**
DRAFT
(
April
29,
2005)
 
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE**
1
RISK
SCREEN
ON
SUBSTITUTES
FOR
OZONE­
DEPLETING
SUBSTANCES
REFRIGERATION
AND
AIR
CONDITIONING
END­
USES:
CENTRIFUGAL
CHILLERS,
HEAT
TRANSFER,
VERY
LOW
TEMPERATURE
REFRIGERATION,
INDUSTRIAL
PROCESS
AIR
CONDITIONING,
AND
INDUSTRIAL
PROCESS
REFRIGERATION
REFRIGERANT:
HFC­
245fa
1.
INTRODUCTION
Ozone­
depleting
substances
(
ODS)
are
being
phased
out
of
production
in
response
to
a
series
of
diplomatic
and
legislative
efforts
that
have
taken
place
over
the
past
decade,
including
the
Montreal
Protocol
and
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1990
(
CAAA).
The
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA),
as
authorized
by
Section
612
of
the
CAAA,
is
developing
a
program
to
evaluate
the
human
health
and
environmental
risks
posed
by
alternatives
to
ODS.
The
main
purpose
of
EPA's
program,
called
the
Significant
New
Alternatives
Policy
(
SNAP)
program,
is
to
identify
acceptable
and
unacceptable
substitutes
for
ODS
in
specific
end
uses.

EPA's
decision
on
the
acceptability
of
a
substitute
is
based
largely
on
the
findings
of
a
screening
assessment
of
potential
human
health
and
environmental
risks
posed
by
the
substitute
in
specific
applications.
EPA
has
already
screened
a
large
number
of
substitutes
in
many
end
uses
within
all
of
the
major
ODS­
using
sectors,
including
refrigeration
and
air
conditioning,
solvent
cleaning,
foam
blowing,
aerosols,
fire
suppression,
adhesives,
coatings
and
inks,
and
sterilization.
The
results
of
these
risk
screens
are
presented
in
a
series
of
Background
Documents
that
are
available
in
EPA's
docket.
The
reader
is
referred
to
this
reference
for
an
additional
discussion
of
different
methodologies
used
to
conduct
risk
screens.

The
purpose
of
this
risk
screen
is
to
supplement
EPA's
Background
Document
on
the
refrigeration
and
air­
conditioning
sector
by
examining
another
potential
substitute
for
specific
end­
uses
of
CFC­
11,
CFC­
113,
CFC­
114,
HCFC­
21,
HCFC­
123,
and
HCFC­
141b
in
this
sector
(
U.
S.
EPA
1994).
The
specific
proposed
substitute
examined
in
this
report
is
HFC­
245fa
for
use
in
the
following
applications:
low
pressure
centrifugal
chillers,
heat
transfer
fluid1,
very
low
temperature
refrigeration,
industrial
process
air
conditioning,
and
industrial
process
refrigeration.
The
potential
human
health
and
environmental
risks
posed
by
HFC­
245fa
when
used
as
a
replacement
for
various
CFCs
and
HCFCs
in
the
refrigeration
and
air­
conditioning
sector
are
examined
in
this
risk
screen.

Table
1
provides
the
chemical
details
on
HFC­
245fa.

1
for
use
in
non­
mechanical
and
secondary
cooling
systems
**
DRAFT
(
April
29,
2005)
 
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE**
2
Table
1.
Chemical
Details
on
HFC­
245fa
Constituent
Chemical
Formula
CAS
#
%
of
Total
by
Weight
HFC­
245fa
CHF2CH2CF3
460­
73­
1
100%

Occupational
exposure
(
during
manufacturing,
installation,
and
maintenance)
and
general
population
analyses
were
performed
to
ensure
that
use
of
the
proposed
blend
in
the
applications
listed
above
does
not
pose
unacceptable
risks
to
workers
or
the
general
public.
Consumer
exposure
modeling
was
not
performed
because
no
consumer
applications
are
proposed
for
this
blend.

