EPA 560/1-77-004
CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY AND
ECONOMICS IN
ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVES
TASK V- INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATIVES
FOR SELECTED AEROSOL PROPELLANT AND
RELATED APPLICATIONS OF FLUOROCARBONS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OCTOBER 1977
-------
CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMICS IN
ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVES
Task V - Investigation of Alternatives for Selected
Aerosol Propellants and Related Applications
of Chlorofluorocarbons
Contract No. 68-01-3201
Project Officer
Charles Auer
Office of Toxic Substances
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, B.C. 20460
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Toxic Substances
Washington, D.C. 20460
October 1977
-------
NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Toxic Substances,
Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of trade names
or commercial products is for purposes of clarity only and does not con-
stitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
PREFACE
This report presents the results of Task V of a project entitled "Chemi-
cal Technology and Economics in Environmental Perspectives" performed by
Midwest Research Institute (MRI) under Contract No. 68-01-3201 for the Office
of Toxic Substances of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Mr. Charles Auer was the project officer for EPA.
Contributors to portions of this task were Dr. Thomas W. Lapp, Mr. Gary
L. Kelso, Mr. Howard Gadberry, Dr. Thomas Milne, Mr. Larry Breed, and
Mr. Melvin Lavik. Mr. William L. Bell served as a technical consultant for
the pesticidal components of this report. Dr. Lapp is project leader for
this contract. This report was prepared under the supervision of Dr. Edward
W. Lawless, Head, Technology Assessment Section. This program has MRI Proj-
ect No. 4101-L.
Midwest Research Institute would like to express its sincere apprecia-
tion to those individuals and companies who provided technical information
for this report.
Approved for:
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
L. J.vSjiannon, Director
Environmental and Materials
Sciences Division
October 1977
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Preface ill
Tables vi
Section 1 - Introduction 1
Section 2 - specific Product Types 2
Flying Insect Pesticides 3
Other Pesticides 11
Spray Paints 13
Air Brushes 15
Mine Warning Device 19
Mold Release Agents 25
Lubricants 29
Battery Terminal Protection 33
Paper Products Frictionizing Treatment Indicator 35
Electronic Cleaners 38
Burglar Alarm System 41
Portable Acoustic Warning Devices 44
Pressurized Cleaners 54
Computer Tape Developer 58
Diamond-Grit Spray 60
Electronic Diagnostic Chillers 63
Fire Alarm System 67
Fire Extinguishing Agents 70
Drain Openers 75
References 78
-------
TABLES
Number Page
2-1 Alternative Aerosol Systems 36
2-2 Alternative Nonaerosol Systems 37
2-3 U.S. Coast Guard Requirements for Acoustical Signals 48
vi
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
In October 1976, an interagency workgroup (comprised of representatives
from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Adminis-
tration (FDA), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)) initiated
examination of regulatory options for controlling the environmental release
of certain halocarbon compounds that pose a threat to stratospheric ozone.
The initial concern of the work group was primarily with the use of fully
halogenated chlorofluoroalkanes as aerosol propellants. Several specific
aerosol propellant applications, as well as some other related applications,
were brought to the attention of the work group by interested parties as pos-
sibly being "essential uses" of these substances. The purpose of this task
was to investigate these applications to identify the available and techno-
logically feasible alternatives and, to the extent possible, examine the
cost factors associated with these alternatives.
It must be emphasized that the determination of the essentiality of
these products for regulating purposes was not to be made by MRI in this
task. These determinations were, and are being, made by the workgroup using
the information generated here as well as information made available to the
workgroup from other sources.
-------
SECTION 2
SPECIFIC PRODUCT TYPES
This section presents an analysis of each of 19 specific aerosol prod-
uct types that use chlorofluorocarbons. Information provided for each prod-
uct type includes a general description, its utility, alternatives to it,
and a brief analysis of the economic aspects of the alternatives or lack of
alternatives. Within the product description and utility, data are presented
for which chlorofluorocarbons are utilized, their primary and/or secondary
functions, specific characteristics contributed to the product by the chloro-
fluorocarbons, consumers of the product, and the amount of chlorofluorocar-
bon used annually in the product. The alternatives portion provides a dis-
cussion of alternative propellants for aerosol products, nonaerosol methods
for delivering the same goods or services, and the availability of each of
the alternatives. Economic aspects were limited to the impact of the alter-
native delivery method on the consumer or user of the product and any impacts
resulting downstream from the consumer or user.
-------
FLYING INSECT PESTICIDES
Product Description and
These aerosol products are used by industry, institutions, and the
general public for the control of flying and crawling insects. A number
of different product types are included in this general category.
Space-spray aerosols are designed for volumetric treatment in and
around food processing plants, restaurants, farms, hospitals, and other
industrial-institutional locations for fly and other pest control. They
are also used for both indoor and outdoor residential applications. The
effectiveness of this type of aerosol results from its dispersion of a
very finely divided product in the form of a mist or fog with a very long
residence time in the atmosphere (hang time).
Total release aerosols and metered valve aerosols require the same
basic spray characteristics as those for space-spray aerosols. With total
release aerosols, a given quantity of insecticide is packaged in an aerosol
container with a lock-open actuator to allow the total contents of the con-
tainer to be released at one time. Metered valve aerosols allow only the
release of a preset quantity of spray per electronically timed actuation.
Normally, the quantity of spray released per actuation is of the order of
100 mg. These two systems, total release and metered, find usage against
flying and crawling insects in the industrial, institutional, governmental,
and commercial sector as well as for certain residential applications.
Wasp and hornet sprays are utilized primarily by industries whose work-
ers may encounter these pests during outside activities. Linemen for util-
ity companies are major users of this product. Immediate knockdown of the
wasp or hornet is of primary importance, more so than its actual death. A
second major concern of this product is electrical shock to the lineman.
Serious injury and even death of the lineman can occur if the spray propel-
lant conducts electricity. These products are often sprayed directly into
or onto high voltage transformers.
The primary fluorocarbon propellants used in these products are F-ll
and F-12. Annual consumption of F-ll and F-12 is difficult to assess in
this market. An estimate was made by Mr. Richard Vega of Whitmire Research
Laboratories, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, that about 26,400,000 Ib of F-ll
and F-12 were consumed in these products in 1974, based upon figures from
the U.S. Department of Commerce study, "Economic Significance of Fluoro-
carbons," December 1975.—
-------
The removal of flying insect pesticide products from the market with-
out replacement with an alternative would have environmental quality, human
health, and human safety implications. Environmental contamination by the
pesticides (i.e., pyrethrum) would be eliminated. However, pyrethrum de-
grades rapidly in the environment. Human health and safety would be af-
fected both positively and negatively. On the positive side, humans would
not be exposed to inhalation, absorption, or ingestion of the pesticides,
some of which are acutely and chronically toxic to man. On the negative
side, the control of flying insects would be foregone, and humans would be
exposed to risk from these insects. One example of this risk would be the
inability of utility linemen to kill stinging wasps and hornets when far
above ground and unprotected from attack. Another example would be the lack
of control of the housefly in restaurants, hospitals, food processing plants,
etc., where this insect could transmit such diseases as cholera, dysentery,
typhoid fever, plague, and tuberculosis to humans either directly or indi-
rectly through contaminated foodstuffs.
On balance, the removal of these products from the market without re-
placement would have positive environmental effects but would expose man to
serious risk from uncontrolled insects and disease transmission.
Alternative Products or Systems
Space Sprays—
Alternative products or systems for destroying flying insects must pro-
duce an aerosol to allow the pesticide to remain suspended in the air to be
effective. Alternatives that have been tested are given in the following
paragraphs.
Compressed air gun (atomizer)—This system would result in an insuffi-
cient decrease in particle size which results in a shorter hang time in
the air and a reduced kill ratio. Therefore, an increased volume of in-
secticide would be required per unit area to be treated and an increase in
the total volume of solvent would be necessary. Since more total product
(ingredient plus solvent) is being utilized, an increase in application time
would result. For those industries or institutions in which food may be in
contact with the sprayed areas, the settled residue must be cleaned up before
the food can be processed. The increased volume of total product utilized
will require increased maintenance time for the cleanup procedure. An ex-
plosion or fire potential exists due to the petroleum distillate used as the
solvent.
This system would increase environmental contamination and increase hu-
man exposure to the pesticides without increasing the effectiveness of the
product. Human risk from fire hazards and pesticide exposure would increase.
-------
Foggers--Thermal mechanical methods generally result in insufficient
break up of the active ingredients to produce the true aerosol necessary
for space-sprays. With thermal foggers, some of the active ingredient can
be lost during burning of the solvent. As with atomizers, a large volume is
required for treatment of the same area, resulting in longer application
times. For those industries which operate three shifts per day, spraying
is normally done during the shift changes. Extended application and clean
up time results in an interruption of the work process and loss of produc-
tivity. Clean up time for this method would generally be less than for the
atomizer, but greater than for aerosols. For thermal foggers, the use of
properly trained personnel is required to insure proper operation and main-
tenance of the fogging equipment. During operation, a low burning tempera-
ture will result in insufficient fog production while too high burning tem-
peratures will result in high ingredient loss. An explosion or fire potential
exists due to the unburned petroleum distillate used as solvent and fuel.
Environmental contamination and human risk from pesticide exposure, and
fire hazards would increase without any increase in pest control effective-
ness .
Compressed gas aerosols (N2» N20, C02)--Pressure reduction as the volume
of the contents decreases is the major drawback for compressed gases other
than carbon dioxide. With carbon dioxide, impact filling could be used to
alleviate the pressure loss problem; however, the resultant spray is still
"coarser" than that obtained with chlorofluorocarbons. This coarse spray
is not acceptable for space-spray application due to the shorter residence
time in the air (decreased hang time).
Hydrocarbon aerosols—Pure hydrocarbon propellants can achieve the spray
characteristics necessary for space-spray applications with an overall de-
crease in the total cost of the product compared to using F-12 as the pro-
pellant. However, an extreme flammability and explosion problem is presented
by the hydrocarbons in these systems, not only in terms of flashback, but
also from accumulation of the hydrocarbons in the working area. This system
would increase human risk by creating dangerous fire hazards unless fire re-
tardants are used.
Certain additives to hydrocarbons were investigated as possible fire
retardants. Water can be incorporated into the pesticide solvent system in
sufficient quantities to render the aerosol spray nonflammable. While this
system is typically used in household insecticide sprays, it does not pro-
duce the true aerosol spray required for efficient space-spraying. The
larger particle size resulting from this combination results in a shorter
hang time, more fallout, and less killing efficiency. Increased consump-
tion of product (and therefore, increased environmental release of pesti-
cide) would be required for the same killing efficiency of the F-12 propelled
-------
sprays. Increased maintenance and clean up time would be required due to
the greater quantities of fallout. Humans would be subjected to greater ex-
posure to the pesticides and environmental contamination would increase.
Certain chlorinated hydrocarbons, such as methylene chloride, methyl
chloroform, or others, could be added to the hydrocarbon to reduce the
flammability potential. Formulations of this type have been attempted but
the resultant particle size was too large, resulting in insufficient hang
time in the air and the same resultant problems stated for the use of water,
as an additive (i.e., more fallout and less killing efficiency).—
Products contained in aluminum cylinders cannot be reformulated using
a mixture of chlorinated hydrocarbons as nonflammable solvents due to com-
patibility problems with aluminum.—' Pure methylene chloride can be used,
but no other common chlorinated hydrocarbon.
F-22 as a propellant--F-22 could be used as an alternative propellant
system if it were available. Reformulation of the current products and
testing of the new product in terms of efficacy would be necessary.
Reduced F-12 content--Reformulation of current products could result in
a significant reduction in the quantity of F-12 consumed in space-spray ap-
plications . According to the information submitted by Whitmire Research
Laboratories, Inc.,— reformulation could result in a F-12 reduction from
80% by weight to 20% by weight without loss of the spray characteristics
necessary for space-spray applications. Virginia Chemicals, Inc.,— and
Mr. William L. Bell,- MRI consultant, concur that a reformulation of this
type would be feasible and lead to a significant reduction in F-12 consump-
ton in this use category. Virginia Chemicals, Inc., however, stated that
they have not attempted a reformulation of this nature and would require
product testing before they would definitely concur with this method.
Wasp and Hornet Sprays--
As stated previously, immediate knockdown of wasps and hornets is of
more importance than actual death. Since these products are used in and
around high voltage equipment, they must be completely nonflammable, elec-
trically nonconductive, and have a spray range of 8 to 10 ft.
This product line does not require an aerosol in the normal meaning
of the term. The propellant, plus a small quantity of insecticide, remains
as a jet stream instead of being dispersed as tiny particles over a large
volume as in a space-spray or a normal aerosol spray. Upon contact with the
wasp, hornet, or the nest, the solvent propellant rapidly evaporates to
create the cooling effect used to immobilize the pest. Subsequent to the
immobilization, the pesticidal ingredient (e.g., pyrethrum) acts to kill the
-------
wasp or hornet. Alternative propellant systems are suggested below, but the
primary problem to be incurred in this area is the time required for reformu-
lation of the product, insecticidal efficacy testing, and testing of flam-
mability and dielectric properties to meet utility and telephone company
specifications. The total time required would be of the order of 1 to 1-1/2
years.—
Alternative propellant systems for wasp and hornet sprays are given in
the following paragraphs. Approximately 40% of the total weight is due to
the propellant.—
Carbon dioxide plus chlorinated hydrocarbon—This propellant system is
probably a feasible alternative using a nonflammable chlorinated hydrocar-
bon (e.g., methylene chloride) in conjunction with carbon dioxide. A com-
ponent ratio of 4% carbon dioxide and 36% methylene chloride in the propel-
lant system would appear to be an appropriate mixture to provide the same
properties now available with F-12 systems.—
F-22 as a propellant--F-22 would be an alternative component of the pro-
pellant system. Since the pressure of F-22 is higher than that for F-12, the
composition of the propellant system would be approximately 13% F-22 and 27%
nonflammable chlorinated hydrocarbon (e.g., methylene chloride).^.'
Carbon dioxide plus nitrogen--This alternative propellant system has not
been completely tested. If acceptable, it would prove to be an extremely
inexpensive propellant system. A propellant composition of 4% carbon dioxide
and 36% nitrogen (to provide head pressure) may be a feasible combination.—
Mixtures of chlorinated hydrocarbons--Mixtures of various nonflammable
chlorinated hydrocarbons may be feasible alternative propellant systems but
very little research has been conducted on these types of systems.—
None of these alternatives, if adopted, would have any effect on en-
vironmental quality, human health, or human safety relative to the F-12 sys-
tems .
EPA Office of Pesticide Program's Labeling Requirements—
All of the products included in this report are subject to registration
with the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs and any change in the composition
of such products would require reregistration of these materials. The time
required for the reregistration process can, in some instances, take as long
as 1 year. If product reformulation with a reduced F-12 content or other
changes in formulation are to be required within specific time limitations,
then either temporary labeling permits for the conversion should be consid-
ered or the time required for reregistration should be incorporated into the
-------
time limitation set forth for reformulation to accommodate new propellant
systems.
Economic Considerations
Space Sprays--
Cost considerations for atomizers and foggers have been presented in a
previous submission to the CFC work group by Whitmire Research Laboratories,
Inc.— This submission showed that the use of a bulk space spray and fogger
was about three to nine times more expensive than the current chlorofluoro-
carbon propelled aerosol, used 200 times more petroleum oil, and was about
six times more time consuming. The use of F-22 as a component of the pro-
pellant system as an alternative to F-12, would result in basically no in-
crease in product cost to the consumer. Although F-22 is more expensive
than F-ll or F-12 ($0.66/lb versus $0.42/lb),- the lower cost of the added
pressure depressant would equalize the higher cost of the F-22.
For the alternative involving a reduced F-12 content in the propellant
system, the two formulations are as follows:—'
Formula I:
% w/w
Active ingredient + solvent: 20.0
Blend of F-ll + F-12: 80.0
Formula II:
70 w/w
Active ingredient + solvent: 20.0
Nonflammable solvent: 56.0
F-12: 20.0
Carbon dioxide: 4.0
Neglecting active ingredient and solvent costs, the economics of the two pro-
pellant systems— on a per pound of product basis are:
I. 807» F-ll and F-12: $0.42/lb average cost x 80% = $0.34
(F-ll $0.40/lb)
(F-12 $0.44/lb)
-------
II. 567, nonflammable solvent: $0.22 x 0.56 = $0.12
(methylene chloride $0.21/lb)
(methyl chloroform $0.23/lb)
207, F-12: $0.44 x 0.20 = $0.09
47o carbon dioxide: negligible •
Total Cost $0.21
It may be necessary for some fillers to purchase a carbon dioxide tank and
filling line, but these costs would be offset by the $0.13 savings on propel-
lant costs.
