, this
manufacturer stated that because the fire
protection community has made considerable
progress in identifying and using
alternatives or unblended Halons that use
nitrogen as a propellant, consumer demand
for Halon blend extinguishers and aerosol
containers has already been significantly
reduced. Thus, EPA believes that a ban on
the manufacture of Halon blends is necessary
to avert the environmental risk associated
with the lack of availability of Halon blend
recycling capability, described above, and
will generally have minimal impact on
manufacturers, distributors or consumers.
(i) Support for the ban on the new
manufacture of Halon blends. A major
association of Halon users, recyclers,
equipment manufacturers, and distributors
expressed support for the intent of the ban
on the sale of Halon blends, stating that
"the blending of Halons makes them
difficult to separate, removes them from
normal recycling channels, and decreases the
supply of recycled Halon available to meet
critical fire/ explosion protection needs.
The responsible management of the existing
Halon supply (bank) is critical to achieving
a successful transition from Halons to
alternative agents".
(ii) Change from a ban on the sale to a ban
on the manufacture of Halon blends. Comments
received regarding this prohibition have led
EPA to change the language of the
prohibition from a ban on the sale to a ban
on the manufacture of Halon blends. EPA
believes this change clarifies the scope of
the prohibition, and is more strictly
consistent with the intent of the
prohibition, as discussed more fully below.
Two commenters inquired whether the ban on
the sale of Halon blends applied to
pre-existing stores of Halon blends, and
requested that this be clarified in the rule.
Pre-existing stores might include Halon
blends contained in previously manufactured
portable fire extinguishers.
The intent of the ban, as stated in the
previous section, was to prevent newly
manufactured blends from being introduced
into the marketplace, and was not intended
to affect pre-existing stocks of blends. EPA
concurs with the need, indicated by the
above comments, to clarify the scope of the
ban, and believes that modifying the ban to
apply to the new manufacture of Halon blends
clarifies that the ban does not prohibit
transactions involving existing stores of
blends. This modification does not diminish
the environmental benefit of the ban, as
releases of existing Halon blends would have
equal environmental impacts, regardless of
the ownership of the blends.
(iii) Clarification of terms "Halon,"
"Halon product," and "Halon
blend." Several commenters requested
that the terms "Halon," "Halon
product," and "Halon blend"
be clarified. A chief complaint was that
although in the Preamble, it was stated that
the term "Halon" referred only to
the three common Halons (Halon 1211, 1301,
and 2402), this was nowhere made explicit in
the rule; as a result, "Halon"
could be taken to mean any halogenated
hydrocarbon. Furthermore, it was pointed out
that although "Halon blend" was
defined in the Preamble as a blend of two or
more "Halon products," the latter
term was also not explicitly defined in the
rule itself. With respect to the first point,
EPA recognizes that the term "Halon"
can have a much broader scope.
\1*\Today's rule, however, is issued under
the authority of Section 608 of the CAA,
which concerns Class I and Class II
substances. Halons 1211, 1301, and 2402 and
their isomers are the only Halons listed as
ODSs in the CAA or in EPA's implementing
regulations (see CAA section 602(a) and 40
CFR Part 82, Subpart A, App. A). Therefore,
this rule applies only to Halons 1211, 1301,
and 2402. The term "Halon product"
refers to any mixture or combination of
substances which contains only one Halon;
e.g., the common fire extinguishing mixture
of Halon 1301 plus dinitrogen (N2) gas.
Definitions of the terms "Halon",
"Halon product", and "Halon
blend" have been added to the final
rule.
\1*\ "Halon" is an abbreviation
for "halogenated hydrocarbon"
coined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Halon nomenclature follows the following
rule: if a hydrocarbon compound contains the
elements CaFbCcBrdIe, it is designated as
Halon abcde (terminal zeros are dropped).
Thus, Halon 1211 is chlorobromodifluoromethane, etc. (Gann,
1975).
(iv) Exemptions from ban on manufacture of Halon blends.
Two commenters requested an exemption from the ban on
the sale (now the ban on manufacture) of Halon blends
for a specific product--a patented fire extinguishing
agent containing, among other substances, both Halon
1211 and Halon 1301. One of these commenters is the sole
licensee of the product, the other is the sole
distributor. The principal basis for their request for
an exemption revolves around two points. The companies
propose that their product is more "environmentally
friendly" relative to other containing-containing
fire extinguishing products; for example, they assert
that the fire extinguishing capacity of their Halon
product is equivalent to approximately four times as
much of other commercially available, unblended Halon
products used in comparable fire extinguishing equipment.
As a result, they assert, (a) smaller quantities of
Halons are employed in fire extinguishing, thus
releasing less Halon to the atmosphere, and (b) their
fire extinguishing systems are relatively lightweight,
making them highly attractive to the aviation industry.
Second, the companies assert that their
[Page 11088]
fire extinguishing agent can be adequately recycled.
In evaluating this request for exemption, EPA held
discussions with the companies requesting the exemption;
with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), as well
as members of the aviation industry; with technical
experts listed as references by the companies requesting
the exemption; and with other Halon recycling industry
and government technical experts.
Because the industry as a whole is not ready to
accommodate Halon blend recycling, as discussed in
detail in a previous section, EPA cannot abandon the
proposed ban on the manufacture of Halon blends. However,
in consideration of the possible safety, health, and
environmental advantages that this product may bring to
the aviation community, as suggested in supporting
material provided by the commenters to EPA, and as
expressed to EPA by members, including federal
authorities, within the aviation community; and in
consideration of evidence received by EPA suggesting the
manufacturer's technical ability to adequately recycle
this specific product, EPA is creating an exemption to
the ban on the manufacture of Halon blends solely for
aviation applications provided that (1) the manufacturer
or its designee is capable of recycling the blend to the
relevant industry standards for the chemical purity of
each individual Halon, (2) the manufacturer includes in
all sales contracts for blends produced by it on or
after April 6, 1998 the provision that the blend must be
returned to it or its designee for recycling, and (3)
the manufacturer or its designee in fact recycles blends
produced by the manufacturer on or after April 6, 1998
and returned to it for recycling to the relevant
industry standards for the chemical purity of each
individual Halon. Section 82.270(a) has been modified to
reflect this exemption.
2.
Intentional Release of Halons
EPA proposed banning the intentional release of Halons (including
Halon blends) during technician training and during testing,
repair and disposal of containing-containing equipment, and
requiring technician training regarding Halon emission
reduction. Historically, the greatest release of Halon into
the atmosphere used to occur during testing and training,
service and repair, and accidental discharges. However,
emissions from Halon 1211 and Halon 1301 applications have
decreased substantially over the last five years due to a
change in industry practices concerning the release of Halon
as outlined in the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
Technical Standards (NFPA 12A) and Underwriters Laboratories
(UL) 1058. These standards require proper leak testing and
prohibit the release of Halon during system testing. (i)
Clarification of meaning of "intentional releases".
One commenter stated that the ban on releases during testing,
maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of
containing-containing equipment, or during the use of such
equipment for technician training, could be taken to mean
that releases for the purposes of extinguishing fires and
inerting and suppressing explosions are also prohibited.
EPA recognizes that Halons are still used in many fire
extinguishing and explosion inerting/suppressing
applications; Halons' value in these applications supports
the current active market for recycled Halons. It is not
EPA's intent to affect Halon usage for these purposes.