The
remainder
of
this
risk
screen
is
organized
as
follows:
 
Section
2
of
this
report
summarizes
the
results
of
the
risk
screen
for
HFC­
245fa;
 
Section
3
presents
atmospheric
modeling
and
potential
environmental
risks;
 
Section
4
discusses
occupational
exposure
during
manufacturing,
installation,
and
maintenance;
 
Section
5
assesses
risks
associated
with
general
population
exposure;
and
 
Section
6
assesses
the
emissions
of
volatile
organic
compounds.

2.
SUMMARY
OF
RESULTS
HFC­
245fa
is
recommended
for
SNAP
approval
for
all
the
proposed
end
uses,
as
further
detailed
in
Appendix
A.
EPA's
risk
screen
indicates
that
the
use
of
the
proposed
substitute
will
be
less
harmful
to
the
atmosphere
than
the
continued
use
of
CFC­
11,
CFC­
113,
CFC­
114,
HCFC­
21,
HCFC­
123,
and
HCFC­
141b.
No
significant
risks
to
workers
are
estimated
based
on
occupational
exposure
modeling.
Additionally,
general
population
exposure
to
the
substitute
is
expected
to
be
below
levels
of
concern
for
noncancer
risks.
For
application
of
this
and
all
other
refrigerants,
EPA
recommends
that
American
Society
of
Heating,
Refrigerating
and
Air­
Conditioning
Engineers
(
ASHRAE)
Standards
15
and
34
be
followed.

3.
TOXICITY
REFERENCE
VALUES
FOR
SUBSTITUTES
To
assess
potential
health
risks
from
exposure
to
this
substitute
for
ODS
in
the
refrigeration
and
air­
conditioning
sector,
EPA
identified
the
relevant
toxicity
threshold
values,
including
available
occupational
exposure
limits
(
OELs),
for
comparison
to
modeled
exposure
concentrations
for
different
scenarios.
For
the
occupational
exposure
analysis
provided
in
this
risk
screen,
potential
risks
from
chronic
worker
exposure
were
evaluated
by
comparing
exposure
concentrations
to
the
AIHA
designated
workplace
environmental
exposure
level
(
WEEL).
Potential
risks
from
shortterm
occupational
exposures
were
also
evaluated
through
comparison
with
values
derived
by
EPA,
namely
short­
term
exposure
levels
(
STELs).
Reference
concentrations
(
RfCs)
were
used
to
assess
risks
to
the
general
population
from
exposure
to
ambient
air
releases.
The
OELs
and
RfCs
used
for
this
assessment
are
shown
in
Table
2.
EPA's
approach
for
identifying
or
developing
these
values
is
discussed
in
Chapter
3
of
the
Background
Document.
**
DRAFT
(
April
29,
2005)
 
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE**
3
Table
2.
Toxicity
Threshold
Values
(
ppm)

Chemical
Long
Term
Exposure
Level
(
AIHA
WEEL)
Short­
term
Exposure
Level
(
Occupational
EGL)
Reference
Concentration
(
RfC)

HFC­
245fa
300
34,
100a
0.3b
a
Cardiac
sensitization
NOAEL
in
dogs
(
Rush
et
al.,
1999).
b
Calculated
using
subchronic
NOAEL
of
508
ppm
(
Rush
et
al.,
1999);
HEC
=
508
x
5
d/
wk/
7
d/
wk
x
6
hr/
d/
24
hr/
d
=
91
ppm/
300
(
UF)
=
0.3
ppm.
Total
UF
of
300
=
10
for
interspecies
extrapolation;
10
for
sensitive
subpopulations
and
3
for
database
limitations,
including
the
absence
of
chronic
and
two­
generation
reproductive
studies.

4.
ATMOSPHERIC
MODELING
This
section
presents
an
assessment
of
the
potential
risks
to
atmospheric
integrity
posed
by
the
use
of
HFC­
245fa
in
the
refrigeration
and
air­
conditioning
sector.
The
ozone
depleting
potential
(
ODP),
global
warming
potential
(
GWP),
and
atmospheric
lifetime
(
ALT)
of
the
proposed
substitute
are
presented
in
Table
3.