The costs to the consumer would remain about the same for these alterna-
tives as the present cost of existing F-ll and F-12 systems.
Wasp and Hornet Sprays--
Economic factors for carbon dioxide plus methylene chloride, F-22 plus
methylene chloride, and carbon dioxide plus nitrogen are presented in the
following paragraphs. The cost of the current F-12 propellant systems on a
per pound basis is: $0.44/lb x 0.40 = $0.18.
I. Carbon dioxide plus methylene chloride:
367, methylene chloride: $0.21 x 0.36 = $0.08
47» carbon dioxide: negligible
Total Cost $0.08
Some added cost may be incurred by some fillers for a carbon dioxide storage
tank but these costs should be offset by the $0.10 savings per pound of
product.
II. F-22 plus methylene chloride:
137, F-22: $0.66 x 0.13 = $0.09
277, methylene chloride: $0.21 x 0.27 = 0.06
Total Cost $0.15
III. Nitrogen plus carbon dioxide:
367, nitrogen: $0.086-/ x 0.36 = $0.03
47o carbon dioxide: negligible
Total Cost $0.03
-------
The nitrogen price is based on high purity nitrogen gas from liquid nitrogen.
This system would necessitate a liquid nitrogen storage, which can be rented
from the supplier. Rental cost for a 1,500 gal. capacity storage tank would
be about $250/month.-
In general, the use of any of the above alternative propellants should
not result in any increase in cost to the consumer.
10
-------
OTHER PESTICIDES
Product Description and Utility
Pesticides are packaged and sold in aerosol containers for a variety
of uses. Residual sprays are applied to surfaces in homes and businesses
to destroy insects such as ants, spiders, roaches, etc. House and garden
sprays are applied to plants and soil to destroy various pests. Pet sprays
are applied directly to animals to destroy parasites and nuisance pests.
These pesticides all depend upon their residual effect, as well as
their contact effect, for effectiveness against pests. Some of them remain
effective for weeks and even months after application, and are capable of
destroying pests not present at the time of application.
The principal consumers of these products are households. Some com-
mercial, industrial, and governmental establishments also use these products,
but to a much lesser extent. The various products marketed are numerous and
it would be very difficult to estimate the total sales and consumption of
this market. Therefore, the amounts of fluorocarbons, principally F-ll and
F-12, consumer annually by these products cannot be estimated.
The removal of these pesticide products from the market without replace-
ment by an alternative would have some impacts on the environment, human
health, and human safety. Environmental contamination by these pesticides
would be eliminated. Human health and safety would be both positive and
negatively affected. These pesticides destroy insects detrimental to man's
health and safety, and these insects, if left uncontrolled, would put ex-
posed humans at risk. On the other hand, humans would no longer be exposed
to the pesticides, some of which are harmful to human health through their
acute and chronic toxicities, and may receive health benefits from the ab-
sence of these pesticides. The overall health effects would be, in most
cases, detrimental to humans since insects carry many diseases that are human
health risks, while most of the pesticides are relatively harmless to man.
This overall effect on man, however, would have to be determined on a case-
by-case basis, and would depend primarily on the specific pesticide and the
pest it controls.
Alternative Products or Systems
All of the applications of these products depend upon a residue of
pesticide remaining on the contact surface for effectiveness against pests.
The pesticides can be applied in various ways which do not require the use
of an aerosol spray, or they can be applied in aerosol form using alterna-
tive propellants. Therefore, several alternative systems and products are
available as effective substitutes for these surface spray aerosol products.
11
-------
2 3/
Alternate Propellants *—
Compressed gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and nitrogen
are commonly used as propellants for surface spray aerosols. They dispense
the product as a coarse wet spray, and are relatively safe to both humans
and the environment. Some pesticide products on the market today use these
gases, and the F-ll and F-12 propellants could be replaced by them without
loss of pesticidal effectiveness in residual sprays.
Hydrocarbon propellants, such as butane, isobutane, and propane can
also be substituted for F-ll and F-12, although the hydrocarbons are flam-
mable and do pose a risk to human safety. This risk could be minimized in
most cases by adding fire retardants or water to the hydrocarbons.
Pet sprays could use carbon dioxide or propane as propellants once FDA
approval for their usage in pet sprays is obtained.
Alternate Technologies —
Nonaerosol applications of these pesticides can be effectively made by
mixing the active ingredient in a suitable water or hydrocarbon emulsion
carrier, and either spraying or brushing the mixture onto the intended sur-
faces. Spray applications can be made from any available mechanical device,
such as a backpack sprayer or mechanical pump sprayer.
Economic Considerations
The economic impact on the consumer of substituting brush and nonaero-
sol spray applications for the aerosol cans would be a reduction in cost,
since aerosol products are more expensive on an active ingredient basis than
products packaged in bottles or hand-held mechanical pump spray applicators.
The cost to the consumer of converting aerosol products with F-ll and F-12
propellants to aerosol products containing compressed gases or hydrocarbons
would remain about the same. For small formulators-fillers, conversion to
hydrocarbon propellants may increase the consumer cost for the products
since expensive facilities are required to fill with the flammable hydro-
carbon .2.'
12
-------
SPRAY PAINTS
Product Description and Utility
Aerosol spray paint products normally are composed of the paint or
enamel formulation, solvent, and propellant. These products are usually
packaged in small (8- to 16-oz) containers for use by the general public
and for minor industrial applications, such as "touch-up" or low volume,
small area uses. For those formulations using chlorof luorocar.bons, the
principal propellant is F-12. The sole function of the F-12 is to provide
a propellant system for the product.
In terms of total usage of aerosol spray paints, 90 to 95% of these
products use hydrocarbons or hydrocarbon mixtures as the propellant.—2—
Based on 1974 aerosol production figures—' and assuming an average container
size of 16 oz, it can be calculated that F-12 consumption for aerosol paint
products would be in the range of 6 to 12 million pounds per year.
In general, spray paint formulations in small, portable aerosol contain-
ers provide a rapid and inexpensive method of applying a thin, smooth coat-
ing for occasional and touch-up paint applications. On a continued or
high-volume use basis, however, this product is not an inexpensive method of
delivery. The removal of F-12 as the propellant system should have no known
impacts on environmental quality or human health and safety since the vast
majority of the spray paint products currently utilize hydrocarbon mixtures
as the propellant system.
Alternative Products or Systems
Brush Application--
This obvious method could be used provided that a uniform, thin layer
of paint was not required. Brush application may be satisfactory for very
specific applications.
Hydrocarbon Propellants—
This is the most universal method for the spray application of paints.
Since the vast majority of spray paints are currently propelled in this man-
ner, no formulation or other technical problems should be incurred.
In terms of actual production of hydrocarbon-propelled products, con-
tract fillers are currently equipped to produce these items.—' For all
fillers, the same aerosol system, including cap, can and aerosol valve, can
be used for hydrocarbons as is currently employed with the F-12 system.12.'
For very low volume, highly specialized products, aerosol containers pre-
filled with hydrocarbon propellant, are available.—' With this system, the
only ingredient added to the container is the paint formulation.
13
-------
Economic Considerations
There should be no economic impact associated with the use of hydro-
carbon mixtures as a propellant system on consumers or users of these
products. On the current retail market, hydrocarbon-propelled spray paint
formulations are priced competitively with those products that are F-12-
propelled. For those industries using aerosol spray paint products for
small use applications and touch up work, no increased costs can be en-
visioned which would ultimately be passed on to the consumer in the form of
higher prices.
14
-------
AIR BRUSHES
Product Description and Utility
Air brushes are devices that permit precise control in the spray ap-
plication of fluids (usually ink or paint colors) to the working surface
without physical contact. Air brushes are most widely used in the follow-
ing applications:—*——
Photographic retouching
Technical illustration (machinery, etc.)
Automotive refinishing
Graphic arts, advertising layout
Poster and sign art
Masters for engravings
Ceramic and porcelain decoration
Hobby and model painting
Murals on vans and recreational vehicles
Fine arts painting
Although the overwhelming majority of air brushes are powered (as the
name suggests) by means of compressed air, CFG (F-ll and F-12) containers
1 o /
have been employed as an alternative source of gas since at least 1939.—
At present, there are five principal U.S. suppliers of air brushes.
Most manufacturers offer several levels or grades of air brush equipment
intended for intensive use by commercial artists (typical cost $55 to $125),
and also less expensive models intended primarily for limited use by the
amateur hobbyist or beginning artist.—'
Only two manufacturers currently offer CFG propellant cans as part of
their regular line. The Poosche unit is offered complete with two cans of
propellant in a compact carrying case called the "Travelers' Kit@" Badger
supplies cans of propellant along with a flowrate limiting "regulator" in
both 14- and 21-oz cans.
CFG cans intended for use with air brushes are equipped with a special
valve which fits the screw-adjustable flow limiting regulator. Therefore,
the air conditioner recharge cans that are widely available cannot normally
be used. Badger Air Brush Company reported that a total of 160,000 Ib of
F-ll and F-12 was used during 1976. Poosche had no definite information on
usage, but believed their sales of canned propellant were much smaller.
Total usage probably does not exceed 250,000 Ib/year.
15
-------
An intensive effort was made to identify those air brush users who cur-
rently employ chlorof luorocarbon; propellant, and to ascertain the type of
artwork which they execute. None of the manufacturers maintain records that
could identify either users or type of application. zz.' Both Badger—'
and Poosche— representatives could only speculate that chlorof luorocarbon
can propellant use was largely confined to amateur artists and hobbyists
who did not want to spend $35 to $75 on an air compessor--particularly if
they were using a $10 to $30 air brush. Discussions with leading artists'
supply firms tended to confirm this view, although neither firm could recall
selling canned propellants within the past 12 months. — 2 —
Interviews with a wide range of both commercial artists and fine artists
within the Kansas City, Missouri, area produced unanimous expressions that
few, if any serious or professional artists have ever used chlorof luorocar-
bons as an air brush propellant. Only one informant had ever encountered an
associate who had ever tried canned propellant. This survey included adver-
tising studios, greeting card manufacturers, automotive refinishers, com-
mercial illustrators, motorcycle decorators, fine art teachers and artists,
van painters, and photographic retouchers. All artists used either a com-
pressed air source, or employed a tank of liquified carbon dioxide. None of
the air brush users interviewed could ever recall a job where a compact and
portable source of propellant was essential.
A similar survey of hobby and craft shops disclosed that virtually all
outlets carry either the Badger or Poosche air brush equipment with chloro-
22-257
f luorocarbon can propellant. — — — One source estimated that up to 20% of
the serious model builders in the nation own air brush equipment for de-
237
tailed painting. — Hobby and craft shop operators estimate that the typi-
cal user purchases and uses from one to four cans of propellant, and then
switches to a pneumatic tire adaptor. Only one amateur out of 25 is believed
2 A. /
to switch to a compressor. —
The removal of this product from the market will have no adverse im-
pacts on environmental quality, human health, or human safety.
Alternative Products or Systems
The requirements for air brush operation are a dry, oil-free source of
gas, at controlled and steady pressures of 14 to 30 psig, and flow rates
ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 standard cubic feet of gas per minute.
The alternative sources of gas suitable for air brush operation are
described in the following subsections.
16
-------
Small Air Compressors Attached Directly to Air Brush--
Most manufacturers offer small (i.e., 1/8 to 1/10 hp) compressors
suitable for limited air brush work. These compressors cost from $30 to
$80. W
Larger Air Compressors With Accumulator Tank--
Compressors from 1/3 to 1 hp, equipped with automatic control and a
pressure tank, can be located remotely to reduce annoying noise. Such com-
pressors and piped air lines can supply an entire studio or automotive paint
shop.
Carbon Dioxide Tanks —
Various sizes of liquified C0« tanks are widely used for air brush
operation. Large studios mainly employ 25-lb or 50-lb tanks supplying suf-
ficient gas to operate virtually full time for 1-1/2 to 3 months between
refills.
Some artists prefer to use smaller bottles holding 2.5 Ib (3-in. diam-
eter x 15-in. aluminum fire extinguisher bottle), down to the 0.5-lb "lecture
bottle" (2-in. diameter x 15-in.).
These smaller containers are locally refillable. The cost of using car-
bon dioxide is relatively low, and the tanks are leased from the supplier.
The main deterrent to wider use of CC>2 lies in the requirement for a
high quality and relatively expensive pressure reducer and regulator. The
C02 regulator and pressure guage costs from $35 to $50.
Compressed Air Tanks —
These are not widely used without a compressor because the working ca-
pacity is limited.
Pneumatic Tires--
For the occasional air brush user who wishes to avoid the expense of
purchasing a compressor or C02 bottle and regulator, an automobile or tractor
tire can be used as a pressure source. Badger Air Brush Company offers a
tire adaptor (No. 50-029) at a cost of $1.25.—
Economic Considerations
If 250,000 Ib (approximately 330,000 12-oz cans) are purchased annually
at a cost of $2.80 each, present consumer expenditures are nearly $1 million
per year.
17
-------
Since no figures are available regarding the number of air brush users
who rely on chlorofluorocarbon propellant, an estimate can be made with the
assumption that any air brush user who anticipates requiring more than six
cans of propellant costing $17 will switch to some other source of gas pres-
sure. Salesmen interviewed were in relatively good agreement that the
average user purchases only from two to four cans and then goes to some other
source. This suggests that the 330,000 cans sold annually may be purchased
by about 100,000 relatively new air brush users. Cumulative amateur air
brush owners may easily number from 250,000 to 400,000 users, the majority
of whom have switched to sources other than chlorofluorocarbons.
Restrictions on the availability of chlorofluorocarbon propellant for
air brush use would require that these 100,000 new users per year find an
alternative source. Hobby dealers report that most of their customers
choose the least expensive option--a tire adaptor costing $1.25. If as
many as 207, of serious hobbyists purchased a compressor costing $35 to $70,
the additional expenditure required would be roughly $1 million per year.
This figure is comparable to present expenditures for chlorofluorocarbon
propellant.
Three of the air brush manufacturers volunteered information that they
view any restrictions on chlorofluorocarbon use as an opportunity to develop
and introduce either an improved, low cost ($20 to $30) compressor, or inex-
pensive flow limiting regulators for use with carbon dioxide.
The impact of chlorofluorocarbon restrictions would primarily affect
amateur artists and hobbyists. Restrictions would have little if any effect
on commercial and graphic arts users according to a wide variety of users
surveyed.
18
-------
MINE WARNING DEVICE
Product Description and Utility
The purpose of the aerosol mine warning device is to warn miners through-
out the mine to evacuate when there is danger. Because the more typical
warning devices, such as alarm bells and lights, are susceptible to failure,
or sometimes cannot be seen or heard by all miners, an odor warning is em-
ployed.
The specific product involved is manufactured by Zip Aerosol Products,
and is designated as "MWD-100 Mercaptan Stench Cartridge." Each cartridge,
as supplied, contains 100 g of ethyl mercaptan, plus 1 Ib of F-ll. The func-
tion of the F-ll is not as a propellant, but primarily as a fire inhibitor
and solvent-carrier for the mercaptan. The cartridge itself is rated at 300
psi pressure, and is charged with nitrogen gas to a working pressure of 240
psi (charge pressure).—Stench warning systems have been standard in U.S.
mining practice for many years. A stench warning system is currently re-
quired in all metal and nonmetal mines.—Similar warning systems used in
construction tunneling are under OSHA regulation. Actual installations in
different mines vary somewhat in design. Each cartridge is rated to provide
a clearly detectable odor when dispersed into a specified number of cubic
feet of air per minute. Larger mines may employ two cartridges manifolded
together to provide double warning capacity. One installation in a Climax
mine uses five cartridges manifolded together.—' In laboratory tests, the
minimum detectable concentration for ethyl mercaptan is 1 part in 50 billion
parts of air.£§/ Thus, each cartridge handles a very large volume of air.