Section 82.270(b)(6) has been added to make this
clarification.
(ii) Clarification of meaning of "de minimis releases".
One major federal agency commenter requested clarification
of the "de minimis" provision in section 82.270(b)
of the proposed rule. As proposed, a de minimis release
(i.e., a very small or trifling release) associated with a
good faith attempt to recycle or recover Halon is exempt
from the prohibition on intentional Halon releases during
testing, maintenance, servicing, repair, or disposal of
containing-containing equipment and during technician
training.
There are several types of containing-containing equipment:
(1) total flooding fire extinguishing systems, and (2) other
types of Halon- containing equipment, including
containing-containing gas cylinders and portable fire
extinguishers. Total flooding systems are generally designed
to fully discharge their contents upon being activated.
These systems are therefore either full or empty (unless
their content is altered due to a leak). After discharge of
a total flooding system, the content of the Halon container
is generally reduced to atmospheric pressure, and a
negligibly small amount of Halon vapor, compared to the
initial mass, remains. A fully discharged total flooding
system therefore can reasonably be considered to be empty,
and release of the residual Halon vapor contained within can
be considered a de minimis release. Section 82.270(b)(2) has
been added to establish this type of de minimis release.
Other types of containing-containing equipment, however,
such as portable fire extinguishers and compressed gas
cylinders can be partially discharged. A determination of a
de minimis release for these other types of equipment must
be made on a case-by-case basis. At the present time,
however, industry standard recycling equipment generally
meets or exceeds a minimum recovery efficiency of 98%.
Therefore a release from containing-containing equipment
which contains less than 2% of its original installed charge
could be currently considered a de minimis release of Halon.
(iii) Exemptions from ban on intentional releases during
testing. EPA initially proposed granting an exemption from
the intentional release ban for Halon used to test fire
suppression systems in class C and class D compartments
aboard airplanes. That exemption was based on FAA
requirements relating to aircraft safety. Current Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Airworthiness Standards for
transport category airplanes include a number of
classifications for cargo or baggage compartments. Class C
cargo or baggage compartments must contain approved built-in
fire-extinguishing systems (14 CFR 25.857(c)(2)). The
compartments must be designed so that hazardous quantities
of extinguishing agent (as well as smoke or flames) can be
excluded from areas occupied by the crew or passengers (14
CFR 25.857(c)(3)). In addition, ventilation and drafts must
not interfere with the ability of the fire extinguishing
agent to control any fire that starts within the compartment
(14 CFR 25.857(c)(4)). Flight tests of the fire-
extinguishing systems must be conducted to show compliance
with these requirements (14 CFR 25.855(h)(2),(3)). These
systems typically contain Halons as the fire-extinguishing
agent. Thus, a ban on intentional release of Halons during
testing would conflict with these vital safety requirements
if no exemption were permitted. Class D compartments are
defined in part as aircraft cargo or baggage compartments
not exceeding 1,000 cubic feet that use restriction of
available oxygen, as opposed to a fire-extinguishing agent,
to control fires (14 CFR 25.857(d)). In light of recent
tragedies involving fires that originated in the cargo or
baggage compartments of aircraft, EPA believes that class D
compartments, in addition to class C compartments, should be
exempted from the ban on intentional release of Halon during
testing of containing-containing systems. As alternative
fire suppression
[Page
11089]
systems for class D compartments are explored to improve
aircraft safety, FAA is considering Halon systems as an
interim viable option. EPA believes that fires aboard
aircraft pose such a great risk to human safety that an
exemption from the ban on the intentional release of Halons
in accordance with FAA's Airworthiness Standards is
necessary and appropriate.
Several commenters brought forward additional examples of
intentional releases of Halons which, they believe, also
merit exemption from the proposed ban on intentional
releases during testing. For example, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) cited the need to release Halons during
testing of not only class C and D cargo compartment fire
extinguishing systems, but also systems in compartment
classes yet to be defined, as well as systems protecting
engine and auxiliary power units. It was argued that Halon
1301 is currently the best available agent in these areas,
that system performance can be ensured only through testing
by release of agent, and that simulant agents for use in
testing purposes are not yet operationally available.
Similarly, the Department of Defense (DoD) stated that DoD
aircraft, which are not subject to FAA Airworthiness
Standards and thus would not be exempt from the intentional
release ban if the rule were to be promulgated as proposed,
likewise require an exemption for the reasons presented
above. Moreover, DoD brought forth the case of fire and
explosion protection systems on new military weapon systems
and major modifications to existing systems which are
required by law (Title 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2366) to undergo live
fire lethality testing and evaluation. Live fire lethality
testing involves subjecting military equipment to live fire
conditions and subsequent possible release of fire
extinguishing agent in order to extinguish fires, should
they occur. Suitable simulants and alternate agents are not
currently available for these applications. Furthermore, the
Department of Energy (DOE) raised the issue of potential
necessary releases of Halons for fire and explosion
protection systems testing purposes at unique sites critical
to national security such as the National Ignition Facility
and hazardous waste management sites associated with DOE's
Radiological Waste Remediation effort. No acceptable
alternative agents are available, from a human safety and
environmental perspective, and Halon releases during testing
of these systems may be required. These cases present
examples in which, systems using alternative fire
extinguishing agents are currently unavailable; release of
agent is currently necessary during system testing; failure
of the system would pose great risk to human safety or the
environment; and there are no suitable simulant agents
available to be used as testing substitutes at this time.
Based on these examples, EPA recognizes that when certain
conditions exist, intentional releases of Halon during
testing will be necessary to verify system performance,
which is essential to prevent loss of life and environmental
damage. Therefore, today's action exempts from the ban on
intentional releases Halon applications meeting the
following four criteria: (1) Systems or equipment employing
suitable alternative fire extinguishing agents are not
available, (2) system or equipment testing requiring release
of extinguishing agent is essential to demonstrate the
functionality of the system, (3) failure of the system or
equipment would pose great risk to human safety or the
environment, and (4) a simulant agent cannot be used in
place of the Halon during system or equipment testing for
technical reasons. Should conditions change such that an
application currently meeting these criteria no longer met
these criteria, then that application would no longer be
exempt from the ban on intentional releases of Halons during
testing. It should also be noted that many applications will
not be covered under this exemption. For example, numerous
industry fire suppression systems for electronics rooms and
computer rooms no longer require field/install testing.
Testing has been adequately performed through computer
simulation, with supplemental in-lab Halon system testing to
verify computer simulations.
(iv) Exemption for R&D. A number of commenters argued
for the need to exempt Halon released during testing for
research and development (R&D) efforts. Several types of
R&D-related Halon release were identified. Some Halon is
released in research to identify and test substances under
development as alternatives to Halons. Such releases from
containing-containing equipment are necessary to establish
performance benchmarks for Halon alternatives. In addition,
releases of small quantities of Halon from
containing-containing equipment such as storage cylinders is
routinely performed by Halon recyclers in order to obtain
samples which will be chemically analyzed to establish the
identity and degree of contamination of the equipment
contents. This testing is an essential step in the
responsible management of Halon stocks.