Table
3:
ODP,
GWP,
and
ALT
for
HFC­
245fa
SUBSTITUE
ODP
100­
YEAR
GWP
ALT
(
years)

HFC­
245fa
0
950
7.2
The
environmental
impacts
resulting
from
use
of
HFC­
245fa
are
generally
in
the
range
of
those
predicted
for
other
substitutes
examined
in
the
Background
Document.
EPA
believes
that
the
substitute
is
substantially
less
harmful
to
the
ozone
layer
than
the
continued
use
of
CFCs
and
HCFCs.
HFC­
245fa
has
a
lower
GWP
than
HFC­
23,
another
alternative
substitute
for
CFCs
and
HCFCs
used
in
several
of
the
indicated
end
uses,
which
has
a
100­
Year
GWP
of
12,000
(
IPCC
2000).

5.
OCCUPATIONAL
EXPOSURE
For
very
low
temperature
refrigeration
and
heat
transfer
systems
using
HFC­
245fa,
occupational
exposures
are
not
likely
to
be
of
concern.
In
particular,
these
systems
would
not
be
likely
to
be
charged
in
a
typical
manufacturing
facility
and
certainly
would
not
pose
a
chronic
exposure
risk.
Large
systems
of
this
type
would
likely
be
designed
and
constructed
on­
site
on
an
as­
needed
basis.
These
systems
would
then
be
charged
with
refrigerant
from
a
large
tank
truck
at
system
start­
up
and
would
only
need
to
be
serviced
once
or
twice
a
year.
Furthermore,
these
types
of
systems
would
be
initially
charged
or
maintained
by
experienced
personnel
using
proper
industrial
hygiene
techniques,
in
well­
ventilated
or
outdoor
locations.

To
ensure
that
use
of
the
substitute
in
chillers
and
industrial
process
systems
does
not
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
to
workers,
occupational
exposure
modeling
was
performed
for
the
proposed
**
DRAFT
(
April
29,
2005)
 
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE**
4
substitute.
Although
modeling
is
only
performed
for
manufacture
and
disposal,
it
is
assumed
that
exposure
during
maintenance
would
not
exceed
exposure
during
manufacture
and
disposal.
The
highest
8­
hour
estimated
exposure
for
HFC­
245fa
used
in
chillers
for
both
manufacture
and
disposal
was
256
ppm,
which
falls
below
the
300
ppm
WEEL
of
HFC­
245fa.
The
highest
8­
hour
estimated
exposure
for
industrial
process
systems
for
both
manufacture
and
disposal
was
353
ppm.
Although
the
8­
hour
estimated
exposure
could
potentially
exceed
the
established
long
term
exposure
limit
for
HFC­
245fa
during
the
production
of
industrial
process
systems,
their
production
is
not
expected
to
pose
health
risks
in
occupational
settings
because
of
the
following
reasons:
 
Industrial
process
systems
are
often
charged
on
site
and
not
in
factory
settings;
 
When
charging
does
take
place
in
a
manufacturing
facility,
these
highly
specialized
units
would
be
designed
and
built
to
meet
specific
customer
needs
on
an
as­
needed
basis
(
i.
e.,
they
would
not
be
produced
on
an
on­
going,
regular
schedule);
 
Disposal
is
not
expected
to
occur
regularly
because
the
units
are
highly
specialized
and
therefore
uncommon;
and
 
The
8­
hour
estimated
exposure
was
derived
using
conservative
assumptions,
and
this
estimate
represents
a
worst­
case
scenario
with
a
low
probability
of
occurrence.

The
highest
15­
minute
estimated
exposure
for
HFC­
245fa
in
all
proposed
end
uses
for
both
manufacture
and
disposal
was
1,048
ppm.
The
15­
minute
exposure
value
for
HFC­
245
is
well
below
the
STEL
of
3,000
ppm.

This
analysis
concluded
that
occupational
exposure
to
HFC­
245fa
is
not
expected
to
pose
unacceptable
risks
to
workers.