There are two basic methods of dispensing the stench into the mine ven-
tilating air systems. Where air is distributed through the mine by ordinary
(low pressure) air ducts and fans, the mercaptan and F-ll carrier are sprayed
under nitrogen pressure into the air duct. Where compressed air ventilating
systems using pipes instead of ducts are employed, the cartridge is dis-
charged into the air intake. The pressure and temperature of compressed air
in piped systems varies, but conditions of 150 psi and 180°F are frequently
encountered. On rare occasions the air temperature near the compressor may
be as high as 200°F. This temperature insures rapid vaporization of the
F-ll carrier and the mercaptan. It also creates a significant hazard of
ignition of the highly inflammable mercaptan unless an adequate fire sup-
pressant agent (F-ll or equivalent) is present.
In certain earlier stench warning systems, mercaptans were mechanically
injected directly into the air. This created an extreme hazard because of
the low flash point and autoignition temperature of ethyl mercaptan.—' >.
19
-------
It is important to understand that the purpose and function of the F-ll
used in the MWD-100 cartridge is to provide a nonflammable carrier for the
ethyl mercaptan which will volatilize along with the mercaptan, and suppress
flame at least until the mercaptan concentration in the air stream has been
diluted to below the lower explosive limit. The explosive limits for ethyl
mercaptan in air are 2.8% and 18.2% by volume.—The minimum ignition tem-
perature of the mercaptan in air is 299°C; in oxygen it is 261°C. No ingi-
tion temperature is available for air at 150 psi pressure, but by inference,
the autoignition temperature would be below 299°C--a fairly low value, indi-
cating an easily ignited vapor.
The properties of the present ingredients in the device are:
1. The nitrogen gas propellant is inert, nontoxic and nonflammable.
2. The F-ll used as a carrier for the ethyl mercaptan in relatively
inert. The occupational standard for F-ll in air has been set at 1,000
9 Q/
ppm.—— Higher concentrations can affect heart rhythms and induce fibril-
lation, but this happens primarily where a high concentration of vapor is
inhaled. The flame inhibiting properties of F-ll are weak; it is not, by
itself, a particularly efficient extinguishing agent.—
3. Ethyl mercaptan is an irritant and is toxic. The lowest concentra-
tion known to have caused toxic effects when inhaled by humans is 4 ppm.
The inhalation LCcn for rats is 4,420 ppm/4 hr. The U.S. Occupational Stan-
O Q /
dard (USOS) has been set at a ceiling level of 10 ppm in air.—'
The concentrations of ethyl mercaptan delivered in mine air to the
miners would be orders of magnitude lower than the toxic concentrations
given above (barring some unusual accident; e.g., the rupture of a stench
cartridge in an occupied room, etc.). A useful warning concentration would
be 0.01 ppm of mercaptan in air.— Thus, a relatively toxic material is
expected to be diluted into a large volume of air, rendering it virtually
without any significant inhalation toxicity hazard. This is an important
point because it indicates that the carrier used with the mercaptan need
not have a particularly low level of toxicity since it will also be diluted
in air to extremely low concentrations.
Mr. Selleck, Mitann, Incorporated, estimated that they ship approxi-
mately 1,000 cartridges per year to U.S. mines as replacements for units that
have been used. Total shipments worldwide run to about 2,000 cartridges per
year.—Thus, the quantity of F-ll discharged to the atmosphere is approxi-
mately 1,000 Ib/year.
20
-------
MESA standards currently require that stench warning systems be tested
once per year. Thus, there is reason to expect that possibly 65 to 70% of
the cartridges replaced each year were those consumed in the testing pro-
32 /
cess.—7
The removal of this product from the market without replacement by an
alternative would expose mine workers to extreme health and safety risks,
and would violate safety regulations in all metal and nonmetal mines.
Alternative Products or Systems
The major characteristics needed for an acceptable carrier include:
1. Miscibility with ethyl mercaptan at proportions of 100 g to 1 Ib of
carrier.
2. Chemical stability, noncorrosive to the DOT 300 cartridge.
3. Suppress flame or explosion over a wide range of vapor concentra-
tions of ethyl mercaptan in air. This is the main purpose behind the use of
a volatile carrier.
4. Vapor pressure characteristics approximately similar to those of
F-ll. The key requirement is a vapor pressure below 250 psig at 140°F. Ad-
ditionally, the pressure must not drop appreciably at low temperatures; e.g.,
35°F.
5. Relatively low toxic hazards. Although it might be acceptable for
this particular application to use compounds having toxic properties, a much
lower toxic level would be preferable.
F-ll, while itself completely nonflammable, is not a particularly good
flame suppressing agent.32/ Among the technically feasible flame suppres-
sants that could be employed as replacements for F-ll are:
21
-------
Carrier Type
Bromochloro-
methane
Candidate Replacements for F-ll
Designation B.P. V.P. Underwriters
(Halon No.) (°F) (70°F) Toxicity Class
1011
153
USDS-/
TWA 200 ppm
Dibromomethane
Dibromodifluoro-
methane
1202
143
73 15 psia
N.A.
N.A.
TWA 100 ppm
Bromochlorodi-
fluoromethane
1211
24.8 36 psia
5a
Bromotrifluoro-
methane
1301
-72 200 psia
N.A.
Mixtures of 1202
and 1301
Mixtures of 1211
and 1011
a/ USOS indicates that an occupational standard has been set for industrial
exposures to this agent. TWA = time weighted average.
The properties of the following carriers should rule out their consid-
eration for the reasons cited:
* Dibromotetrafluoroethane - (Halon 2402). Believed to be a cardiac
sensitizer at levels of 500 ppm. Excellent extinguishing properties
do not offset risks.—' This compound could potentially play a role
in the ozone depletion hypothesis.
29/
* Methyl bromide - High toxicity, CNS poison; USOS air: CL 20 ppm.—
* 1,1,1-Trichloroethane - Limited flame suppression, despite relatively
low toxicity.— Theoretically has been shown to result in ozone
depletion.
22
-------
In discussions with Mr. Lewis Kirk of Du Pont, he suggested the use of
mixtures of either Halon 1202 plus 1301, or 1211 with 1301. By choosing the
appropriate proportions, the vapor pressure of the mixture can be matched
fairly well to that provided by F-ll alone. H'
The combination of bromochloromethane (Halon 1011) with either 1211 or
1301 appears to be a promising possibility for reformulating the carrier.
Similar mixtures incorporating dibromomethane (methylene bromide) offer ad-
33 /
ditional possibilities .—
Bromochloromethane (Halon 1011), should also be considered alone as the
carrier. Although its boiling point is somewhat higher than that of F-ll, it
still is a volatile solvent compatible with ethyl mercaptan--and a much more
powerful extinguishing agent than any of the nonbrominated chlorof luorocar-
bons . Bromochloromethane is considerably less expensive than the fluorinated
Halon extinguishing agents although it is more expensive than F-ll. Despite
the fact that for long-term exposures, Halon 1011 is several times more toxic
than F-ll (i.e., occupational standards of 1,000 ppm for F-ll versus 200 ppm
for bromochloromethane, based on 5-day, 8-hr exposure), there is little rea-
son to expect any significant increase in the practical hazards involved for
short-term exposure as diluted down in large volumes of mine air. The ma-
jor reasons for considering blends of bromochloromethane with the other
Halon extinguishing agents would be to obtain a more desirable vapor pres-
sure temperature relationship, or to benefit from the incorporation of 1301.
(Halon 1301 is presently the best extinguisher possessing low toxicity, but
33 /
it has a high vapor pressure.)—
Economic Considerations
Since 1 Ib of carrier is used in each cartridge, the additional cost to
users of alternative carriers can be calculated directly if single agents
are employed. The cost of mixtures can only be roughly estimated until the
composition is known.
Cost of Present and Potential Carriers
Carrier used
Price/lb
Additional cost/cartridge
F-ll
1011
1211
1202
1301
Mixtures
$0.36
1.20
1.79
3.75
2.15
None - (currently used)
$0.84
3.39
1.79
$1.00 to $2.50
23
-------
Changing to a different carrier would also incur substantial delay time
to obtain any needed approval from MESA, OSHA, ICC, insurance carriers, etc.
At this time it is not possible to estimate the difficulty and delay involved
in clearing any change in carrier used. Because most of the proposed car-
riers are in commercial use as fire extinguishing agents (F-ll is not), no
insurmountable obstacle is known at present to obtaining clearance to employ
these agents in the mine warning device.
Mr. Ralph Foster, of the ventilation section of MESA, expressed his be-
lief that the study and approval of some technically satisfactory replace-
ment cartridge could be completed within 6 months to 1 year; certainly no
oo /
longer than 5 years.—' He also indicated that MESA was currently searching
for improved stench warning agents that might offer advantages over ethyl
mercaptan.
24
-------
MOLD RELEASE AGENTS
Product Description and Utility
Release agents are used extensively in plastics molding, rubber mold-
ing and foundries. Sprays, such as aqueous emulsions and solvent solutions,
are suitable as release agents for metal castings. Both emulsion systems
and, to a limited extent, chlorofluorocarbon-propelled aerosols find appli-
cation in the rubber molding industry. Because of special requirements in
plastics molding for intricate shapes and fine surface finishes, the chloro-
fluorocarbon-propelled aerosols are used extensively in this area. Other
release systems currently being utilized will not provide the surface finish
obtained by the use of chlorofluorocarbon propelled systems.
Propellants utilized in mold release compositions are mixtures of
F-ll and F-12. Functional silicones dominate the market (75 to 80%) as
the active release component,— but very finely divided fluorocarbon poly-
mers (Vydax®), waxes, zinc stearate, lecithin, and other compositions are
also used. > ' The aerosols, solvent sprays, and emulsions may contain
as little as 1 to 370 of the active mold release agent.—
Plastic Molding--
Because of the requirements for intricate shapes and fine surface fin-
ishes, an extremely fine spray of mold release agent that will deposit a
film only a few microns thick on the mold surface is required. In order
to achieve such a film, good wetting and spreading properties are required
for the compositions. Chlorofluorocarbons, because of their low surface ten-
sion, are well suited as solvents for this purpose. Propellants other than
chlorofluorocarbons have a tendency to produce imperfect surfaces on the
plastic; i.e., striations, blisters, etc. The mold release composition must
also be compatible with the plastic; i.e., have solvency properties that
would not tend to degrade molded surfaces.3o?39/ Chlorofluorocarbons are
poor solvents for most commercial plastics. Mold release agents should be
free of water or other foreign material that might be deposited on mold sur-
face. They should also be noncombustible and nontoxic in the work environ-
ment. It is estimated that approximately 1.9 to 2.3 million pounds of
chlorofluorocarbons are used annually as propellants for plastic mold re-
lease agents.—
Release agents may or may not be applied directly to molds at high tem-
perature; however, even when molds are not hot, heating bands in the vicin-
ity of the molds may be at temperatures of 600°F.r-Z/ As an example of a hot
mold application, release agents are applied to spinnerette plates at 305°C
in the hot melt spinning of nylon and polyester to prevent the bending and
flicking of fibers or monofilaments as they leave the die.
25
-------
Plastics molding lines may be adapted to "short runs" of different kinds
of plastics, each plastic material requiring a mold release agent specific to
the composition. One release application may be adequate for as many as 50
to 75 mold cycles.—'
The principal impacts of the removal of F-ll/12 as a propellant system
for mold release agents will probably occur in the economic sector. This
impact will result from a loss in the aesthetic qualities currently pos-
sessed by molded plastic products due to a loss in the fine, smooth surface
finish currently available with the F-ll/12 propellant systems. In other
applications, such as medical supplies and equipment, surface finishes may
play an important role in the proper function of the equipment.
Rubber Molding--
With the advent of sophisticated synthetic materials, the differentia-
tion between plastics and rubber molding is not sharp. For example, cer-
tain thermoplastic elastomers could be classed in either category. In gen-
eral, the considerations for the two groups are similar with the following
exceptions. Often rubber products are not subject to the requirements of a
fine surface finish; therefore, the properties of release agents may be less
critical.—' Molds used in the rubber industry may be hot enough to flash
off water, enabling the utilization of emulsion-type release agents.—uLL'
It is reported that F-ll/12 propellant mixtures are not generally used in
the rubber molding industry except in those instances where an extremely
fine surface finish is required.—' The very small quantities of F-ll/12
used for these purposes would not change the consumption figures stated
earlier for plastic molding to any appreciable extent. In addition to the
chlorofluorocarbon-propelled aerosols, aqueous and solvent sprays contain-
ing release agents are utilized in the rubber molding industry.
Alternative Products or Systems
Hydrocarbon-Propelled Release Agents—
Hydrocarbons as solvents and propellants provide the necessary spray
characteristics, but are highly flammable. In addition, they may not be
compatible with some plastics. Flammability requirements can be met with
formulations approximating a composition with 20% hydrocarbon, 75% 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, and 5% active ingredient;—however, 1,1,1-trichloroethane
has poor surface tension properties and does not promote good wetting of the
mold surfaces.£2.' The slower evaporation rate of 1,1,1-trichloroethane in-
troduces production problems. Hydrocarbon propellant systems with water
added to reduce flammability produce an unsuitable surface film due to in-
sufficient particle size. This can lead to a product with a rough, uneven
surface finish.rZ'
26
-------
Fluorocarbon-22-Propelled Release Agents--
This propellant system could meet the technical requirements for mold
release solvents and propellants.
Airless Sprays, Air Sprays, and Electrostatic Sprays--
Although these modes of delivery of mold release agents may be employed
in foundry and rubber applications, they are not suitable for plastics mold-
ing. •? In general, these devices dispense relatively large quantities
in a large particle size—' and tend to deposit coatings rather than thin
films.— When fine finishes are not required, air and airless sprays may be
used to deposit coatings of release agents on molds. Solvents in which re-
lease agents are sold for spraying include mineral spirits (flash point
130°F), methylene chloride, and fluorocarbon-113.—
Carbon Dioxide-Propelled Release Agents--
Carbon dioxide does not dissolve functional silicones to aid in aerosol
dispersion so that even when mechanical break-up valves are used, the spray
is too wet and nonuniform. Methylene chloride can be used as a cosolvent
with carbon dioxide propellant, but its odor is a problem in the workplace
(may cause nausea and other potential health problems after prolonged ex-
posure in confined areas). Inaccessible areas in a mold may require inver-
sion of the spray with consequent depletion of the noncondensable propellant
charge.
Economic Considerations
Hydrocarbon Propellants--
Conversion to flammable hydrocarbon-propelled mold release agents would
result in increased product liability and other insurance costs to plastics
molders. These costs would be passed on to the public or to intermediaries
such as appliance and automobile manufacturers and finally to the public.
MRI is unable to accurately forecast the increase in product cost which
would result from the increased product liability and other insurance costs
incurred by the manufacturers.
Spray Systerns--
Conversion to sprays would increase the cost of molded products by rea-
son of production inefficiencies and parts rejections. A determination of
specific molded plastic products that might be discontinued in the absence
of fluorocarbon-propelled release agents is not possible, because the chloro-
fluorocarbon propellants have been available to molders throughout the rapid
development of the plastics molding industry during the past 25 years.
27
-------
General Economics-^-'-ti-'
Industries may depend on plastic molding techniques to achieve and main-
tain a competitive stance against world competition. For example, the ailing
labor-intensive U.S. shoe industry, whose domestic production dropped from
536 million pairs of shoes in 1971 to 434 million pairs in 1975 because of
import competition with a consequent closing of 29 plants and loss of 17,000
jobs in Missouri alone, is developing modern production methods to regain its
competitive position. Among the new methods is the extensive use of molded
plastic components, particularly soles and even the direct injection molding
of soles onto uppers. While the production of soles would not require the
smooth finish properties provided by the F-ll/12 propellants, these proper-
ties would be required for the molded upper parts of the shoe.
28
-------
LUBRICANTS
Both solid and liquid lubricants are packaged in aerosol containers
that have fluorocarbon propellants. For clarity of presentation, solid
lubricants and liquid lubricants are discussed separately below.