EPA recognizes that the use of small quantities of Halon to
test sample purity and to conduct research and development
on Halon alternatives are indispensable to maintaining the
quality of existing supplies as well as for finding
alternatives with comparable performance characteristics.
Therefore, EPA concurs in today's action that there is a
legitimate need to exempt from the ban on intentional
releases during testing the above-mentioned R&D releases,
and Secs. 82.270(b)(4) has been added to respond to this
need.
In addition, an industry commenter engaged in developing
fire extinguishing systems for aviation and defense
applications noted that qualification and development
testing involving release of Halons is necessary during the
fire extinguishing systems product development process, and
requested an exemption from the ban on the intentional
release of Halons during testing for this purpose.
EPA recognizes that in the design and development stages of
fire and explosion suppression and inertion equipment and
systems, releases of agent may be necessary to determine,
for example, whether critical design criteria are met.
However, EPA is aware that it may be possible in many cases
to employ a Halon simulant agent (discussed in Preamble Sec.
5(viii)) for such testing purposes. Moreover, EPA is aware
that in some testing situations, release of agent may not be
necessary to demonstrate system or equipment functionality.
Therefore, because product design and development may
legitimately require releases of agent during product
qualification and development testing, as the commenter
attests, but because such releases may in many other cases
be avoidable as described above, EPA is providing an
exemption from the ban on intentional releases of Halons
during testing for the design and development of fire and
explosion protection and inertion systems and equipment only
when (a) system or equipment testing requiring release of
agent is essential to demonstrate system or equipment
functionality, and (b) when a suitable simulant agent cannot
be used in place of the Halon. Section 82.270(b)(5) has been
added to reflect this exemption.
(v) Questioning of aviation exemption from ban on
intentional releases during testing. A major fire protection
industry association questioned the consequences of an
exemption from the ban on intentional releases for FAA
Airworthiness Standards testing. The commenter suggested
that the exemption would be tantamount to "proposing a
new application for [Halon 1301] which would require
extensive testing (i.e., release of Halon into the
atmosphere * * *) [and] seems ill-
[Page 11090]
advised." It must be noted that this rule does not
introduce any new Halon applications. The rule bans
intentional releases during testing of existing and
potential Halon applications, but provides limited
exceptions to this ban, as described elsewhere in this
Preamble. These exceptions do not introduce new sources of
Halon releases to the atmosphere; rather, the ban reduces
many sources of releases, while it provides for a
narrowly-defined set of excepted releases.
(vi) Owner responsibility regarding emissions due to
equipment disrepair and venting of Halon. A commenter
suggested that EPA provide an explicit statement regarding
the responsibility of owners of Halon- containing equipment
to the effect that Halon emissions caused by faulty (e.g.,
leaking or malfunctioning) containing-containing equipment
are banned by this rule. For safety reasons, the fire
protection community already observes standards and
practices to ensure the maintenance of fire protection
systems in properly functioning conditions. It might
therefore be argued that current practices within the fire
protection community, in theory, would prevent Halon
emissions due to equipment allowed to fall into a state of
disrepair. EPA, however, concurs with the need to codify
this aspect of owner responsibility, and has added Sec.
82.270(f) to address this issue explicitly.
A second issue regarding equipment owner responsibility was
raised in material submitted by another commenter. It was
suggested that if reclamation of Halon blends is not
economically advantageous, then Halon losses via "midnight
venting" by equipment owners and recyclers who have
been storing such blends will be encouraged. EPA recognizes
that certain circumstances might encourage "midnight
venting", as the commenter suggests; further recognizes
that, currently, there are no prohibitions to such losses;
and also notes that the same arguments may be made for
unblended Halons as well. Therefore, to discourage the
disposal of Halon by venting, the definition of "Halon
disposal" has been slightly broadened in today's final
rule to ensure that it covers the loss of Halon via venting.
That is, the definition has been changed from "the
discarding of Halon recovered from containing-containing
equipment" to "the process leading to and
including the discarding of Halon from containing-containing
equipment".
3. Technician Training
In an effort to reduce unnecessary emissions, distributors
and service companies sponsor technician training programs
that are primarily administered by representatives of
equipment manufacturers. Additionally, distributors and
service companies augment this training through the use of
videos and in-house training about the reduction of
emissions through the use of standards and codes. These
standards and codes are developed by organizations such as
the NFPA and UL, which provide minimum requirements for the
design, selection, installation, inspection, and maintenance
of containing-containing equipment. This additional training
may also include information regarding applicable state and
local codes and standards. EPA believes that the fire
protection community has responded responsibly to the
following tangible incentives to reduce emissions and
provide adequate training. First, the value of Halon has
increased dramatically as it has become less available since
the ban on Halon production in 1994. Second, in an effort to
be responsive to environmental concerns, the fire protection
community has developed self-imposed service standards and
practices to reduce emissions and increase recycling.
Because these positive incentives directly impact industry
profitability, EPA believes that more stringent requirements
for minimizing Halon emissions or for technician training
are not necessary and would produce very little
environmental benefit. Today's final rule therefore is based
on the practices the industry has already voluntarily
developed and implemented.
Several commenters urged that the scope and documentation
requirements associated with the technician training
provisions be clarified, and that the proposed time frame
(30 days) for implementation of the training requirement be
extended. Specific suggestions were (a) to allow 180 days,
not 30, following promulgation date, for all technicians to
be trained, (b) to allow 90 days for the training of new
technicians, (c) to refer to published industry standard
service practices to provide guidance regarding the nature
of the training expected by EPA under this rule, (d) to
state explicitly that a record of training is required in
order to facilitate the enforceability of this rule.
(i) Increased time to institute training requirement. EPA
recognizes that a training program requires time to develop
training materials and to offer training to all required
personnel. EPA concurs that a period of 180 days instead of
30 days is needed to be able to provide training for all
relevant current employees, and further concurs with the
need to specify the timing of the training requirement for
new personnel (personnel hired after the promulgation date
of this rule). However, once training programs are
established, given the limited complexity of the envisioned
training, it should be possible, and is important to the
objective of the rule, to train technicians who test,
maintain, service, repair, or dispose of
containing-containing equipment, within 30 days.
(ii) Clarification of training requirements. EPA agrees with
the usefulness of looking to industry's extensive experience
and investment in responsible Halon management, and
published industry standards, for guidance as to training
material. Accordingly, EPA inquired within the Halon
recycling industry and with other technical experts
regarding suitable guidance documents. During these
discussions, the following list of documents was developed,
and is provided below as a suggested list of suitable
materials that may be helpful in developing training
regarding Halon emission reduction. These documents describe
practices for handling, testing, servicing, maintaining, and
transporting fire extinguishing systems. These manuals
reflect and emphasize the importance of Halon emissions
minimization.
Regarding the commenter who urged that EPA explicitly
require training documentation, EPA believes that most
facilities instituting training will maintain training
records for their own record-keeping purposes. Therefore,
EPA believes that no such requirement is necessary.
Another commenter requested that technicians who will have
been trained prior to the promulgation date of the rule
should be considered as having satisfied the training
requirement. As written, the final rule requires that
organizations will take appropriate steps to ensure that
technicians hired on or before 30 days following the
publication date of this rule shall be trained regarding
emissions reductions by 180 days from the rule publication
date. EPA believes that the final rule language addresses
the commenter's suggestion since training regarding
emissions reduction received prior to the promulgation date
of the rule would satisfy the requirement to occur by 180
days from the rule publication date.