It
is
important
to
consider
the
flammability
of
substances
when
investigating
their
acceptability
for
use
as
refrigerants,
since
substitutes
that
are
flammable
could
pose
safety
concerns
to
workers.
However,
according
to
the
material
safety
data
sheet
(
MSDS),
HFC­
245fa
is
nonflammable
and
thus
flammability
concerns
are
not
relevant
to
this
analysis.

6.
GENERAL
POPULATION
EXPOSURE
This
section
screens
potential
risks
to
the
general
population
from
exposure
to
ambient
air
releases
of
the
substitute
examined
for
the
proposed
end­
uses.
Releases
occurring
during
use
of
the
refrigerant
in
a
factory
and
during
end­
use
and
disposal
are
examined
in
this
section.

The
methodology
used
for
refrigerant
screening
was
identical
to
the
one
used
in
the
general
population
exposure
analysis
described
in
Chapter
7
of
the
Refrigeration
and
Air
Conditioning
Background
Document.
Although
HFC­
245fa
is
not
examined
in
the
Background
Document,
the
exposure
concentration
should
be
similar
to
the
HCFC
and
HFC
substitutes
that
are
examined
in
the
Document
because
they
are
used
in
the
same
end
uses
and
the
chemicals
have
similar
chemical
and
physical
properties.

While
the
RfC
of
HFC­
245fa
of
0.3
ppm
is
lower
than
the
HCFC
and
HFC
substitutes
reviewed
in
the
background
document,
for
all
end
uses,
the
exposure
concentrations
are
still
at
least
two
**
DRAFT
(
April
29,
2005)
 
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE**
5
orders
of
magnitude
below
the
reference
concentration,
even
using
conservative
screening
assumptions,
with
the
highest
exposure
concentration
to
RfC
ratio
being
7.9
x
10­
2.
Thus,
releases
of
HFC­
245fa
during
manufacture,
end
use,
and
disposal
are
not
expected
to
pose
a
health
risk
to
the
general
population.

Additionally,
for
four
of
the
end
uses
examined
in
this
risk
screen,
heat
transfer
fluids,
very
low
temperature
refrigeration,
and
industrial
process
air
conditioning
and
refrigeration,
the
installation
of
the
system
would
take
place
on­
site
and
only
once.
As
such,
HFC­
245fa
would
not
pose
a
chronic
exposure
risk
to
the
general
population
in
these
proposed
end­
uses.

7.
VOLATILE
ORGANIC
COMPOUND
ANALYSIS
HFC­
245fa
is
not
considered
VOCs
for
purposes
of
local
air
quality.

REFERENCES
Honeywell
SNAP
Submission
for
HFC­
245fa.
2005.
Significant
New
Alternatives
Policy
Program
Submission
to
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
March
2005.

Honeywell.
2004.
"
Material
Safety
Data
Sheet:
Genetron
®
­
245fa."
January
2004.
Available
at:
http://
www.
honeywell.
com/
sites/
sm/
chemicals/
genetron/
commercial.
htm
U.
S.
EPA.
1994.
"
SNAP
Technical
Background
Document:
Risk
Screen
on
the
Use
of
Substitutes
for
Class
I
Ozone­
depleting
Substances:
Refrigeration
and
Air
Conditioning."
Stratospheric
Protection
Divisions.
March,
1994.
**
DRAFT
(
April
29,
2005)
 
DO
NOT
QUOTE
OR
CITE**

6
ANNEX
A:
Approved
New
(
N)
and
Retrofit
(
R)
Uses
of
HFC­
245fa
as
a
Replacement
for
CFCs
and
HCFCs
in
Refrigeration
and
Air­
Conditioning
End
Uses
End
Use
CFC­
11
CFC­
113
CFC­
114
HCFC­
21
HCFC­
123
HCFC­
141b
Centrifugal
Chillers
N*,
R
N,
R
N,
R
Heat
Transfer
Fluid
N,
R
N,
R
N,
R
N,
R
Very
Low
Temperature
Refrigeration
N
N
N
Industrial
Process
Air
Conditioning
N
Industrial
Process
Refrigeration
N
*
Already
approved
as
a
replacement
for
CFC­
11
in
new
centrifugal
chillers
Source:
Honeywell
2005