Solid Lubricants
Product Description and Utility—
Solid lubricants are packaged in small aerosol containers for use by
the general public, in industrial applications, and in governmental main-
tenance of equipment. These lubricants are used primarily for maintenance
and preventative maintenance purposes with minor uses in material forming
and machinery assembly areas. These lubricants usually consist of a solid
powder(s) dispersed in a resin thinned with a light solvent. Nearly all
aerosol-sprayed solid lubricants will be flammable because the light sol-
vent is packaged with a chlorofluorocarbon propelling agent. Current govern-
ment and military specifications (e.g., MIL-L 23398B) for aerosol solid
lubricants allow propellants other than a hologenated alkane to be used.
The fluorocarbon propellant most widely used is F-12. The amount of
F-12 consumed annually in aerosol solid lubricant applications cannot be
estimated because of the diversity of the consumer market and the wide
variety of products available. In general, however, the removal of F-12
propelled products from the market should have no adverse effects on environ-
mental quality, human health, or human safety.
Alternative Products or Systems —
Brush applications--This method could be used whenever film thickness
and uniformity are not critical. Brush applications will only satisfy a
very small fraction of current uses.
Dip applications—This method can be used whenever the viscosity and
uniformity of the lubricant slurry can be closely controlled. Industrial
users which can apply these lubricants at a station in a production line
will be able to effectively use this coating method.
Alternate propellants--A number of propellant gases other than F-12
could be used. Hydrocarbons or hydrocarbons with a fire suppressant added
would be suitable in many cases. Compressed gases, such as carbon dioxide
or nitrogen, could be used in most applications.
29
-------
Economic Consideration—
Conversion of existing F-12 filling units to hydrocarbons—This can be
a costly procedure depending upon the required filling capacity. Conversion
costs for a small capacity filling system (1 million units per year) are in
the range of $75,000 to $100,000.£/ Construction of only the explosion-
proof room can be $25,000 to $30,000.^i/ Bodily injury liability premiums
for hydrocarbon lines are dependent upon the type of coverage required.
For $400,000 coverage, the annual cost is approximately $40,000; for
$2,000,000 coverage, the annual cost for limited coverage is about $150,000.—
Local zoning laws may also prevent such conversions. These costs may not
pose a serious threat to manufacturers because most of the aerosol solid
lubricants are contractor filled.
In cases where this conversion from F-12 to hydrocarbon units is made
by the manufacturer, all the above costs would be passed on to the consumer
in the form of higher prices. Because of the uncertainties involved, the
per unit price increase cannot be estimated.
Contract filling—Contract filling costs are the same regardless of the
propellant utilized in the aerosol product. Costs for the empty aerosol
cans and the valves are, in general, independent of the number of units to
be filled. A common aerosol valve costs $0.036/unit.*£.' The empty cans
cost $0.10/can (8-oz size), $0.12/can (12-oz size), and $0.13/can (16-oz
size).— Filling costs depend upon the number of units filled and typical
costs are $0.25/unit for 10,000 units and $0.06/unit for 2 to 3 million
Q I
units on an annual production volume basis.—
The product cost to the consumer should not increase if alternate pro-
pellants or hydrocarbon propellants are supplied by contract fillers.
Prefilled aerosol containers For small companies producing rela-
tively low volume products, the use of aerosol containers, prefilled with
hydrocarbon propellant, may be a feasible solution. With this system, the
only ingredient added to the container is the active ingredient. An auto-
matic loader capable of filling 60 units/hr (approximately 122,000 units/
year) can be purchased for $1,000 to $1,200. The cost of the prefilled
cans is as follows:
< 600 cans—cost is $1.22/unit
> 600 cans—cost is $1.15/unit
~ 10,000 cans—cost is $1.10/unit
~ 100,000 cans—cost is approximately $1.00 to $1.05/unit
Manufacturers that use prefilled aerosol containers will not have to
increase prices if they switch to hydrocarbon propellants.
30
-------
Switching to an alternate propellant will require some reformulation of
existing products. In many instances, this reformulation may only involve
the solvent system. However, testing is required, and in some cases products
will have to be requalified to a specification. Reformulation, testing, and
requalification is expected to require $3,000 to $10,000 per product. Con-
sumers will have to bear this cost increase, which should be negligible in
most cases on a per unit basis.
The cost of brush and dip applications are lower than aerosol applica-
tions because of reduced packaging costs.
Liquid Lubricants
Product Description and Utility--
Liquid lubricants packaged and supplied in aerosol containers are used
by the general public, in industrial applications, and in the maintenance
of government equipment. Specific types of lubricants include pentrating
oils, gear and roller chain lubricants, clock oils, and general purpose oils.
These oils are chiefly petroleum oils, but may include synthetic lubricants
such as di(2-ethylhexyl) sebacate, silicones, or fluorocarbons, with appro-
priate additives to meet specific applications. Rust preventative oils may
be similarly formulated, packaged, and applied, but may or may not function
as lubricants. The chlorofluorocarbon most commonly used as the propellant
is F-12.
The amount of F-12 consumed annually in aerosol liquid lubricants can-
not be estimated because of the diversity of the consumer market and the
wide variety of products available. The removal of F-12 propelled products
from the market, however, should have no adverse effects on environmental
quality, human health, or human safety.
Alternative Products or Systems--
Carbon dioxide propellant--Although devices with carbon dioxide propel-
lants provide a coarser spray, such spray characteristics are suitable for
lubricating and penetrating oil applications. Because of cost factors, many
suppliers have already converted to carbon dioxide propellants from halo-
carbons.—' The good solubility of carbon dioxide in hydrocarbon oils makes
this propellant a technically acceptable alternative.
Hydrocarbon propellant--Since aerosol lubricant or penetrating oil com-
positions may contain as much as 357o light hydrocarbon oil along with propel-
lant and vapor pressure depressants which will evaporate quickly, and since
the chlorofluorocarbons will depress flame extension only when the flammable
ingredient does not exceed 20 to 22%, the oil mists must be regarded as
31
-------
potentially flammable.— In view of the flammability of the oil, it would
appear that hydrocarbon propellants may be used in certain applications if
the containers show appropriate warnings.
Compressed air propellant--Continuous aerosol lubrication in industrial-
centralized lubrications systems for bearings, gears, and slides can be pro-
vided with compressed air aerosol devices.—
Solvent-carried lubricants—The use of 1,1,1-trichloroethane in liquid
lubricant solutions may be used as an alternative to chlorofluorocarbon-
propelled aerosols for lubricating places difficult to reach. After the
trichloroethane evaporates, a thin film of the lubricant remains.
Drip, brush, bath, and spray methods—These methods can be used in most
applications involving gear and chain lubrication.
Oilcans, handguns, or pump bottles—Depending on the configuration of
the parts to be lubricated, these devices may be adequate applicators for
many consumer and industrial applications.
Economic Considerations--
The economics of converting existing F-12 filling units to hydrocarbons,
of contract filling alternative propellants, or of switching to prefilled
aerosol containers for liquid lubricants is similar to that discussed pre-
viously for solid lubricants. Replacement of F-12-propelled aerosol liquid
lubricants with applications by drip, brush, bath, and spray methods, or with
applications from oilcans, handguns, or pump bottles, should result in re-
duced consumer costs, since the expensive aerosol cans are not required for
these application techniques.2?9?37?48-50/
32
-------
BATTERY TERMINAL PROTECTION
Product Description and Utility
This aerosol product consists primarily of a lightweight hydrocarbon oil
which is applied to the terminals of new and used batteries as a corrosion
preventative measure. F-12 is used in this product primarily as the aerosol
propellant system, although its presence will also lend some degree of non-
flammability to the hydrocarbon oil product. However, container labeling ,
presently cautions on flammability and warns against use near heat or flame.—
Battery terminal protection products are used only for industrial and
professional purposes and are not available to the general public.—' Although
no further information was obtained concerning the definition of the specific
work force, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the primary focus of
this product would be towards those employed in the installation of new bat-
teries or the reconditioning of used batteries (i.e., repair garages, auto-
motive agencies, etc.). In view of the use areas of this product, the non-
flammability characteristics provided by the F-12 propellant do not appear
to be mandatory. The total quantity of F-12 consumed annually for this spe-
cific application is unknown but is estimated by MRI to be small. Removal of
this product from the marketplace without replacement by an alternative would
presumably lead to an increase in battery terminal corrosion. Aside from
this factor, there would be no known impacts on environmental quality, human
health or safety resulting from removal of this product from the market with-
out replacement by an alternative.
Alternative Methods of Application
The following methods are feasible alternatives to the product type un-
der consideration.—'
Hydrocarbon Aerosol Products--
The use of a mixture of hydrocarbons would be a natural selection since
the active ingredient is a hydrocarbon oil. If necessary or desirable, small
quantities of chlorinated hydrocarbons could be added to improve nonflammabil-
ity characteristics. No formulation problems should occur with this product.
The same aerosol valves and containers can be used as for the present product
containing F-12.1^/
Carbon Dioxide Propellant--
This product type can be dispensed using carbon dioxide as the propel-
lant, although the spray may be somewhat more coarse and at higher pressure
than with a hydrocarbon or F-12 propellant. However, neither spray charac-
teristics nor spray pressure should have any effect on the utility of this
product.
33
-------
F-22 Propellant--
If available, this chlorofluorocarbon would be an acceptable alternative.
No problems would be anticipated in converting from F-12 to F-22 for this
product.
CO /
Mechanical Pump Delivery--—'
This method has been chosen by East Penn Manufacturing Company, Inc., a
manufacturer of battery terminal protection spray. This company is currently
reformulating their product for use in manual mechanical pump spray contain-
ers. According to a company spokesman, the new container package should be
on the market in January 1978.
Economic Consideration;
.527
At the present time, a 12-oz aerosol container of this product costs
$2.00. The cost of the product using the mechanical pump spray delivery sys-
tem has not been ascertained as yet, but the manufacturer anticipates the cost
to be either the same as, or slightly less than, the current product.
34
-------
PAPER PRODUCTS FRICTIONIZING TREATMENT INDICATOR
Product Description and Utility
Special indicator solutions are applied from small aerosol containers in
quality control inspections during the manufacture of corrugated shipping
boxes and large paper bags that have been treated with frictionizing agents
(e.g., colloidal silica or alumina) to make skid-resistant, safer products.
Fifteen to 20 different brand name frictionizing products—' are used, in-
cluding six principal classes as follows: (a) aqueous dispersions of col-
loidal silicas,.^/ (b) modified colloidal silica dispersions,—' (c) disper-
sion of fumed colloidal alumina,— (d) latex dispersions,-^*^"/ (e) nOnskid
varnishes,—' and (f) mixtures of colloidal oxides.^'
The performance of the frictionizing agent can be determined by sliding
friction tests on the product,53,56,59,607 t,ut a visuai inspection method is
desirable for quality control in manufacturing to monitor the uniformity and
amount of the frictionizing treatment. ^~°-*/ Fluorescent dyes, which could
be mixed with the frictionizing agent, were introduced for this purpose in
the 1950's, but were largely replaced during the 1960's by a silico-sensitive
indicator which gives a color when applied to treated paper products. The
indicator solutions may be applied efficiently and conveniently from an aero-
sol container, but can also be applied by other methods. The current produc-
tion of aerosol indicator solutions is about 12,000 cans per year, according
to Du Pont sources.—'
The indicator solution must wet the surface thoroughly, dry rapidly, and
give a reasonably accurate measure of the frictionizing agent's presence.
The composition may vary with the nature of the agent employed, but usually
contains a color-forming chemical and an appropriate solvent. An indicator
solution patented by E. I. du Pont de Nemours contains a chemical selected
from the class of "lower-alkylamino substituted triphenylmethane lactones,"££'
such as 3,3-bis(4-dimethylaminophenyl)-6 dimethylaminophthalide .—' The sol-
vent must not be reactive with the dye and should have a boiling point less
than 130°C. Suitable solvents include: aromatic hydrocarbons (e.g., benzene,
toluene, xylenes), chlorinated solvents (e.g., ethylene dichloride), and
ketones ^e.g., acetone). The aerosol indicator presently marketed by Du Pont
is said to contain a 0.887o solution of the lactone dye in xylene solvent with
about 80% of the fluid contents consisting of chlorofluorocarbon propellent
(a 50/50 mixture of F-ll and F-12).
Removal of the F-11/12 propelled product from the market would have no
obvious adverse effects on environmental quality, human health, or human
safety.
35
-------
Alternative Products or Systems
The alternatives to the use of chlorofluorocarbon-propelled aerosol in-
dicator solutions include: other aerosol sprays, nonaerosol sprays, and
mechanical methods. Potential alternative aerosol systems are summarized in
Table 2-1 and the nonaerosol systems in Table 2-2.
TABLE 2-1. ALTERNATIVE AEROSOL SYSTEMS
Vapor pressure (psig)
Propellant type Boiling point (°F) 70°F 130°F
Carbon dioxide -
Hydrocarbons
Isobutane 11 45 110
Propane -44 124 274
n-Butane -1
Propylene -54 171 387
"Aerothane" system
N20 -127 755
MM (MeCl2 + N20) -
TT (TCE + N20) -
Chlorofluorocarbons
F-142b 15 44 107
F-227a -16 80 193
F-218 -38 - -
F-310 -28 - -
Bladder system aerosols
Kain "Eco-Pure"
Plant "SELVAC"
Other types
36
-------
TABLE 2-2. ALTERNATIVE NONAEROSOL SYSTEMS
Sprays
Air-line spray guns
Air-brush type sprayers
Compressed air spray bombs
Hand-pumped compressed air sprayers
Finger- or trigger-sprayers
Proprietary mechanical spray cans (nonrefillable)
Nonsprays
Sponge-top applicators
Fountain-roller applicators
Brush-top applicators
Du Pont technical personnel have stated that a satisfactory propellant
system based upon carbon dioxide has been developed and tested in their labo-
ratory for a period of 60 days or longer. Because this alternative appears
to meet the requirements for indicator solution application, Du Pont intends
to switch to this system as rapidly as their packager can convert the filling
facility to use carbon dioxide.—
At least two other suppliers of proprietary indicator solutions have
stated that they have developed satisfactory application systems not based on
the use of chlorofluorocarbons. Cabot Corporation is developing a finger- •
pump spray applicator.—' Nalco Chemical Company is evaluating both a
sponge-top applicator and a non-F-ll/12-propelled spray can package.—'
Economic Considerations
Conversion to carbon dioxide as an alternate propellant would require
modification of existing lines, according to Du Pont sources. The cost to
users is not expected to be affected significantly.—/ Other suppliers of
proprietary indicator solutions also indicate that alternative application
systems are available, and that there should be little economic impact on
the container industry.68'69'
37
-------
ELECTRONIC CLEANERS
Product Description and Utility
These aerosol products find widespread usage in military, industrial,
and consumer applications for the cleaning and maintenance of optical instru-
ments, television cameras and receivers, telephone equipment, computers, medi-
cal equipment, aircraft navigation systems, satellite communication systems,
radar and microwave systems, and of numerous other items. The market for
these products is so wide and diffuse that the amount of annual consumption
of F-12 in their use is not estimated.
The aerosol electronic cleaners currently on the market employ the use
of l,l,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane (F-113) as the active cleaning sol-
vent and either F-12 or carbon dioxide as the aerosol propellant. This re-
port will be concerned only with the use of F-12 as the aerosol propellant,
and no consideration will be given to the subject of the substitutability of
F-113 as the cleaning solvent.
At the present time, all military specifications of this product in aero-
sol form require the use of F-12 as the propellant.— One of the largest
volume products used by the Department of Defense is MIL-C-81302B. Of the
large electronic manufacturers having company specifications, essentially all
employ the use of F-12 as the propellant.—' In 1976, Western Electric Com-
pany, Inc., changed from F-12 to carbon dioxide as the propellant.— In the
retail consumer product trade, large quantities of electronic cleaners are
sold for do-it-yourself television tuner cleaning and to professional televi-
sion repairmen. Many of the products in this area utilize carbon dioxide as
the propellant.22.'
For retail trade items normally purchased or used by the general public,
the removal of the F-12 propelled product from the market would have no known
adverse impacts on environmental quality, human health, or human safety.