Industry
standards
National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 10. Standard for Portable
Fire Extinguishers.
NFPA 12A. Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Systems.
[Page 11091]
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)-7201-1.
Fire protection--Fire extinguishing media--Halogenated
hydrocarbons--Part 1: Specifications for Halon 1211 and
Halon 1301.
ISO-7201-2. Fire extinguishing media--Halogenated
hydrocarbons--Part 2: Code of practice for safe handling and
transfer procedures of Halon 1211 and Halon 1301.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D5632-94a.
Standard Specification for Halon 1301, Bromotrifluoromethane
(CF3Br). ASTM D5631-94. Standard Practice for Handling
Transportation and Storage of Halon 1301
Bromotrifluoromethane (CF3Br).
(iii)
Clarification of persons considered technicians. A commenter
requested that the last sentence of the definition of
technician in Sec. 82.260 ("Technician includes but is
not limited to installers, contractor employees, in-house
service personnel, and in some cases, owners") be
deleted, as it might imply that training for these
individuals is required as for other technicians. However,
it is indeed EPA's intent to require training for these
individuals, and all others who perform tasks on
containing-containing equipment that might reasonably be
expected to release Halons from the equipment into the
atmosphere. The individuals identified in the sentence to
which the commenter refers are simply illustrative examples
of the term "technician" defined in the two
sentences preceding the referenced sentence.
4.
Disposal of Halons and Halon-Containing Equipment
The
proposed rule required owners of equipment containing Halon
(including a Halon blend) to dispose of the equipment by
sending the equipment for Halon recovery to a fire equipment
distributor, a manufacturer, or a Halon recycler operating
in accordance with NFPA 10 and 12 A standards. The proposal
also required Halon (including a Halon blend) to be disposed
of by sending it to a Halon recycler for recycling.
Due to industry outreach efforts, owners of
containing-containing equipment and those disposing of Halon
are already aware of the importance of Halon recycling and
banking. Industry trade organizations have already been
encouraging owners of containing-containing equipment and
those disposing of Halon to contact manufacturers, Halon
fire equipment distributors or Halon recyclers to ensure
that Halon is safely removed and recovered for future use.
Therefore, today's final action is consistent with current
industry practices and would not create an additional burden
for equipment owners. Most Halon systems and extinguishers
in use today are purchased, installed, and serviced by fire
equipment distributors. Because of the efficiency of these
established distribution channels, industry representatives
indicate that the simplest way to assure proper recycling of
Halon is simply to require equipment owners to return
containing-containing equipment to distributors. In many
cases owners may receive a payment for the Halon contained
in the equipment because of the current market value of
Halon. The market value of Halon has provided an incentive
to industry to consistently recover and recycle Halons.
These regulations will ensure proper handling at such point
that Halon supply exceeds the demand.
(i)
Clarification of meaning of equipment disposal. EPA's
objective in Section 82.270(d) is to ensure that any Halons
currently deployed in equipment or storage are, at the end
of the equipment's useful life, properly recovered and made
available for recycling (or safely stored for eventual
destruction, e.g. when economic incentive no longer exists
to use recycled Halons), and not simply released to the
atmosphere. However, EPA received numerous comments
regarding these disposal requirements indicating that the
proposed scope of the requirements was unclear. Several
commenters stated that Sec. 82.270(d) could be interpreted
to require the disposal of the equipment itself, together
with the Halon it contains. Other commenters stated that
Sec. 82.270(d) could be taken as a complete recall of all
currently deployed Halon- containing equipment within 30
days following promulgation of the rule and not, as stated
in the Preamble to the proposed rule, only "at the end
of [the] useful life" of such equipment. Two fire
protection industry commenters further suggested that the
"useful life" concept itself involves a number of
factors (e.g., manufacturer's warranty, extinguisher usage,
the number of times the extinguisher has been recharged,
repair parts used, and cylinder condition) and requires more
precise definition.
With respect to the first comment, EPA in the rule as
proposed provided for both the situations in which (a)
containing-containing equipment, together with the Halon it
contains, is to be disposed, and (b) only the Halon that has
been contained in equipment, but not the equipment itself,
is to be disposed. Therefore, the disposal requirement as
proposed clearly does not unconditionally require the
disposal of the containing-containing equipment itself.
The second and third comments raise a question of precisely
when (e.g., within 30 days; at the end of the equipment's
useful life) equipment disposal is required by the rule. It
is not the intent of the rule, however, to establish
requirements regarding the point at which the disposal of
containing-containing equipment occurs. Rather, EPA's intent
is to establish requirements regarding the proper recovery
of Halon from containing-containing equipment at such time
as the equipment disposal would normally occur. To clarify
this intent, the regulatory language has been changed from
"Effective 30 days following promulgation, owners of
containing-containing equipment shall dispose of that
equipment by forwarding it for Halon recovery * * *" to
"Effective 30 days (following publication), no person
shall dispose of containing-containing equipment except by
sending it for Halon recovery * * *".
One additional commenter noted that the definition of "disposal
of containing-containing equipment" did not appear to
include the sale, for reuse in its entirety, of
containing-containing equipment, and thus the rule does not
restrict sales, for reuse in its entirety, of
containing-containing equipment. The commenter's observation
is consistent with the intended meaning of the rule. The
definition of "disposal of containing-containing
equipment" does not in fact include the sale, for reuse
in its entirety, of such equipment.
Finally, one commenter urged that EPA clarify that empty
equipment which formerly contained Halon, but which has been
fully discharged, is not affected by the requirement that no
person shall dispose of Halon- containing equipment except
by sending it for Halon recovery to appropriate facilities.
EPA concurs with the comment that little or no environmental
benefit would be gained from requiring Halon recovery from
empty equipment or equipment containing only de minimis
quantities of Halon. As described in Preamble Sec. 2(ii),
EPA has clarified the meaning of de minimis quantities of
Halon. EPA in today's final action has exempted equipment
containing de minimis quantities of Halon from the equipment
disposal provision and has specified that that provision
does not apply to fully discharged total flooding systems.
These changes are reflected in Sec. 82.270(d) of the
regulatory text. (ii) Clarification of meaning of
containing-containing equipment. EPA received several
comments indicating that the term, "containing-containing
equipment" requires more detailed definition in the
[Page 11092]
regulatory text. One commenter stated that it is necessary
to define the precise equipment covered under this provision,
suggesting the language, "cylinders or containers and
materials or parts thereof, which are necessary for
servicing the safe and secure containment of the Halon
within the cylinder or container". The commenter, a
member of the fire protection system industry, further
explained that equipment manufacturers, fire suppression
system distributors and Halon recycling services do not
typically dispose of the entire system associated with Halon
containment (such as electrical detection control components),
but deal more strictly with the proper handling and disposal
of parts and materials associated with safe and secure Halon
containment. Other commenters proposed language for defining
"Halon- containing equipment" in Sec. 82.260,
which defines terms used in the rule.
In the context of the containing-containing equipment
disposal provision, EPA believes that the term "containing-containing
equipment" both implicitly has the intended meaning
suggested in the commenter's language and also implicitly
excludes fire protection or suppression system components
which are ancillary to Halon containment. Had the intent
been to include such ancillary system components, a term
such as "entire system associated with
containing-containing equipment," or "fire
protection system utilizing Halon", would have been
used.
However, in order to ensure the clarity of the intended
scope of the containing-containing equipment disposal
provision, and the meaning of containing-containing
equipment throughout the rule, a general definition of
containing-containing equipment ("equipment used to
store, transfer, and/or disperse Halon") has been added
to the definitions section of the final rule. This
definition does not include small scale laboratory equipment
used solely for scientific research; an example of such
research equipment is a gas chromatograph which might
contain, in tubing or piping, residual quantities of samples
of Halon gases injected for analysis. Furthermore, the
following clarification has been added to Sec. 82.270(d):
"This provision does not apply to ancillary system
devices such as electrical detection control components that
are not necessary to the safe and secure containment of the
Halon within the equipment."
(iii) Clarification of meaning of Halon disposal. One
commenter stated that the term "Halon disposal"
could be interpreted to mean "Halon destruction."
Halon destruction in the current context means a process
that destroys Halon's ozone-depleting properties. The term
"Halon disposal" is explicitly defined as the
process leading to and including discarding of Halon from
containing-containing equipment. In the rule as proposed, in
contrast with the commenter's interpretation, recycling is
presented as the only available Halon disposal option, and
Halon destruction is not presented as a disposal option.
However, in reality, Halon destruction by one of the
destruction technologies approved by the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol is a disposal option which EPA does not
wish to preclude. As discussed later in this Preamble (Sec.
5(vi)), another commenter urged that the safe destruction of
Halon be part of a long-term management plan for U.S. Halon
supplies. Therefore, Sec. 82.270(e) has been changed to
include this disposal option. The destruction technologies
currently approved by the Parties to the Protocol are liquid
injection incineration; reactor cracking; gaseous /fume
oxidation; rotary kiln incineration; cement kiln; and radio
frequency plasma destruction. In the future, the Parties may
approve of other destruction technologies; thus there is the
possibility that such other technologies would, if approved
by EPA, present other destruction options.
(iv) Clarification of "recycler" and compliance
with NFPA guidance. Several commenters raised questions
regarding the extent to which Halon recycling facilities,
including in-house recycling facilities, must demonstrate
compliance with the NFPA industry standards referenced in
the regulatory text. A major industry commenter requested
clarification of the extent to which Halon equipment owners
are obligated to verify compliance of their recyclers'
procedures with the NFPA industry standards prescribed in
the rule. The commenter further asserted that imposition of
obligation on the equipment owner, beyond requiring a
contractual assertion from the disposer that they do in fact
operate in compliance with the prescribed industry standards,
would be inappropriate. A second commenter sought
confirmation that the term "recycler" could
encompass in-house recycling facilities operating in
accordance with the cited NFPA standards.
The industry association responsible for developing the
standards cited in the rule has no power or authority to
police or enforce compliance with its published standards,
and states that "any certification of products stating
compliance with requirements of this document is made at the
peril of the certifier." While EPA seeks to ensure
compliance with industry recycling standards, EPA concurs
that a contractual agreement between the equipment owner and
the recycler that the recycling is performed in compliance
with the prescribed standards will achieve the desired
objective.
Regarding the second comment, EPA concurs that the term
"recycler" encompasses in-house facilities which
perform Halon recycling in accordance with NFPA 10 and 12A
standards. That is, in Sec. 82.270(d), the expression
"no person shall dispose of Halon- containing equipment
except by sending it for Halon recovery * * *" and in
Sec. 82.270(e), the expression "no person shall dispose
of Halon except by sending it for recycling* * *" are
not meant to preclude Halon recovery or recycling by
in-house facilities which perform these functions in
accordance with NFPA 10 and 12A standards. (v) Request for
clarification of the term "fire equipment dealer".
Two fire protection industry associations requested that the
term, "fire equipment dealer", be defined as a
"qualified, properly trained person or organization
engaged in the business of servicing and disposing of
containing-containing equipment." Because it has been
specified that the fire equipment dealers referenced in the
rule must be ones who operate in accordance with the NFPA
standards relevant to containing-containing equipment, the
additional definition is deemed unnecessary.
5.
Other Comments
(i)
Importations of used Halons from Article 5 countries. A
major Halon industry commenter proposed that all imports of
used Halons from countries operating under Article 5 of the
Montreal Protocol be prohibited. The commenter cited a
recent solicitation from an Article 5 country to regularly
supply massive quantities, far in excess of the current
aggregate U.S. demand, of Halon 1301 to the United States.
The commenter identified possible adverse economic and
environmental consequences such an influx might have,
discussing its impact on management of U.S. Halon stocks and
on the world requirement for new Halon production.
EPA recognizes the substantial influence that market
conditions have exerted upon ODS handling in this country
and elsewhere, and is accordingly concerned with the
appropriate management of Halon stocks and flows. However,
the authority under which today's rule is developed does
[Page 11093]
not extend to issues of ODS importation, but rather directs
the Agency to establish requirements regarding the use and
disposal of ODSs with the goal of reducing their use and
emissions, and maximizing their recapture and recycling; the
Agency has taken the commenter's issue under advisement
under a different authority (Sections 604 and 606 of the
CAA).
(ii) Criticism of rule basis. A former manufacturer of fire
extinguishers employing an extinguishing agent containing a
blend of Halons 1211 and 1301 questioned whether the
proposed ban on the sale of Halon blends would promote or
hinder the goal of reducing Halon emissions. He suggested
that the proposed ban would not reduce Halon emissions
because: (1) Halon blends are not manufactured any more in
the United States, (2) a ban could result in encouraging
midnight venting (presumably because the value and market
for blends would vanish following such a ban), (3) blends
technically can be recycled, despite the fact that it is
currently impracticable to do so, and (4) most Halon
emissions arise during the recharging of fire extinguisher
units with Halon 1211, and not from use and handling
associated with equipment containing Halon blends.
The points made by the commenter have some merit; however,
EPA believes that the arguments above do not weaken the
basis for this regulatory action for the following reasons.
First, Halon blends are currently manufactured within the
United States at very low levels. However, it is not
possible to forecast with certainty that the manufacture of
blends will vanish in the future. EPA's concern with
continued, even low-level, production of Halon blends is the
potential accumulation of a distributed pool of Halon blends
for which insufficient incentive exists to recover. Because
of the low market volume of the blends, recycling
infrastructure is not currently equipped to economically
recycle blended products. Therefore, in recent years,
because of the increased value of Halons, use of Halon
blends has diminished further. The possibility of midnight
venting exists with or without a formal ban, if current
market trends for the product continue. EPA, in this
rulemaking, has specifically included provisions governing
the proper disposal of all Halon products, thus providing a
regulatory incentive not to vent. Finally, the fact that
most Halon emissions arise during testing and training,
service and repair, and accidental discharges does not
preclude the necessity to avoid other possible releases such
as from the existence of a pool of non- recyclable Halon
blends. It should also be noted that EPA has included in
this rulemaking provisions governing the release of Halons
during servicing of containing-containing equipment.
(iii) Coordination of Federal policy on aviation Halon use.