Alternative Products or Systems
From information stated in the previous section, it is readily apparent
that an alternative propellant system does exist; in fact, it is currently
used in some commercial (retail trade) products. The existing problem is
concerned with the current specifications, both military and industrial,
which require the use of F-12 as the propellant system. In all probability,
most of the industrial specifications for F-12 relate to the military speci-
fications since these companies are large suppliers of electronic equipment
to the military.Z±/ Military specifications have been compiled based on
their own series of tests and use conditions. Some of the conditions under
38
I
-------
which these products may be used are not necessarily those found for normal
commercial (retail trade) applications.—' The criteria for the military use
of electronic cleaners should be considered, but it is beyond the scope and
intent of this brief report to evaluate the specific reasons for the military
requirements for F-12 as the propellant. This is an intragovernmental prob-
lem that should be resolved by the concerned agencies.
With regard to military systems or highly developed electronic systems
currently employed by industries such as airlines, the applicability of al-
ternative systems is unknown at the present time. Thus, no statement can be
made at this time regarding the impact on human health or safety for these
use areas.
Carbon Dioxide--
The use of impact-filled carbon dioxide is an obvious alternative, since
it is currently utilized in some consumer products. This propellant system
has higher internal pressures and the pressure of the resultant spray may
cause some damage to very delicate electronic parts.—' The higher pressure,
however, provides some cleaning action due solely to the force of the
spray.— In terms of spray characteristics, the carbon dioxide is a more
coarse spray than F-12, but this should not prove to be a detriment in nor-
mal applications.
Hydrocarbons--
These are not acceptable propellants because of flammability character-
istics. The addition of sufficient quantities of chlorinated hydrocarbons to
render the propellant system nonflammable will also result in a propellant
system with detrimental properties towards the electronic components.—'
Most chlorinated hydrocarbons are not compatible with the plastic materials
used in the construction of electronic components.Z/
Compressed Gases (Exclusive of CC^)--
Compressed gas systems are generally unacceptable due to the pressure
reduction as the volume of the contents decreases. For certain instances
in which portability and purity of the resultant spray would not be important
factors, it may be possible to employ a compressed air line (e.g., air-line
spray guns or airbrush-type sprayers) as the propellant system.
F-22 as a Propellant--
F-22 could be used as an alternative propellant system for most compo-
nent systems if it were available.—^-=-' This propellant may have a detri-
mental effect on some component parts, but in general, would be acceptable.
Mechanical Delivery Systems--—'
New mechanical systems in the developmental stages (e.g., Twist-N-Mist®,
etc.) may prove to be acceptable alternatives if hermetically-sealed systems
39
-------
can be developed. Since most of these systems are not in the commercial pro-
duction stages, the time requirement may be a year or more before sufficient
quantities would be available.
Economic Considerations
Carbon Dioxide--
The use of carbon dioxide as the propellent system would prove to be
advantageous to the consumer. At the present time, F-12 pressurized units
contain approximately 75% F-113 and 257= F-12. Using carbon dioxide, the unit
would contain about 95% F-113 and 5% propellant.^t2/ The cost of the two
packaged systems is essentially the same since the decrease in price due to
propellent is balanced by the increased amount of F-113.
F-22--
The use of F-22 as a propellant should require no changes for the manu-
facturer. Consumer prices should remain essentially the same as for F-12.
Although F-22 currently costs 50% more than F-12, a pressure depressant would
be used in the propellant mixture. Currently available materials used as de-
pressants cost about one-half that of F-12 so that the total package balances
to approximately the same cost.—'
Mechanical Delivery Systems--
Actual costs on these systems are not specifically known at this time.
It has been stated that their cost would be the same as the current aerosol
containers but these are only estimates.—'
40
-------
BURGLAR ALARM SYSTEM
Product Description and Utility
This device is offered by a single manufacturer under the name Falcon
Sentry® for use in homes, industry, and business. It is a mechanically trig-
gered, spring activated, F-12 powered, horn alarm.— The sole function of
the F-12 is to provide gas power for the horn. A 2-oz container of F-12 is
the power source. When attached to a door or window, the alarm unit performs
the function of alerting occupants that an entry has been attempted, and/or
to frighten the intruder away by the sound of the alarm.
The principal point regarding the performance of this type of horn alarm
is the loudness of the sound produced. These units produce sound levels of
approximately 100 to 110 decibles (db) at 10 ft and can be heard for distances
up to 1 mile when sounded outdoors. A typical loudness test is said to be ap-
proximately 106 db.—' The reliability of alarm systems must be as high as
possible. These alarms are intended to remain operable in stand-by condition
for many years without need for attention. A disadvantage of battery-powered
systems is the need for periodic power source replacement. However, the F-12
powered alarms do not carry the Underwriters Laboratory (UL) seal, because
they do not meet the sound time requirements of the recently established UL
standards. » These standards require an alarm to sound for 1/2 hr; this
alarm sounds for 1 to 2 min. The alarm does meet or exceed the other UL test
standards. Compliance with the UL standards is used by several insurance un-
derwriters in qualifying premises for reduced rates on burglary coverage.—'
Although the F-12 powered alarms have been marketed since 1973, neither
sales figures nor company estimates are available for the number of units ac-
tivated each year. This is because the same refill cartridge is used to power
many of the company's other products. It is felt by MRI that 5,000 to 8,000
units discharged per year would be a generous estimate. This is equivalent
to total F-12 emissions of 625 to 1,000 Ib/year.
It is very difficult to attempt an assessment of the known or potential
impacts on human safety or property loss which would result from the removal
of this product from the market. As will be discussed later, several elec-
trical or battery powered burglar alarms are available. These units do not
generate the high sound levels of the F-12 alarm. Thus, the basic considera-
tion becomes an evaluation of how many intrusions were deterred by the F-12
alarm that would not have been accomplished by the other units at lower sound
levels. There are no known statistics to assist in an evaluation of this
type and any attempts would be primarily conjecture.
41
-------
Alternative Products or Systems
Related Devices--
Electrical or battery powered burglar alarms are available from a large
number of manufacturers or suppliers.—The acoustic devices employed in-
clude buzzers, horns, sirens, electronic whoopers, gongs, and bells. The
nearest equivalent in sound level to the F-12 powered horn would be the elec-
trically driven klaxon type (automotive) horn.—' Most residential units
utilize smaller and simpler sounding devices that generate 85 to 90 db at 10
ft. The battery powered alarm units generally sell at prices less than $15,
and often emphasize portability with a sacrifice in effectiveness.—
Alternative Power Sources--
Carbon dioxide--Carbon dioxide gas could be used to power a horn alarm
from a "sparklet" type cartridge. Complete redesign would be required to
solve the problems of pressure reduction, leakage, duration of the sound,
etc. Previous attempts to use carbon dioxide for fire alarms have been un-
successful due to low capacity and leakage.—' One type of intrusion alarm
using carbon dioxide is currently on the market (Sunbeam Stop Alarm®; Sunbeam
Corporation; approximately $10).—' This device resembles a door stop which
incorporates a carbon dioxide cartridge and a special whistle. When acti-
vated by attempting to force the door open, the unit produces a series of
about 20 2-sec blasts. This alarm is not intended for windows or other entry
points.
F-22 '--This chlorofluorocarbon would be an acceptable alternative for
the F-12 powered alarm. The manufacturer had planned to switch to F-22 until
Du Pont decided not to offer the product for such purposes pending further
toxicological testing.
Hydrocarbon mixtures—'--The use of a mixture of isobutane and propane
would be a feasible method to power the alarm horn. However, the inherent
risk of fire and explosion and the premiums for product liability coverage
make this approach unacceptable to the manufacturer. Development of a hydro-
carbon mixture containing sufficient additives to render the mixture nonflam-
mable while still maintaining a usable pressure would be a possible alterna-
tive.
Battery power—If the F-12 powered alarm were completely redesigned, a
battery operated system could be developed that would be similar to other
intrusion alarms currently on the market.—' With the present state of the
art for dry cells and electric horns, it is not possible to achieve the sound
level provided by the current system. Electric horns equivalent in loudness
to a small F-12 powered unit would draw 2.5 to 3.5 amp at 12 v.—' Conven-
tional batteries are not available to supply this level of power.
42
-------
Economic Considerations
F-22™/--
The use of an alternative chlorofluorocarbon (i.e., F-22) could be ac-
complished at relatively moderate cost when and if clearance to use such prod-
ucts can be obtained. Heavier walled containers, necessitated by the in-
creased pressure of F-22, would add about 10% to the consumer cost. Increased
cost for the F-22 would be approximately 3c/refill.
Hydrocarbon Mixtures--
If the development of a nonflammable hydrocarbon mixture would occur, it
would appear that this mixture could be an alternative. The precise increase
in cost to the consumer is unknown but may be of the same order of magnitude
as for F-22.
Other Power Sources--
All other alternative power sources discussed would require a complete
redesign of the alarm concept. MRI feels that the manufacturer would not at-
tempt to develop alarms based on totally new principles and would drop this
segment of their business. It is not possible to place a dollar value on the
benefit derived by consumers who choose to install F-12 powered intrusion
alarms on their premises. The total impact of this type of alarm on the over-
all security field is exceedingly small and a wide variety of alternate types
of alarm systems is available to the user at widely varying costs.ZZ/
43
-------
PORTABLE-ACOUSTIC WARNING DEVICES
Product Description and Utility
Fluorocarbon-powered portable acoustic warning and signaling devices are
manually operated horns which produce a controlled signal, when compressed
F-12 is allowed to escape through an acoustical device. The customary horn
device incorporates a diaphragm which is pulsed by the escaping F-12 against
the horn throat, creating sound waves of a frequency, range and loudness
determined by the dimensions of the driver parts, the projector trumpet or
horn bell, and the physical and mechanical properties of the F-12 gas employed,
These warning devices are usually classified by either the size of the
F-12 container, or by the size and length of the horn trumpet employed;
the power, loudness, and audibility of the horns vary significantly. Typical
F-12 containers for portable horns range in size from a 2-oz can for palm-
and pocket-size units, through 8-, 12-, 14- and 16-oz cans, and seldom exceed
32 oz, the size of an ICC-approved canister.
It is estimated that more than 807» of the portable gas-powered horns
marketed are sold by these 10 firms: '—
Falcon Safety Products
Signaltone, .Inc.
Buell Mfg. Co.
Grover Products
Spartan Mfg. Co.
Nautiloid Corp.
Penguin Products
Gem Marine Products
Zurn Division of Atwood Corp.
Clark-Cooper Corp.
Altogether, F-12 powered horns are available from 35 to 40 distributors, most
Q I /
of whom are associated with marine supplies,— and many packagers fill and
supply the equipment manufacturers with F-12 replacement cans.
Portable or mounted acoustic warning devices powered by F-12 were
initially introduced about 1954 for use as warning and signaling devices for
boats. The major use continues to be associated with boating, and the F-12
powered horns are frequently called "boat horns" even though they are used
for many nonmarine signaling and warning applications today. Some of these
other applications include: bicycle horns, personal protection alarms,
security alarms, distress signals, and communication signals.
Boat Horns--
Horns powered by F-12 are widely used in boating. Over 50.5 million
people participate in recreational boating and over 10 million watercraft
are in use in the United States. An estimated 888»700 vessels use an F-12
powered horn for a warning and signaling device.—
44
-------
Bicycle Horns--
The number of bicycle owners who use an F-12 powered horn is not known,
but experienced cyclists who regularly ride in motor traffic report that
today only this type of horn provides the attention-commanding sound needed
to alert motorists, as opposed to the standard bicycle bells, bulb horns,
and battery-powered horns conventionally used in the past. The usage of
these horns by bicyclists will probably grow in the future.
Personal Protection Alarms--
More than one million citizens have purchased and carry small F-12
powered horns for personal protection against dangers such as assaults, rape,
and dog attacks. Visitors and rangers in parks use these devices as noise
makers for protection against wild animals, such as grizzly bears.
Security Alarms--
Some horns have found application as a security device. For example,
a number of retirement villages use them as cooperative community security
alarms.
Distress Signals--
Some hikers, campers, and outdoor recreationalists carry F-12 powered
horns for use as a distress signal when they enter isolated and remote areas.
The horns have been found to be superior to distress flares, detonating
signals, colored smoke signals, and signaling mirrors in some situations.
Communication Signals--
Horns are used as signaling devices in such activities as construction,
agriculture, and forestry, and are sometimes used by athletic coaches and
military trainers for large groups.
Estimates of the quantity of chlorofluorocarbons consumed annually by
all types of horns vary from 350,000 Ib to 1,000,000 lb.74'80' Horns used
in boating account for 60 to 707o of the total annual consumption.—^—-
Discontinuing the use of portable acoustical warning devices without
replacement by a suitable alternative could endanger the safety and health
of some people who presently use these devices. The impacts of removing
these products would have the most pronounced effects in boating, while other
users generally have suitable alternatives available to them for the require-
ments that the F-12 powered horns fulfill.
Restrictions on the use of F-12 powered horns might be expected to have
significant consequences for some users in recreational boating. Horns and
whistles are needed to warn or alert other craft of dangerous situations or
45
-------
impending collision, and to attract attention of passing traffic to a boat
requiring help. Because of the high ambient noise level in a motorboat, a
loud and distinctive note is required for effective signaling by all boats.
During 1975, the Coast Guard received reports on 6,308 boat accidents
involving 8,002 vessels. These accidents resulted in 1,466 persons killed,
2,136 serious injuries, and property damage of $10.35 million. By far the
most common type of accident was collision with another boat, or objects
being towed (including skiers). During that year, some 3,534 vessels were
involved in 1,866 collision accidents of this type. The resulting costs ,
were 66 fatalities, 673 persons injured, and property damage of $2,190,900.^-
Considering the alternatives now available, and the relative expense
of all technically feasible signaling systems, the probable effects of dis-
continuing the use of F-12 powered horns would be that 180,000 Class A (less
than 16-ft length) boats, 436,817 Class 1 (16- to 26-ft length) boats, and
825,000 sailboats would either carry no warning device or use a ntouth whistle,
which is inaudible to other boat operators under some circumstances. As a
result, boat accidents would be expected to increase. "^•>°->'
Alternative Products or Systems
Alternatives to F-12 powered portable horns are considered in two separate
categories: nonmarine uses and marine uses.
Nonmarine Uses--
Portable F-12 powered horns used in bicycling, for personal protection
alarms, for security alarms, for distress signals, and for communications
signals all have feasible alternatives that do not require the use of a gas-
powered horn. These alternatives (some of which were discussed previously)
are generally inferior to the gas-powered horns since horns produce a louder
and more audible sound than alternative methods. Generally, however, the
alternatives are adequate for the user's needs.
Two alternative gases to the F-12 are possible, but each has its
disadvantages:
Carbon dioxide--Carbon dioxide cartridge-powered whistles are marketed
by the Sunbeam Corporation and are capable of generating loud (115 db) high-
pitched sounds. The sound, however, is omnidirectional and therefore, less
effective against assailants and animals as a personal protection device.
Once activated, the carbon dioxide is used until exhausted (30 sec), and the
device cannot be reused until the C02 cartridge is replaced.—' This makes
the whistle impractical for bicycling, distress signals, and communication
signals, which usually require a device that is capable of producing repeti-
tive sounds.
46
-------
Hydrocarbons--Pressure ranges of 40 to 60 psi are obtainable with mix-
tures of isobutane and propane, and it would be feasible to power horns or
whistles using compressed hydrocarbons. The disadvantages of hydrocarbons in
relation to F-12 are that hydrocarbons are flammable, would require a longer
horn trumpet to achieve the desirable low frequency notes, and would cost
more to produce due to the liability problems in hydrocarbon product manu-
facturing.74i79>87/
Marine Uses--
Regulations --Audible whistle signals between vessels, or between vessels
and docks, bridges, locks, etc., have been compulsory in the United States
since 1890 (adopted by Presidential Proclamation, July 1, 1987).M/ Different
combinations of short and long whistle blasts are mandatory for vessels
approaching a river bend, changing course with respect to another vessel,
passing, overtaking, leaving or approaching a dock, and in conditions of fog
or reduced visibility. A series of five short blasts is recognized as a
distress signal.
The current carriage requirements for boats in U.S. waters (new regula-
tions are expected July 15, 1977) specify sound signaling equipment as
summarized in Table 2-3. It is essential to note that while mouth whistles
or horns are permissible for boats less than 26 ft in length, only power-
operated or hand-operated signals are allowed for boats exceeding 26 ft in
length. All boats larger than 40 ft are required to use power-operated
whistles.