A national fire protection association, while recognizing
the need to exempt aviation Halon applications from the ban
on releases for testing, criticized the current collective
federal policy on Halon use as being "far too
disjointed and piecemeal * * * with far too little emphasis
on the prompt identification and certification of effective
alternative suppression agents." This association urged
coordinated and timely federal policy making on Halon
alternatives for aviation to assure public safety in the
face of a possible requirement among the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol to destroy Halons. The commenter suggested
that the aviation exemption contained in this rule be
handled as part of a more comprehensive policy moving toward
prompt replacement of Halons used in aviation.
EPA concurs with the idea that a coordinated Federal effort
to promote Halon alternatives is the optimal approach toward
this goal. Section 613 of the CAA directs all federal
agencies to promulgate regulations conforming their
procurement regulations to the provisions of Title VI (Stratospheric
Protection) of the CAA and to maximize the substitution of
safe alternatives to class I (encompassing Halons) and class
II substances. Federal agencies have in response devoted
considerable resources to developing relevant regulations
and guidance. EPA and FAA further recognize the specific
importance of coordinated federal, as well as industry,
effort in Halon replacement in aviation (see, for example,
the section, "Halon Considerations," in the FAA
NPRM at 62 FR 32412, 32417, June 13, 1997. EPA support for
FAA's continued use of Halons in aviation is conditional on
the aviation industry efforts to develop Halon alternatives,
and on FAA's accelerated efforts to develop criteria for
certification of alternatives. FAA has participated in an
extensive program to develop criteria on which to evaluate
possible alternatives. Thus, EPA believes that the goal of
coordinated federal effort is being pursued, and that today's
aviation-related exemptions from the ban on intentional
Halon releases during testing will not set this effort back.
(iv) Support for rulemaking. Many commenters expressed
support for the intent and motivation of the rule--to
minimize Halon emissions and thereby reduce damage to the
Earth's stratospheric ozone layer. (v) Certification of
Halon recycling and recovery equipment. Based upon its
experience with a program to promote the recovery of Halons
in businesses, schools, and communities throughout the U.S.
mid-Atlantic area, an environmental group observed a need to
require certification of recycling and recovery equipment
used in Halon recovery. EPA also recognizes the merit in
considering a certification requirement as a potentially
important element of Halon regulation, and is revising a
study on the merits of such a requirement. EPA will address
this issue in a separate action.
(vi) Long-term Halon policy. An environmental group urged
the EPA, in cooperation with the DoD Halon bank, industry,
environmental groups, and the fire protection community, to
develop a long-term management plan for U.S. Halon supplies.
Such a plan, they commented, should enable Halon use in
essential applications, or the safe destruction of Halon,
while preventing further ozone depletion.
EPA concurs with the need to consider long-term Halon supply
situations, and to develop plans, in conjunction with
industry, environmental groups, the fire protection industry,
and federal agencies, such that the complete Halon life
cycle is properly managed. This need has to a large extent
been met through the successful development and management
of a domestic Halon banking system, overseen by the Halon
Recovery Corporation (HRC), in addition to a military bank
operated by the Defense Logistics Agency. Furthermore, EPA
routinely participates in meetings with various stakeholders,
formal and informal research and information exchange among
all parties, monitoring of key research and development
regarding Halon destruction technologies, and assistance,
when appropriate, in research relating to federal rulemaking.
In recent years the regulation of Halons and other ODSs has
led to economic incentives to conserve Halon supplies and
has driven the community of Halon users to minimize losses
of this commodity. Nevertheless, since the future dynamics
of the Halon market cannot be known with certainty, today's
rulemaking is a necessary strengthening and codification of
these environmentally friendly practices that have become
standard practice within the U.S. fire protection community.
[Page 11094]
(vii) Discussion of "essential use" concept. Two
commenters, in discussing the need for a broader set of
exemptions from the ban on intentional release during
testing, specifically suggested applying the "critical
use" [sic] criteria, contained in Decision IV/25 of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol ("Parties"), as
EPA's basis for granting exemptions to the intentional
release ban.
Article 2 of the Protocol states that Parties may create
exemptions to the phase out of an ODS for uses agreed by
them to be "essential." Decision IV/25 contains
the criteria to be applied in making "essential use"
determinations. The only uses deemed essential under the
Protocol to date are metered dose inhalers, the space
shuttle and Titan rocket, and certain laboratory uses. No
use of Halons (other than laboratory use) has been approved
as essential.
Consequently, a more appropriate basis for an exemption from
the ban on intentional release during testing, as discussed
above, requires that (1) Systems or equipment employing
suitable alternative fire extinguishing agents are not
available, (2) system or equipment testing requiring release
of extinguishing agent is essential to demonstrate the
functionality of the system or equipment, (3) failure of the
system or equipment would pose great risk to human safety or
the environment, and (4) a simulant agent cannot be used in
place of the Halon during system or equipment testing for
technical reasons.
(viii) Simulant agents. Several commenters raised the
subject of simulant agents--less or non-ozone-depleting
substances with similar enough physical properties to allow
them to be used as proxies for the Halon agent during fire
suppression system testing. The research to develop such
simulants is promising, and some of these substances are
approaching acceptance for some of the applications
mentioned in the preceding paragraph. HFC-125, in particular,
was identified in a major Navy research program as an
excellent Halon simulant. One commenter suggested that the
exemption for aviation applications may delay the adoption
of simulants for use in aviation system testing. EPA
acknowledges that an exemption from the ban on intentional
releases of Halons during testing for a class of Halon
applications, when a suitable simulant is available, might
counteract the regulatory objective of this rule. However,
in establishing the non-availability of a suitable simulant
as a condition for an exemption (see previous section), EPA
has avoided a delay in the adoption of simulants. (ix)
Savannah River Halon Repository. The DOE states that the
proposed rule could have economically significant impacts on
procedures at its Savannah River Halon repository. The rule,
it was stated, could "require potential training,
installation of release prevention devices, loss of revenue
from the sale of portable fire extinguishers, additional
costs for sending Halon and equipment offsite for recovery,
recycling, and disposal, and additional record keeping costs."
With respect to the sale of portable fire extinguishers, as
clarified in this Supplementary Information to today's rule,
EPA does not ban the sale of pre-existing stores of Halon
blends such as those in previously manufactured portable
fire extinguishers. In addition, this rule does not impose
specific record keeping requirements. Furthermore, as
clarified above, no additional costs need be incurred for
off-site Halon recovery if appropriate recovery procedures
can be performed on-site in a manner consistent with
industry standards. With respect to training, installation
of release prevention devices, and other measures related to
this rulemaking that might be necessary at DOE's Savannah
River Halon repository, EPA concurs that such measures could
have economic impacts. However, EPA does not concur that
such impacts would result directly from this rule. The
practices codified in today's rule, as explained earlier,
reflect practices already currently widely adopted by
industry. Moreover, responsible management of Halon stocks
has been a Federal objective for 7 years. Section 613 of the
CAA, as discussed elsewhere, directs all Federal agencies to
promulgate regulations conforming their procurement
regulations to the provisions of Title VI (Stratospheric
Protection) of the CAA and to maximize the substitution of
safe alternatives to ozone- depleting substances (ODS), both
class I (encompassing Halons) and class II. Federal agencies
have in response devoted considerable resources to
developing relevant regulations and guidance. In response to
the CAA, DOE, among other federal agencies, initiated
programs to accomplish optimal ODS management. The DOE in
particular developed a guidance document on this subject,
"Guidance on the DOE Facility Phase out of
Ozone-Depleting Substances," published in October 1995.
In the section of this document devoted to fire suppression
(pp. 10-12), the DOE specifically recommends training
programs to accomplish essentially the same objective that
today's training requirement is designed to achieve (i.e.,
"All Department Elements should take steps to avoid
inadvertent discharge of Halon systems and extinguishers
through timely maintenance of fire detection equipment,
proper use of recovery/recycling equipment, attention during
servicing, and suitable personnel training"). Therefore,
EPA believes that today's rule does not impose additional
costs or burdens on the Savannah River site that did not
already exist.
(x) Clarification of applicability of rule. One commenter
suggested that the language of Sec. 82.250(b), describing
the applicability of the rule, is too broad. The commenter
stated that the applicability of the rule should be strictly
limited to equipment used to store and hold Halon, and not
the entire fire suppression system including such ancillary
components as control panels. EPA does not concur with the
comment because Sec. 82.250(b) is meant to broadly identify
the possible universe of entities to which the rule applies.
In later sections of the rule that enumerate specific
prohibitions and provisions, the scope of applicability is
much more strictly defined. Since not all provisions of the
rule apply to the same set of entities, it is necessary in
the "Purpose and Scope" section of this rule to
broadly encompass all affected populations.
(xi) Lack of necessity for several major provisions of the
rule. Two commenters from an industry with well-known Halon
requirements stated that some of the chief provisions of the
proposed rule (e.g., requirements for technician training,
and for proper Halon and Halon- containing equipment
disposal), were unnecessary because they were already
practiced at their companies; in fact, rather than provide
additional environmental benefit, it was argued in one case
that the rule would simply impose unnecessary record-keeping
burdens. EPA concurs that technician training and proper
Halon and Halon- containing equipment disposal is widely
practiced throughout industry, based on industry research
conducted in developing this rule. Nevertheless, EPA
believes that it is necessary to codify these practices in
order to ensure their continued implementation should the
market conditions, currently conducive to Halon emissions
reduction and Halon recycling, change. Regarding the
suggestion that this rule imposes unnecessary record-keeping
burdens, EPA points out that this final rule does not
establish any record-keeping requirements.
[Page 11095]
6.
References
Gann, R.G., editor, 1975. Halogenated Fire Suppressants. A
Symposium Hosted by the Southwest Research Institute, San
Antonio, TX, April 23-24, 1975. ACS Symposium Series 16,
American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C. 453 pp.
IV.
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
In
this final action, EPA is promulgating regulations relative
to Halons under CAA section 608. Several additional
exemptions and clarifications have been made to provisions
of this rule. Definitions of Halon, Halon product, Halon
blend, and containing-containing equipment have been added.
In addition, de minimis releases have been discussed in
greater detail. Because the intent of the ban on the sale of
Halon blends was to prevent the manufacture of new Halon
blends, the ban has accordingly been revised to focus on
manufacture, rather than on sale.
The time frame for implementing the training requirements
has been extended. Disposal requirements have been further
clarified, with a specific provision addressing equipment
owners' responsibilities regarding loss of Halon due to
equipment disrepair, and with modifications to the
definition of Halon disposal. An exemption from the ban on
the new manufacture of Halon blends has been added for
situations in which (1) the manufacturer or its designee is
capable of recycling the blend to the relevant industry
standards for the chemical purity of each individual Halon,
(2) the manufacturer includes in all sales contracts for
blends produced by it on or after April 6, 1998 the
provision that the blend must be returned to it or its
designee for recycling, and (3) the manufacturer or its
designee in fact recycles blends produced by the
manufacturer on or after April 6, 1998 and returned to it
for recycling to the relevant industry standards for the
chemical purity of each individual Halon. Finally,
additional exemptions have been provided for Halon releases
during testing of Halon fire and explosion protection
systems when the application meets a set of criteria
enumerated in the rule.
V.
Administrative Requirements
-
Executive
Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993), the Agency must determine whether this proposed
regulatory action is "significant" and
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of
the Executive Order. The Order defines "significant
regulatory action" as one that is likely to result
in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more, or adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of
legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the
principles set forth in the Executive Order.
It has been determined by OMB and EPA that this action
is not a "significant regulatory action" under
the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not
subject to OMB review under the Executive Order.
-
Regulatory
Flexibility
EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this
final rule. EPA has also determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
This final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the
following reasons. The rule will not have a significant
impact in the area of intentional release because it
closely models current industry standards for prevention
of intentional release of Halon during repair, testing,
and disposal of containing-containing equipment, and
during technician training. The rule also will not have
a significant impact in the areas of technician training
and disposal of Halons and containing-containing
equipment because it closely models current industry
standards, including the practice of recovering Halons
for reuse or recycling. Because the use of Halon blends
has already declined substantially, there will not be a
substantial number of entities affected by the
requirement to dispose of Halon blends through recycling
or destruction. Because the market for Halon blends is
so small, and because alternatives to Halon blends are
available for distribution and sale, the ban on the
manufacture of Halon blends will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Businesses that manufacture Halon blends will be subject
to the ban; however, there will not be a significant
impact on these businesses and these businesses are not
substantial in number. One of the two U.S. manufacturers
of Halon blends of which EPA is aware has stated that
the ban on Halon blends will minimally impact the
business' profitability; and the other manufacturer will
be exempted from the ban providing that its product will
be adequately recycled and thus pose no environmental
risk.
-
Unfunded
Mandates Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
("Unfunded Mandates Act") (signed into law on
March 22, 1995) requires that the Agency prepare a
budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule
that includes a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or
more in any one year. Section 203 requires the Agency to
establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing,
educating, and advising any small governments that may
be significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
Section 204 requires the Agency to develop a process to
allow elected state, local, and tribal government
officials to provide input in the development of any
action containing a significant Federal
intergovernmental mandate. Under section 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact
statement must be prepared. The Agency must select from
those alternatives the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves
the objectives of the rule, unless the Agency explains
why this alternative is not selected or the selection of
this alternative is inconsistent with law.
Because this final rule is estimated to result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments or
the private sector of less than $100 million in any one
year, the Agency has not prepared a budgetary impact
statement or specifically addressed the selection of the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative. Because small governments will not be
significantly or uniquely affected by this proposed rule,
the Agency is not required to develop a plan with regard
to small governments. Finally, because this rule does
not contain a significant intergovernmental mandate, the
Agency is not required to develop a process to obtain
input from elected state, local, and tribal officials.
[Page 11096]
-
Paperwork
Reduction Act
This action requires no information collection subject
to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
and therefore no information collection request will be
submitted to OMB for review.
-
Submission
to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a
rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule
must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the
rule, to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will
submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of the rule in the
Federal Register. This rule is not a "major rule"
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
-
Executive
Order 12875
Today's action does not impose any unfunded mandate upon
any State, local, or tribal government; therefore,
Executive Order 12875 does not apply to this rulemaking.
-
National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 (NTTAA), Sec. 12(d), Pub. L. 104-113, requires
federal agencies and departments to use technical
standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical
standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or
activities determined by the agencies and departments.