Although the requirements presently specify only one whistle, compliance
with Coast Guard safety regulations often means that a standby or backup horn
must also be carried aboard. The reason for a second horn is that according
to the implementing regulations, Boarding Officers require that the horn or
whistle signal shall be independent of the boats' primary electrical system,
and must be capable of being sounded in the event that the primary power fails.
The least costly and most convenient backup is usually a hand-held F-12
powered horn. Air horn systems are sometimes backed by a solenoid-actuated
32-oz, F-12 canister.
Alternatives to F-12 boat horns--Alternatives to F-12 boat horns include
mouth whistles, electric horns, direct compressor driven air horns, carbon
dioxide air horns, compressor-air tank driven air horns, hand-pumped single
piston driven air horns, and high pressure air pack horns. The power, loud-
ness, audibility and method of operation of these devices vary significantly.
47
-------
TABLE 2-3. U.S. COAST GUARD REQUIREMENTS FOR ACOUSTICAL SIGNALS
Boat length
Class (ft) Whistle or horn Bell
A
1
< 16
16 to < 26
None required
One hand, mouth, or power -
None
None
operated whistle, audible
at least 1/2 mile
26 to < 40 One hand or power-operated One
whistle capable of produc-
ing a blast of at least
2-sec duration, and audible
at least 1 mile
40 to < 65 One, power-operated whistle One
capable of producing blasts
of 2-sec duration, and aud-
ible for at least 1 mile
Source: "Federal Requirements for Recreational Boats," DOT Coast
Guard CG-290, July 1976.^
Note: No siren or acoustic device which produces a siren-like
sound is permitted on any boat except law enforcement
craft. Certain states, however, may specify the use of
sirens for specific craft.
48
-------
Mouth whistles and horns--Mouth whistles and horns can produce
sounds that can be heard for only short distances, and audibility at 1/2
mile is marginal.
Electric horns—Electric horns, either the "stubby" style, or those
having trumpet-shaped projectors are somewhat louder than mouth whistles.
Typical output from a single electric horn may run from 102 to 106 db at
30 in.— so that they are often used in pairs. The frequency or note of
electric horns is usually 380 to 450 Hz.
These horns are used only on boats with an electrical power supply since
it is not practical to power electric horns using conventional type 12-v
"lantern" batteries (i.e., dry cells). Typical electric horns draw from
2.5 up to 10 amps at 12 v. The high internal resistance and rapid polariza-
tion of zinc-carbon cells precludes their use. Within the past few years,
special sealed rechargeable batteries have become available that might be
suitable for powering a loud marine signaling horn. As an example, the Gates
800-0008 battery provides 5-amp-hr at 12 v, and can provide up to 5-amp
current for 20 min. Such batteries are expensive and the battery unit weighs
over 5 Ib. No manufacturer of such a unit is known at present.
Air horns and C02-powered horns^_.These devices are considerably
louder than most electric horns. A pair of 15-1/2 in. trumpet horns oper-
ated from a small air compressor will produce about 112 to 115 db measured
at 30 in.?_Z' Frequencies range from about 220 to 360 Hz. A loudness of
116 to 118 db on the A-weighted scale is sufficient to meet the 1-mile audi-
bility requirement for signaling. A hand-pumped, single piston-powered air
horn is usually used as a standby backup for air horns in the event primary
power is lost.£2'
When air-type horns are powered by F-12, a significantly louder and
lower-pitched note is obtained than when compressed air or 002 power is used.
The horns produce more acoustic output because the pressure supplied by F-12
is 40 psi, roughly double that provided by so-called direct drive air com-
pressors. Typically, dual horns using F-12 are readily audible at distances
Q r\ /
of over 2 miles.—' Other air horns may be powered from compressors and air
tanks that operate at 60 to 80 psi, and these air horns will be as loud or
slightly louder (i.e., 1 to 2 db) than the F-12 operated horns. However,
F-12 power has the distinct advantage of providing a lower-pitched note due
to the higher gas density and molecular weight of F-12. The preferred way
to use this advantage is to make the F-12 powered horn projector or trumpet
considerably shorter, less cumbersome, and also less expensive.
49
-------
Alternatives available to boats, by class—Taking the alternatives to
F-12 boat horns and the previously mentioned regulations together, each class
of boats has different alternatives available. These alternatives are dis-
cussed for each class of boats separately.
Class A boats (less than 16 ft length)--The 4.5 million Class A
boats less than 16 ft in length are not required to carry a signaling whistle.
Many boaters voluntarily carry F-12 horns to signal dockside, or warn other
boats. If inexpensive gas-powered portable horns were not available, experi-
enced power boaters express the belief that many present horn users would not
carry any type of signaling device>84,85/ although in theory all of the alter-
natives mentioned above are available. Those who used an alternative would
probably use a mouth whistle or electric horn if an electrical power source
is available on the boat.
Class 1 boats (16 to less than 26 ft length)—For boats 16 to 26
ft in length, Coast Guard requirements can be fulfilled by carrying a selected
"police type" whistle on a lanyard. More satisfactory is an auxiliary marine
horn, 9-1/4 in. long, having a 3-3/8 in. bell diameter. With good lung power,
in relatively calm conditions, these devices meet the minimum requirement of
audibility at 1/2 mile.
Larger size power boats (20 to 26 ft) usually have storage battery power
aboard and are likely to use electric horns or air horns powered from a small
electric compressor. Liquid carbon dioxide cylinders equipped with pressure
regulators to reduce the 800 psi C02 down to 60 to 80 psi for horn use is a
feasible option. Such systems are fairly expensive and require careful atten-
tion and maintenance to avoid loss of high pressure C02 through fittings. "'*®'
Compressed air tanks are also used by some boaters in this class. The signal-
ing capacity is not very great, and the user must be alert to refill the tanks
before they become exhausted.
Class 2 boats (26 to less than 40 ft length)--For boats in this
class, all of the previous alternatives except the mouth whistles or mouth
horns can be used.
Class 3 and 4 boats (40 ft or longer length)--For all boats larger
than 40 ft, the full range of alternative power sources are feasible except
the hand-pumped horn:
Electric horns
Direct compressor drive air horns
Compressor air tank air horns
Carbon dioxide air horns
High-pressure air pack horns
50
-------
The principal issue centers around the choice of auxiliary backup power.
This requires separate standby storage batteries or a second source of com-
pressed gas (either air or 002). The convenience and modest cost ($24.50)
of an F-12 auxiliary kit has made this route among the most popular means of
providing emergency power for air horns.
Sailboats — Sailboats pose some special problems in all size classes.
Most day sailers do not have electric power aboard. Sailboats in the small
to medium size classes are always subject to "blowdown". Storage batteries
are highly undesirable in the cockpit or below deck, especially for saltwater
enthusiasts. Because sailing captains usually do not want any unnecessary
fittings mounted on the deck or cockpit where lines could become fouled,
permanently installed horns and whistles are conspicuous by their absence.
The 1- to 2-lb F-12 horn is widely used for sailing craft. The more bulky
and expensive CC^ horn is the most likely alternative.^.'
Larger sailboats--Cruising classes up to auxiliary-powered sailers
almost always have an electrical system aboard. These craft can employ elec-
tric or air horns. They may also require either an F-12 or CC>2 standby for
auxiliary power signaling.
Economic Considerations
The economic impact of replacing F-12 powered horns with suitable alter-
natives will vary with the uses of the F-12 horn and the specific alternatives
available for each use. The economic impact on the consumer of using accept-
able alternatives for the F-12 horns is discussed below for each use category.
Bicycle Horns--
Standard bicycle bells, bulb horns, and battery-powered horns are widely
distributed and sold to bicyclists. The price of these devices are comparable
to the price of small F-12 horns ($3.50 to $8.25),£Z/ and bicyclists could
select an alternative whose price is similar to the F-12 horn they now use.
Personal Protection Alarms--
Mouth-powered whistles can be substituted for F-12 horns as personal
protection alarms against assault by other individuals. These whistles have
a price range similar to the F-12 horns, so the consumer's cost would remain
about the same.
Protection against wild animals or dogs normally requires a louder and
more frightening sound than a whistle, such as the loud sound provided by an
F-12 horn. The price of a suitable substitute for the F-12 horn would depend
upon the consumer's choice of alternatives.
51
-------
Security Alarms--
Many security alarm systems, from mouth whistles to sophisticated burglar
alarms, are available as substitutes for F-12 horns. The price of these sys-
tems varies widely, depending on the degree of sophistication; systems, as
simple as an F-12 horn warning device^(such as whistles) can be purchased at
costs comparable to the F-12 horn.
Distress Signals —
Distress flares, detonating signals, colored smoke signals, and signal-
ing mirrors are available substitutes for F-12 horns, and are comparably
priced.
Communication Signals—
Many devices which make a loud noise can be used for communication
signals, and the cost of these devices are similar to F-12 horns, depending
upon the degree of sophistication desired.
Boat Horns--
The economic impact of substituting alternative warning and signaling
devices for F-12 boat horns would affect current users of the F-12 boat
horns. The best available estimates of marine usage of these horns by type
85 91/
and size of vessel is: ' -
Class 7<> Usage Number of users
A 4 181,307
1 20 436,817
2 12 21,979
3 (standby) 5 1,071
Sailboats 30 247,500
Total Vessels 888,674
The following direct economic effects would occur if F-12 horns were
removed from the market:
The 181,000 Class A boat owners would either forego voluntary use of
any type of signaling device, would buy mouth whistles or horns simi-
lar in price to the F-12 horns, or buy electric horns that vary in
price from $12.00 to $72.00.78.'87' The typical price range of F-12
horns used by these boat owners is $3.50 to $8.25.—' Unless elec-
trical horns are purchased, some sacrifice in safety will be involved.
52
-------
430,000 Class 1 boat owners would have to choose between using a
mouth whistle or installing electric horns at a cost of about $50
to $60.
' 25,000 Class 2, 3, and 4 boat owners would be required to replace
F-12 units with alternative standby power signaling device. For
air tank or standby battery systems, the cost would average $60, and
CC>2 systems would range up to $125. This compares to $24.50 for an
F-12 auxiliary kit.
825,000 sailboats would be severely limited in the choice of signal-
ing devices. Sailing craft longer than 26 ft might install C02 horns
ranging up to $125 in price. Smaller boats would rely on mouth
whistles at a comparable cost to the F-12 horns with some sacrifice
in safety.
Secondary economic effects in the form of increased accidents, increased
fatalities and injuries, and increased property damage would probably occur
among small boats and sailboats. The amount of economic loss due to accident
increases cannot be estimated, but could be substantial.
53
-------
PRESSURIZED CLEANERS
Product Description and Utility
Pressurized cleaners are portable aerosol units which deliver a blast of
chlorofluorocarbon to rid a surface of dust. Aerosol dust-off agents are
used (a) in photographic labs to clean negatives, enlarger lenses, and camera
lenses; (b) in electronic assembly to remove dust from contact surfaces; (c)
in on-site maintenance of computer tapes and heads; (d) to clean microscope
slides, optical assemblies, and lenses; and (e) for numerous hobby applica-
tions.
The major manufacturers of dust-off sprays are Falcon Safety Products,
Inc., Mountainside, New Jersey, and Miller-Stephenson Chemical Company, Inc.,
Danbury, Connecticut, which produces small quantities of portable pressurized
cleaners for household consumer sales.71?'^' Only F-12 is used in these
pressurized cleaners and functions as both the propellant and the product.
The total U.S. sales in 1976 was estimated to require approximately 250,000
Ib of F-12.— Falcon Safety Products, Inc., pressurized cleaners account
for approximately 807o of the U.S. sales of new units.Z_LiZ_t/ In addition to
Falcon and Miller-Stephenson, there are numerous small suppliers of pressur-
ized cleaners. Units are contract filled and labeled by the distributor.
Pressurized cleaners are packaged in 12- to 15-oz cans (most commonly
14-oz cans), and Falcon offers a 15-oz F-12 refill used with the valve at-
tached to the 15-oz unit. Aero-Duster® (Miller-Stephenson Company) delivers
1,500, 1-sec blasts while Dust-Off® (Falcon Safety Products) advertizes 300
F-12 blasts of unspecified length. Extension nozzles can be attached to the
pressurized cleaners to allow access to otherwise inaccessible areas.
If this product were removed from the market and no alternative systems
were available, no obvious hazard to human health or safety would occur, nor
would there be any apparent environmental problems as a result of such action
for most use areas. For other areas, such as computer cleaning and electronic
"clean rooms", the removal of these products may result in an effect on health
and safety in certain specialized instances.
Alternative Products or Systems
Pressurized cleaners containing F-12 operate at a pressure of 70 to 78
psig.71?7^? — A blast of essentially pure, nontoxic (1,000 ppm TLV),2$/
nonflammable F-12 cleans lint and dust from surfaces. Industry sources '•'
were contacted in order to determine the technical requirements of a pressur-
ized cleaner for electronics, clean room, photographic, and hobby use. The
following list of criteria are necessary for an effective and safe pressur-
ized cleaner:
54
-------
1. Purity of contents,
2. Nonflammable,
3. Nontoxic and nonallergenic,
4. Noncorrosive,
5. Does not condense on surface,
6. Leaves no surface films, and
7. Leaves a dry target surface.
Several alternative pressure cleaner units may be available as candidate
replacements for the portable F-12 units. Alternatives are divided into the
following categories: other chlorofluorocarbons and compressed gases. Hy-
drocarbon propellants are not included even though they are nontoxic, odor-
less, noncorrosive, and available in pure commercial quantities. Sources
contacted stated that a pressurized hydrocarbon cleaner would present a for-
midable flammability risk to the consumer under many use conditions. >^'
Chlorofluorocarbons--
Several of the experimental fluorocarbons may function as F-12 replace-
ments, but data are insufficient for proper assessment. Available data are
"7 uo QA /
summarized in the tabulation below. ? ?— Data for F-12 are included for
comparison.
Fluorocarbon No.
and formula
Boiling
point
12 (CC12F2)
115 (C2C1F5)
142b (C2H3C1F2)
152a (C2H4F2)
218 (C3F8)
227a (C3HF7)
C-318 (C4Fg)
22 (CHC1F2)
-21.6
-38
15
-13
-38
-16
22
-41
Vapor pressure
(psig at 70°F)
70.2
103.0
29.1
63.0
67.0
25.4
123.0
Flammability
(7o Vol. in air)
9
5
None
None
.0-14
.1-17
None
None
None
None
.8
.1
Toxicity
TLV - 1,000 ppm
6
NA
NA
6
NA
a/ Underwriters Laboratory Toxicity Rating; 6 = Least Toxic Class.
b/ NA = Not Available.
Only F-115 and F-22 are available in commercial quantities. F-115 is a
fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbon and is a potential participant in the
ozone depletion hypothesis. Falcon Safety Products was planning to research
the suitability of F-22 as a replacement for F-12. However, recent toxico-
logical tests indicate that F-22 may be mutagenic and teratogenic, and as
such, Du Pont will not supply F-22 for use as an aerosol.2^.' F-142b and
55
-------
F-152a are produced only in experimental quantities. Both are flammable and
the ability to satisfy the other criteria of a pressurized cleaner are not
accessible due to lack of data. FC-318 was produced in experimental quanti-
ties several years ago, but Du Pont does not currently have production facili-
ties. F-218 and F-227a are not presently manufactured and there are no plans
for future production.Z'
Compressed Gases--
Carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and air are used in many situations as pressur-
ized cleaners, and all satisfy the criteria for a pressurized cleaner. Nor-
mally, compressed carbon dioxide and nitrogen are stored in large, thick-wall
containers, and compressed air is provided by a compressor. These gases are
transported to the site of application through hoses connected to the com-
pressed gas container with pressure control valves used to regulate the pres-
sure of the gas released. Filters and oil traps are used to remove oil and
other contaminants associated with the compressed air.
These delivery systems are adequate for most operations, but cannot be
used when portability of the compressed gas is required. Although these gases
can be contained in a small can, the volume of gas that a small aerosol can
will hold is severely limited. For example, a 12- to 15-oz aerosol can filled
with gaseous C02 would deliver less than 10 sprays before the pressure in the
can would drop to a level where the unit would be nonfunctional. The same is
true for compressed nitrogen and compressed air. The more compressed gas in
a container, the higher the pressure required, and only a small volume of
these gases can be put into an aerosol can before the pressure limit of the
can is approached.