If use of such technical standards is inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical, a federal
agency or department may elect to use technical
standards that are not developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies if the head of the agency or
department transmits to the Office of Management and
Budget an explanation of the reasons for using such
standards. This final rule does not mandate the use of
any technical standards; accordingly, the NTTAA does not
apply to this rule.
List
of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and
procedure, Air pollution control.
Dated: February 27, 1998.
Carol Browner,
Administrator.
40 CFR part 82 is amended as follows:
PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
2. Part 82 is amended by adding subpart H consisting of Secs.
82.250, 82.260 and 82.270 to read as follows:
Subpart H--Halon Emissions Reduction
Sec.
82.250 Purpose and scope.
82.260 Definitions.
82.270 Prohibitions
Subpart H--Halon Emissions Reduction
Sec. 82.250. Purpose and scope.
-
The
purpose of this subpart is to reduce the emissions of
Halon in accordance with section 608 of the Clean Air
Act by banning the manufacture of Halon blends; banning
the intentional release of Halons during repair, testing,
and disposal of equipment containing Halons and during
technician training; requiring organizations that employ
technicians to provide emissions reduction training; and
requiring proper disposal of Halons and equipment
containing Halons.
-
This
subpart applies to any person testing, servicing,
maintaining, repairing or disposing of equipment that
contains Halons or using such equipment during
technician training. This subpart also applies to any
person disposing of Halons; to manufacturers of Halon
blends; and to organizations that employ technicians who
service Halon- containing equipment.
Sec.
82.260 Definitions.
Halon-containing equipment means equipment used to store,
transfer, and/or disperse Halon.
Disposal of Halon means the process leading to and including
discarding of Halon from containing-containing equipment.
Disposal of containing-containing equipment means the
process leading to and including:
-
The
discharge, deposit, dumping or placing of any discarded
containing-containing equipment into or on any land or
water;
-
The
disassembly of any containing-containing equipment for
discharge, deposit, or dumping or placing of its
discarded component parts into or on any land or water;
or
-
The
disassembly of any containing-containing equipment for
reuse of its component parts.
Halon means any of the Class I, Group II substances
listed in subpart A, Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 82. This
group consists of the three halogenated hydrocarbons
known as Halon 1211, Halon 1301, and Halon 2402, and all
isomers of these chemicals.
Halon product means any mixture or combination of
substances that contains only one Halon (e.g., Halon
1301 plus dinitrogen gas (N2))
Halon blend means any mixture or combination of
substances that contains two or more Halons.
Manufacturer means any person engaged in the direct
manufacture of Halon, Halon blends or
containing-containing equipment.
Person means any individual or legal entity, including
an individual, corporation, partnership, association,
state, municipality, political subdivision of a state,
Indian tribe, and any agency, department, or
instrumentality of the United States, and any officer,
agent, or employee thereof.
Technician means any person who performs testing,
maintenance, service, or repair that could reasonably be
expected to release Halons from equipment into the
atmosphere. Technician also means any person who
performs disposal of equipment that could reasonably be
expected to release Halons from the equipment into the
atmosphere. Technician includes but is not limited to
installers, contractor employees, in- house service
personnel, and in some cases, owners.
Sec.
82.270 Prohibitions.
(a) Effective April 6, 1998 no person may newly manufacture
any Halon blend. Halon blends manufactured solely for the
purpose of aviation fire protection are not subject to this
prohibition, provided that:
(1) The manufacturer or its designee is capable of recycling
the blend to the relevant industry standards for the
chemical purity of each individual Halon;
(2) The manufacturer includes in all sales contracts for
blends produced by it on or after April 6, 1998 the
provision that the blend must be returned to it or its
designee for recycling; and (3) The manufacturer or its
designee in fact recycles blends produced by the
manufacturer on or after April 6, 1998 and returned to it
for recycling to the relevant industry standards for the
chemical purity of each individual Halon.
[Page 11097]
(b) Effective April 6, 1998, no person testing, maintaining,
servicing, repairing, or disposing of containing-containing
equipment or using such equipment for technician training
may knowingly vent or otherwise release into the environment
any Halons used in such equipment.
(1) De minimis releases associated with good faith attempts
to recycle or recover Halon are not subject to this
prohibition.
(2) Release of residual Halon contained in fully discharged
total flooding fire extinguishing systems would be
considered a de minimis release associated with good faith
attempts to recycle or recover Halon.
(3) Release of Halons during testing of fire extinguishing
systems is not subject to this prohibition if the following
four conditions are met:
(i) Systems or equipment employing suitable alternative fire
extinguishing agents are not available;
(ii) System or equipment testing requiring release of
extinguishing agent is essential to demonstrate system or
equipment functionality; (iii) Failure of the system or
equipment would pose great risk to human safety or the
environment; and
(iv) A simulant agent cannot be used in place of the Halon
during system or equipment testing for technical reasons.
(4) Releases of Halons associated with research and
development of Halon alternatives, and releases of Halons
necessary during analytical determination of Halon purity
using established laboratory practices are exempt from this
prohibition.
(5) This prohibition does not apply to qualification and
development testing during the design and development
process of Halon- containing systems or equipment when such
tests are essential to demonstrate system or equipment
functionality and when a suitable simulant agent can not be
used in place of the Halon for technical reasons.
(6) This prohibition does not apply to the emergency release
of Halons for the legitimate purpose of fire extinguishing,
explosion inertion, or other emergency applications for
which the equipment or systems were designed.
(c) Effective April 6, 1998, organizations that employ
technicians who test, maintain, service, repair or dispose
of containing-containing equipment shall take appropriate
steps to ensure that technicians hired on or before April 6,
1998 will be trained regarding Halon emissions reduction by
September 1, 1998. Technicians hired after April 6, 1998
shall be trained regarding Halon emissions reduction within
30 days of hiring, or by September 1, 1998, whichever is
later.
(d) Effective April 6, 1998, no person shall dispose of
Halon- containing equipment except by sending it for Halon
recovery to a manufacturer operating in accordance with NFPA
10 and NFPA 12A standards, a fire equipment dealer operating
in accordance with NFPA 10 and NFPA 12A standards or a
recycler operating in accordance with NFPA 10 and NFPA 12A
standards. This provision does not apply to ancillary system
devices such as electrical detection control components
which are not necessary to the safe and secure containment
of the Halon within the equipment, to fully discharged total
flooding systems, or to equipment containing only de minimis
quantities of Halons.
(e) Effective April 6, 1998, no person shall dispose of
Halon except by sending it for recycling to a recycler
operating in accordance with NFPA 10 and NFPA 12A standards,
or by arranging for its destruction using one of the
following controlled processes:
(1) Liquid injection incineration;
(2) Reactor cracking;
(3) Faseous/fume oxidation;
(4) Rotary kiln incineration;
(5) Cement kiln;
(6) Radio frequency plasma destruction; or
(7) An EPA-approved destruction technology that achieves a
destruction efficiency of 98% or greater.
(f) Effective April 6, 1998, no owner of
containing-containing equipment shall allow Halon release to
occur as a result of failure to maintain such equipment.
[FR Doc. 98-5720 Filed 3-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
RTA fire extinguishers are sold through aviation
distributors world wide.
or email
us for a distributor in your area.
|