In addition, if static-free gas is required, the portable aerosol can
would be unable to provide this, since to do so would require an ionization
gun and an electrical supply to ionize the gas upon release.
A compressed gas in a small portable aerosol can would not be practical
in many instances, unless only a small volume of gas is required and the user
has access to a large cannister or compressor to periodically refill the por-
table unit. For example, households and small retail store operations re-
quiring a pressurized cleaner would not find such a system practical.
Falcon Safety Products is attempting to develop a portable compressed
air unit which would be marketed as a dust-off system. As yet, a suitable
portable compressor unit is not available. Because of the requirement of a
compressor motor, a marketable system would cost significantly more than an
F-12 pressurized cleaner.—/
56
-------
Another possible alternative is a small hand-held syringe type unit sold
by camera equipment suppliers as a lense cleaner. A bulb is squeezed expel-
ling the air through an extension nozzle. However, the power of the blast is
not sufficient for cleaning of electronic contacts, etc., and the blast it-
self is not "clean".
Economic Considerations
The only alternative available to consumers of F-12 pressurized cleaners
are the compressed gases, since no alternative chlorofluorocarbons have been
tested sufficiently to determine their applicability as viable alternatives
to F-12. The cost of compressed gases is substantially less than the cost
of F-12 pressurized cleaners on a unit volume of gas basis. A 15-oz aerosol
can of F-12 delivers about 3.4 cu ft of gas and costs $5.25,71>74?95/ result-
ing in a cost of about $1.55/cu ft of F-12 gas delivered. A 15-oz can F-12
refill unit costs $4.40,-1>7^/ resulting in a cost of about $1.30/cu ft of
F-12 gas delivered. By comparison, a cannister which delivers 224 cu ft of
compressed nitrogen costs $5.80, and one which delivers 224 cu ft of com-
pressed air costs $7.58, and the costs of these gases are about $0.026 and
$0.034/cu ft, respectively.2^' A capital cost for the compressed gases would
be incurred to purchase a pressure regulator, hose, and nozzle assembly, but
as the figures show, the use of the compressed gases may yield a substantial
savings over the use of F-12.
57
-------
COMPUTER TAPE DEVELOPER
Product Description and Utility
This product has been developed for use on computer tapes to debug, cali-
brate, and maintain computer installations. In addition to visual reading of
magnetic bits, it is used to determine whether a tape has been written, to
determine if guides and heads are magnetized, to check recorder head align-
ment, and to make many other diagnostic tests. This developer is also effec-
tive with audio tape, if it was recorded at high gain, to obtain an intense
magnetic imprint.-iZ/
Computer tape developer consists of a suspension of iron powder in
trichlorotrifluoroethane (F-113) solvent. The aerosol form of this product
is propelled with F-12. In addition to the aerosol form, this product is
also available in bulk containers and in 2-oz bottles equipped with eye
droppers. The product is applied in very small quantities to very localized
areas of magnetic computer tape. The total area to be covered during normal
usage would be no greater than a 1-in. diameter circle and generally an area
of approximately 1/4 to 1/2 in. in diameter. Since this product is used only
for on-line testing, a low pressure spray is used to prevent indiscriminant
loss of the iron powder and possible contamination of other magnetic tapes.—'
The only aerosol computer tape developer on the market is manufactured
by Kyros Corporation, Madison, Wisconsin, under the name of Kyread® magnetic
tape developer. Their annual market volume is less than 10,000 4-fl oz units,
so that the total annual consumption of F-12 is much less than 40,000 fl oz
for this product.227
Removal of this product from the market without replacement by an alter-
native would have no adverse effect on environmental quality or human health.
Alternative Products or Systems
As discussed in the preceding subsection, nonaerosol methods of delivery
are currently utilized with this product: delivery from an eye dropper and
brush application from bulk solutions. These delivery systems are viable
alternatives to the aerosol product with the qualification that their major
disadvantage is that the F-113 will evaporate rapidly if the container is not
sealed, which could cause storage and handling problems.
58
-------
Mechanical Delivery--
Mechanical delivery systems, such as those described during the EPA
public hearings in December 1976, and January 1977,—' should be acceptable
substitutes for the aerosol product. Delivery systems in which pressure
is created by a winding, twisting, or shaking mechanism would be particu-
larly suitable since the pressure can be regulated to a certain extent. It
would be necessary for these systems to be properly sealed to prevent evapor-
ation of the product, which would reduce its shelf life substantially.
Self-Contained Systems—
A computer tape reader that resembles a small magnifying glass with an
iron powder slurry sealed between two lenses is currently available and does
not require exterior chemicals. It is used by simply shaking the viewer to
form a uniform slurry, and then laying the viewer on top of the magnetic
tape for visual inspection. This product can be used for extended periods
provided it is kept in a sealed, moist humidor jar and is not damaged in
handling.— One disadvantage of this product is that the chemical slurry
does not contact the tape, but remains at a distance of the lens thickness
from the tape, and this reduces the sensitivity of the device in performing
inspections.—'
Other Aerosol Propellants--
For an aerosol application method, a number of propellants have been
tested as substitutes for F-12. Carbon dioxide, nitrogen, nitrous oxide,
chlorinated hydrocarbons, F-22, and hydrocarbons were all tested and found
unacceptable. Carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and nitrous oxide produce aerosols
with high pressure, which results in iron powder being dispersed into the
air. (The current F-12 aerosol operates at a low pressure of 18 to 20 psi.)
Chlorinated hydrocarbons and F-22 dissolve the computer tape coating. Hydro-
carbons also affect the tape coating and are flammable.2Z'
Economic Considerations
Mechanical Delivery Systems--
These systems are not currently available in commercial quantities.
Testimony at the public hearings indicated that the prices of such units
should be approximately the same as current aerosol containers.-Q'
Self-Contained System—
The current cost of the viewer is $35.00. While the cost is considerably
higher than the aerosol product, it can theoretically remain in operation
indefinitely.^
59
-------
DIAMOND-GRIT SPRAY
Product Description and Utility—'
This product is an aerosol spray formulation of Du Pont synthetic diamond
used to apply a thin, uniform layer of diamond grit to laps for polishing
stones in lapidary work. The product is made by Italdo Originals, and is
marketed nationwide and overseas to hobbyists. The annual production volume
is about 3,000 units, which are produced by one individual in a "basement"
operation, and the annual consumption of F-ll/12 in this product is about
4,000 oz.
Diamond Spray is a unique product which consists of Du Pont synthetic
diamond suspended in aproprietary dispersant/adhesive slurry packaged in
a 2-oz clear glass bottle and is dispensed as an aerosol through a spray
valve with F-ll/12 (70/30) as the propellant. The product is made in six
accurately graded mesh sizes--600, 1,200, 8,000, 14,000, 50,000, and 100,000
mesh--and each size is individually packaged in a 2-oz glass bottle filled
two-thirds full of a combination of 2 to 3 ml of the diamond-grit slurry,
containing 1 carat of diamond and F-ll/12.
This product is used primarily by hobbyists to coat their cutting and
polishing laps with a diamond-grit surface. Before this product was devel-
oped, diamond grits were usually applied to laps coated with grease either
by sprinkling or rubbing them on. This normally resulted in an uneven
diamond-grit surface which would scratch the stones in the final polishing
steps. This product was developed to overcome this problem since an aerosol
spray can be applied more uniformly over the lap surface than manual applica-
tions and has been successfully used by hobbyists to provide an even diamond-
grit surface on their laps.
Removal of Diamond Spray from the market would have no adverse impacts
on environmental quality or human health.
Alternative Products or Systems99'100/
Diamond grit is applied to polishing laps by hobbyists using three pri-
mary methods: (a) aerosol spray, (b) manual application of diamond grit in
paste, and (c) sprinkling raw diamond grit on greased laps. The manual appli-
cations are suitable substitutes for the aerosol spray method with the quali-
fication that it is more difficult to obtain a uniform diamond grit surface
on the lap with manual methods than with an aerosol spray. Since uniformity
of the cutting surface is important for polishing stones, particularly the
final polishing step, the substitution of manual methods for an aerosol spray
could cause a reduction in the quality of the stones polished (i.e., cause
scratches in the stones) in some cases.
60
-------
The F-ll/12 propellant (in the ratio of 70/30) used in Diamond Spray was
found by the developer of the product, Frederick W. Maiwurm, to be compatible
with the suspension/adhesive agent used in the product, and to provide the
proper velocity to the microscopic diamonds sprayed on the laps. Since this
product was marketed, Du Pont has tested other propellants to find a suitable
replacement for F-ll/12 and has found two alternatives that are technologi-
cally acceptable, but involve human health and safety problems.
One alternative propellant developed was a mixture of Du Pont 142-B
(Freon) 78%, methyl chloride 207», and 2% slurry concentrate. This mixture,
however, has been shown to be teratogenic in laboratory studies and was
deemed unsuitable as an alternative to F-ll/12 for human health reasons.
The other alternative propellant developed was a mixture of F-22 and
methyl chloroform. Although this propellant was a technologically suitable
substitute for F-ll/12, the mixture showed positive results in an Ames test
conducted in the laboratory, which made the propellant a potential human
health risk.
Hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen have all been considered as
alternative propellants to F-ll/12, but each does not have the proper density
to keep the diamond slurry in suspension for proper dispersion of the diamond
grit. Hydrocarbons were tested for suitability, and were not able to disperse
the diamonds in a proper manner .122'
Economic Considerations
— i
The economic impacts on the hobbyists who use Diamond Spray would be
a reduction in value of the polished stones if the product is removed from
the market, since manual applications of diamond grit to the polishing laps
cannot achieve the required uniform polishing surface necessary to avoid
scratches in the stones.
The product is currently made in a basement operation by an individual
working part-time. This individual fills, labels, and ships about 3,000
units annually at a price of about $7.00/unit. The former owner of the
business, Mrs. Shirley Maiwurm, who has just recently sold her business to
another individual, stated that no other acceptable alternative propellant
has been found for the product. 122'
It is claimed that switching to another propellant for use in this opera
tion would involve technological problems requiring research and development
costs that would substantially raise the product price, or that if an alter-
native propellant is found, the use of contract fillers would raise the cost
61
-------
of the product to the extent that the profit margin would be substantially
reduced at current prices.— A price increase to offset the additional
costs would be passed on to the hobbyists who buy the product.
If the product is removed from the market, hobbyists could buy the dia-
mond grit compounds, or raw diamond grit and grease, currently on the market
to coat their laps manually. In this case, the economic loss to them would
be the reduction in the value of the polished stones resulting from scratches
caused by a manually applied cutting surface which would in most cases be
less uniform than one applied with an aerosol spray.
62
-------
ELECTRONIC DIAGNOSTIC CHILLERS
Product Description and Utility
Electronic diagnostic chillers are aerosol products containing either
100% F-12 or a mixture of F-ll and F-12.i°jy A common mixture consists of
70% F-12 and 30% F-ll.i°-i/ In the product comprised only of F-12, the
aerosol propellant and active ingredient are the same material. For the
mixture, the F-12 could be considered the propellant for F-ll but in reality,
the F-ll only serves to raise the temperature of the resultant spray from
-50°F (100% F-12) to -20°F. The sole function of this type of product is
to provide a rapid, nonflammable, nontoxic method of cooling small electronic
components from their operating temperatures to approximately -20 to -50 F.
In addition, the fluorocarbons are also nondestructive to the components;
a property not shared by materials such as chlorinated hydrocarbons.
These products are utilized to locate intermittent malfunctions in elec-
tronic equipment. Intermittent malfunctions are problems that periodically
arise and then disappear. Such.malfunctions are extremely difficult to
trace because they appear and disappear without warning. Some may occur
only when the equipment is cold and disappear when the components are at
operating temperature, while with other pieces of equipment the malfunction may
occur after a period of time. On an annual basis, this type of malfunction
accounts for 19% (~ 14,100,000) of all bench or shop jobs completed by elec-
tronic service dealers.iii=.' in very simple terms, electronic diagnostic
chillers are used in the following manner. The equipment is turned on and
allowed to warm to operating temperature. Using the aerosol product with
an extension tube, each suspected component is systematically sprayed with
F-12 or the F-ll/F-12 mixture. The thermal shock will have no effect on
components operating properly, but faulty components will be shocked into a
failure mode and immediately identified.
Electronic diagnostic chillers are used only by trained electronic
servicemen, not the general public. Most of the utilization of this product
occurs in the repair of television sets and other consumer electronic equip-
ment by local or centralized service personnel, many of whom are self-
employed. However, considerable use of these products are made for the
repair of industrial electronic equipment, including military electronics.
It has been estimated that approximately 1 million pounds of F-12 (including
a small amount of F-ll) is consumed annually for this application. Of this
figure, about 70% is for consumer electronics equipment (i.e., television,
etc.) and the remainder for industrial and military electronics.-=^=-'
63
-------
The primary impacts resulting from complete removal of this product from
the marketplace without a replacement would be in terms of economics and
available trained personnel. It has been estimated that the loss of the use
of electronic diagnostic chillers would result in a 300 to 4007» increase in
the cost of repair for consumer products. This increase would amount to
$960 to $1,140 million per year.-^/ it has also been stated that the service
industry 'does not presently have sufficiently trained personnel to compensate
for the increase in work load that would be necessitated by such a removal.!^/
Without an alternative, the repair procedure would be to remove and test each
component on an individual basis.
Alternative Products or Systems
To the best of our knowledge, there are no other products currently in
the market which can serve as an alternative for this particular product
type. The following discussion of alternatives will, of necessity, be pri-
marily concerned with products which may be adapted or developed for use in
this area.
Miniature Refrigeration Units--!2!'
Designed for the aerospace program, these units operate on the same
principle as full-sized refrigerators and freezers but on a considerably
smaller scale. Units can be constructed so that the entire system can be
placed in a coffee cup. Smaller units are also available. In theory, a
system might be developed to utilize these small units to provide a means
of rapid cooling for small surface areas. To date, no system of this type
is available.
Thermal Scanners--103^
These devices have been commonly used in failure physics studies and
are reliable, dependable systems. The principal disadvantage to this type
of a system is that isolation of specific components is very difficult, if
feasible at all. When employed, thermal scanners can be used to determine
if malfunctions are occurring in various segments of the electronic arrange-
ment but it will not specifically designate which of the components is
malfunctioning.
Thermoelectric Coolers--^1-
While these devices may be applicable, they present operational diffi-
culties which may preclude their usage. Thermoelectric coolers, in general,
are rather fragile devices which must be handled with care. A heat transfer
grease is generally required to insure good heat transfer from the object to
the cooler. Thermoelectric coolers provide their best cooling effects if
applied to flat surfaces. Since many electronic components have nonflat
surfaces (e.g., rounded surfaces), very poor heat transfer properties would
occur due to the very small surface contact area which would be available.
64
-------
Compressed
Compressed air systems are currently being used by the Department of
Defense night vision laboratories to attain temperatures of 77°K. With this
system, compressed air is expanded through a Joule-Thompson orifice to attain
these temperatures. To attain the very pure, dry air required for this sys-
tem, the compressed air is passed through a series of filters and molecular
sieve traps to remove traces of oil, grease, and water present in the gas.
Argon gas has also been used to attain temperatures of 80 K. This gas has
an advantage over nitrogen in that its specific heat is 2 to 4 times that of
nitrogen; however, argon is very expensive to purchase. The temperatures
attained by these systems are well below those required for electronic diag-
nostic chilling purposes.
For bench top diagnostic procedures, as found with small repair shops,
a nonportable system which may be applicable can be proposed. If the gas
from a normal tank of compressed nitrogen, as obtained from any compressed
gas distributor, is passed through a small, orifice (— 4 to 5 mil opening),
the resultant temperature of the gas should be in the range of -20 to -30°F.
The diameter of the orifice opening can be varied through trial and error to
attain the proper temperature. Pressure reduction valves may also be neces-
sary to control the rate of gas flow. Since these tanks are normally large
steel cylinders, the system would not be easily portable. A coil of stain-
less steel tubing could be used in conjunction with a finger-pressure release
valve to provide a certain degree of portability within "the confines of the
workbench. .
Economic Considerations
Miniature Refrigeration Units--
Currently, these miniature refrigeration units cost approximately
$3,000 due to the very limited market for such products. If a large market
could be developed, a price range of $300 to $400/unit might be attainable.-^^'
In addition, the cost of all of the developmental work needed to produce an
acceptable product would be added to this basic cost. We are unable to
estimate the extent of this developmental work.
Thermal Scanners--
These are expensive devices costing in the range of $5,000/unit. For
more advanced systems, such as those used for military applications, the cost
becomes very expensive.IPJi' No cost figures for the advanced systems were
obtained.
65
-------
Thermoelectric Coolers —
These systems could be potentially relatively inexpensive devices if a
sufficiently large market could be developed. At the present time, the
market for these coolers is very limited .i^i' In view of the technical prob-
lems associated with the potential use of thermoelectric coolers, it appears
doubtful that a large market could be developed.
Compressed Gases —
A compressed gas system would be potentially inexpensive once the devel-
opmental work has been accomplished. Current delivery prices for tanks of
purified nitrogen gas to MRI are $15.56/tank. Purchase prices for a set of
pressure reduction valves could be $300 to $500 depending upon the desired
quality of the valves.i2ft' Developmental costs would be centered primarily
on the design and fabrication of finger-pressure, trigger nozzles with the
correct orifice diameter to produce the desired temperatures. These develop-
mental costs are unknown at the present time.
66
-------
FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
Product Description and Utility
This device functions as a heat-activated, gas-powered residential fire
alarm. F-12, stored in a bottle with heavier walls than the usual aerosol
container, powers a horn to warn of fire after an eutectic metal plug or
soldered plate fuses and releases the charge at a predetermined temperature,
such as 136CF.
These alarm systems function as heat detectors in contrast with other
types which function as smoke detectors, but the two kinds of detectors may
be used to complement each other in that each may be more effective in dif-
ferent kinds of fire situations. Separate UL standards exist for each of
the two types of devices; UL 539 for heat detectors and UL 217 for smoke
detectors.—' There is considerable controversy regarding the relative
effectiveness of the two types of detectors. UL-listed heat detectors are
recognized in the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 74-1974 as
effective warning devices but must be used in conjunction with smoke detec-
tors. 121' It is not within the scope of this discussion to evaluate the
relative effectiveness of smoke and heat detectors as alarm systems in the
fire environment. These devices are used for residential protection and are
not marketed for commercial or industrial use. At the present time, there
are seven UL-listed manufacturers of heat detector devices; of these, five
are F-12-powered and two are spring wound bells. Most gas powered devices
being marketed contain 12 or 13 oz of F-12 and retail at $80 to $120, but a
newly developed device will meet standards and contains only about 2 oz of
F-12 and sells for approximately $20.12£/
Usages estimates of F-12 in this application range from 150,000 lb/yr—
to 250,000 to 300,000 lb/yr. 1^-Z' If the device containing less F-12 was to
achieve significant market penetration, fluorocarbon consumption would be
reduced proportionately. Performance standards limit leakage to less than
0.5% of the total gas per
Fire codes require that the horn sounds for 4 min, but manufacturers
strive for longer duration signals (up to 22 min) by using larger gas charges.
The alarm must be of sufficient loudness (85 db at 10 ft) to waken sleepers. 121'
F-12 is used solely as a means to power the horn. Loudness depends on
gas pressure and efficiency on gas density. Optimum gas pressure is 80 to
120 psi, but horns will operate at levels of 40 psi.-i9_Z' A nonflammable
power source must obviously be used.
67
-------
The removal of these single station, mechanically-powered heat detector
devices from the market would likely have no adverse effect on environmental
quality. However, the potential effect on human health or human safety is
more complex. Numerous smoke detection devices are available but, as stated
earlier, the two devices serve differing functions and are subject to separ-
ate UL standards. NFPA standards recommend that the two devices be used in
conjunction since many areas of residences may produce false alarms from
smoke detection devices. Potentially, this could lead to the devices being
disconnected by the resident. Heat detectors have been found to be inade-
quate warning devices for certain types of fires. However, the removal of
these devices from the market would be in opposition to NFPA standards and
could potentially have an effect on human health and human safety.
Alternative Products or Systems
Wound Spring--
Power for heat-activated fire alarms can be provided mechanically by
spring wound devices, and two manufacturers currently manufacture and market
such alarms.—'
F-22--
Although liquid F-22 has a higher vapor pressure than F-12, the older
style device (12 to 30 oz of fluorocarbon) which is built with a heavy-walled
bottle, would probably be adequate to handle the pressure. Some modification
of orifice size and horn size might be required.±22.' The newer style device
(2 to 4 oz of Freon) would require more device modification because a thinner-
walled bottle is used.
Carbon Dioxide--
Because of the high vapor pressure of liquid carbon dioxide (830 psig
at 70°F), much heavier walled bottles would be required to ensure safety.
Moreover, the device would have to be redesigned to provide pressure reduc-
tion so as to avoid destruction of the horn diaphragm.
Compressed Air—
Compressed air in a bottle size suitable for residential installation
provides only a 20- to 30-sec alarmi?-^' which does not meet NFPA codes.
Compressed air powered alarm devices are manufactured and marketed for indus-
trial use (particularly in coal mines),. ®*' but since a large air storage
tank is required and intermittent pumping is necessary to maintain pressure
in the tank, such a design would not be suitable for residential use.
Mixtures Based on Methylene Chloride--
Methylene chloride alone would provide less than 20 psig pressure at
136°F, which would be insufficient to power a horn. Because gases are boiled
off in generating power for the horn rather than the liquid being sprayed
68
-------
as in the generation of an aerosol, addition of a second material to increase
the vapor pressure would be an unsatisfactory alternative in that fraction-
ation of gases would occur.
F-13B1 (Halon 1301)--
This fully halogenated fluorocarbon (bromotrifluoromethane) currently
finds extensive utilization as a fire extinguishing agent in both military
and civilian applications. However, because it is a fully halogenated
methane, it may potentially play a role in the ozone depletion hypothesis.
Aside from this potential problem area, it could be a candidate as an alter-
native propellant for F-12 in these devices. Due to the considerably higher
pressure of 1301, it would likely be necessary to redesign the propellant
container to accomodate this higher pressure. Further discussion of the
current applications of 1301 and economic data are presented in the following
subsection on fire extinguishing agents.
Economic Considerations
It is generally believed that losses of life and property in residential
fires can be reduced through public implementation of NFPA recommendations
for fire and smoke detector and alarm devices, although precise estimates of
the savings cannot be made. In 1971, residential fires accounted for a loss
of 6,600 lives and a property loss of $874,000,000.^°-'
Spring Wound Devices--
Spring wound devices are apparently market-competitive with the gas
powered devices; however, the shorter duration of warning signal from these
devices may not afford equal protection from fire loss.
F-22--
Conversion to F-22 would increase the consumer cost of the older style
device (12 to 13 oz freon) by 5 to 10% at most.ISZ' Increased cost of alarm
devices may contribute substantially to resistance by consumers to purchase
and install the devices, with a consequent failure to reduce risk to life
and property loss from fire. Although F-22 could be substituted for F-12 in
the older, heavy-walled devices using 12 to 13 oz of fluorocarbon (costing
$80 to $120) with little increase in cost, the same substitution in the new
devices containing 2 to 4 oz of fluorocarbon and costing about $20 could
substantially increase the cost to the consumer because of the need for a
heavier container.
Carbon Dioxide--
The cost of a device powered by carbon dioxide would be sufficiently
large to make the device noncompetitive and result in the abandonment of its
manufacture .
69
-------
FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENTS
Product Description and Utility
Only five Halons are currently in use in any significant quantity as
fire extinguishing agents.—' These are:
Halon 1011 Ct^ClBr Bromochloromethane
Halon 1202 CCl2Br2 Dibromodifluoromethane
Halon 2402 C2F4Br2 1,2-Dibromotetraf luoroethane
Halon 1211 CF2ClBr Bromochlorodif luoromethane
Halon 1301 CFBr Bromotr if luoromethane
Only the last four of these are fully halogenated f luorocarbons. Of
these four only the last two are being used extensively in the United
States. Hi' The military is replacing 1011 and 1202 uses with 1301 and
1211. IP-^ Only 1211 and 1301 have UL certification and NFPA standards for
use.ii^/ Only 1301 systems are approved by Factory Mutual ..liS' Some State
Fire Marshals . (e.g., Kansas) have still not certified 1211 systems for
portable use, though they are widely used in Europe and this country. The
small aerosol-type "fire extinguishers," using such ingredients as F-ll
(Halon 113) or F-12 (Halon 122), are not approved for use by any of the major
rating and testing entities. — ' — — Halons are not used as propellants in
dry-chemical or other types of extinguishing systems . illliH5/ ^& follow-
ing discussion, thus, is restricted to the uses of Halons 1301 and 1211, in
which the agent is serving a primary role as chemical agent to suppress or
extinguish fires.
Halon 1301--
This compound is used almost exclusively in total flooding systems.— —
It has a unique combination of chemical effectiveness in fire suppression
and low toxicity, which allows its use in total-flooding of habitable space.
It is receiving increased use in both military and civilian applications for
protection of computer facilities, test facilities, machinery, space fuel
tanks, engine and auxiliary power installations, habitable cargo and storage
space, battle tanks, electronic vans, telephone exchanges, mixing and process
rooms for flammable liquid, etc. In 1975, Du Pont reported about 10,000 1301
systems in use.iiS.' DU Pont report about 3 million pounds of 1301 sold in
1976 and estimates sales of 15 million pounds in 1986 .!!£/ About 300,000
pounds were estimated to have been released to the environment in 1976 .ii2/
Installation of a 1301 system does not constitute a short term release to
the environment. Due to the cost of 1301 and the need for high reliability
in 1301 systems, leakage is very low and contents could exceed the life of
the systems. A leakage rate of the order of 1,000 Ib/year has been esti-
mated. 112.' it is believed feasible to recover and reclaim the 1301 from
70
-------
systems, either during tests or when the system is abandoned.116,117/ At
present, new 1301 systems are often tested with Halon 122 (F-12) test gas
because of its substantially lower cost.iis/
Halon 1211--
This fire extinguishing agent is used mainly in portable or local appli-
cation systems but can also be used in total flooding modes for uninhabited
space or for habitable space with advance warning provisions.?-^' The Air
Force is converting from 1011 to 1211 and 1301 for reasons of toxicity.—'
Halon 1211 is the only "clean1'1 agent recognized by UL as effective in Class
A, B, and C fires.^/
The classification of different types of fires is as follows:
Class A - Ordinary combustible materials (e.g., wood, paper, fabric,
etc.)
Class B - Flammable liquids
Class C - Electrical
It is used in situations requiring a noncontaminating agent, such as with
electronic equipment, in computer rooms, telephone switchgear centers, copy-
ing rooms, etc. It is used by the Air Force for ramp patrol trucks and in
other flight-related applications requiring fast delivery and chemical effec-
tiveness. Concern has been expressed about the toxicity of the fire-induced
decomposition products of 1211, especially in portable use by untrained
personnel in confined space.H^iH7/ The agent itself has a toxicity compara-
ble to C02- Like 1301, 1211 is relatively high priced and is normally con-
tained in the delivery system for long periods of time and could be recycled
or recovered .-L-L' Installation does not necessarily constitute total release
to the environment. Over the long term, the use of Halon 1211 is expected
to grow to some 3 to 5 million pounds per year.—'
Aerosol Units--
These fire extinguishing systems are not of proven effectiveness or
reliability and make use of agents, such as F-ll and F-12, which have
marginal chemical effectiveness .3JL' They are packaged in small aerosol-type
containers with no indication of the state of the charge. Quantities are
small and their throw-power is very limited. Because no ratings are avail-
able, sale of these "aerosol-agents" is illegal in some states (e.g.,
. 1 1 A /
Kansas).
The impact of removing 1301 and 1211 systems with no alternatives would
be exposure to greatly increased fire losses, both human and property.
Du Pont, for example, estimates that 1301 systems are currently protecting
71
-------
property valued in excess of $15 billion.ii2/ Removing the aerosol-type
packaged systems would have much less impact, even without alternatives, in
the light of their low effectiveness and questionable reliability.^' H^/
Alternative Products or Systems
Both the Halon agents, 1301 and 1211, are expensive ($2.15/lb and
$1.40/lb, respectively^1^ and have been developed and used to meet special-
ized requirements in protecting life and high-value equipment and facilities.
Each acts as a chemical agent and has unique physical and toxicological prop-
erties. Both are noncontaminating so that little cleanup is required after
fires.35.U5,U5/ The agent 1301 appears to be unique in its suitability
for inerting habitable space. Agent 1211 is unique in being a clean, non-
toxic agent with chemical effectiveness for Class A, B, and C fires. Both
agents have been developed in spite of their high cost for specialized appli-
cations and would, in most present uses, be difficult to replace without in-
creasing fire-loss risk to both life and property.
Interchangeability of 1301 and 1211--
In general, the two agents have only limited interchangeability. There
is no present alternative for 1301 in its use as a total flooding agen-t in
habitable environments. For nonhabitable space, or with an advance warning
system to permit evacuation, agent 1211 may be an adequate substitute for
1301.
Water--
This agent has good Class A fire extinguishment capabilities and can be
used in total flooding (sprinkler) systems. However, water damage to facil-
ities can be great and also its use can result in post-fire cleanup problems.
Water is unacceptable for Class B and C fires.
Carbon Dioxide or Nitrogen--
Either of these materials can be used in total flooding systems? how-
ever, very large quantities are required to inert the atmosphere. The use
of carbon dioxide can lead to water damage as a result of condensation. It
also has poor effectiveness for Class A, B, and C fires and involves a severe
weight penalty and poor range.
Dry Chemicals--
Dry chemicals can also be used in total flooding systems. This system
is the leading candidate for 1211 substitution. ABC dry chemical can equal
or exceed the effectiveness of 1211 in laboratory tests for Class A, B, and
C fires.iii' However, equipment damage can be extensive with powder, visi-
bility can become a problem during application, and cleanup requirements
are extensive. In addition, 1211 can often penetrate obscure fires better
than dry chemical.22.'
72
-------
Foam Systems--
The four types of foam currently in use are: low expansion (37o) , low
expansion (6%), high expansion, and aqueous film forming foam (AFFF). Both
types of low expansion foams use protein based, animal fat surfactants.
High expansion foams achieve high aeration by detergent or surfactant addi-
tives. Each company has its own formulations of high expansion foams. AFFF,
also called "light water," uses fluorinated long-chain hydrocarbons as the
surface-active agents.
Ill/
These foams can be used in total flooding systems but can cause severe
damage and post-fire cleanup problems.
Portable Fire Extinguishers--
For portable uses, 1211 can, in principle, be replaced by one or a com
bination of the above agents. All of these systems have received extensive
testing and certification. The so-called aerosol fire extinguishing agents
can be replaced with CC^,— ' dry chemicals, or other Halons, in approved
delivery systems with a net benefit in safety and reduced fire losses.
Economic Considerations
The primary economic considerations in substituting alternative agents
for 1301 and 1211 are: (a) the increased cost due to damage by the alterna-
tive; and (b) the greater risk to life and property incurred by using less
effective fire extinguishment systems in high-value situations.
Aside from the considerations of damage and cleanup costs following use
of the agents, a comparison of small, portable fire extinguisher systems is
shown in the following summary.
Agent
1211
co2
Dry
1301
Water
Agent System Wholesale
weight weight system cost
5 Ib 11 Ib $35
15 Ib 50 Ib $55
5 Ib 10 Ib $12
Used only in military
2.5 gal. - $19
Effectiveness
rating
10 BC
10 BC
10 BC
application
_
73
-------
For total flooding systems, it is very difficult to present comparative
costs in terms of dollars per cubic foot of space since each situation is
basically unique and the degree of substitution is low. One source stated
that the total systems costs for COo and 1301 are roughly comparable.UJL'
Another source stated that, aside from equipment damage, downtime, cleanup,
etc., that water would be the most expensive, followed by 1301, CC^, and dry
Foam is not currently used in total flooding systems.
74
-------
DRAIN OPENERS
Product Description and Utility
Aerosol drain openers use liquefied F-12 to unclog drainpipes, and two
products are currently on the market: Drain Power® (Glamorene Products Cor-
poration, Clifton, New Jersey) and Drano Aerosol Plunger® (The Drackett Prod-
uct Company, Cincinnati, Ohio). Each product is marketed in 5-oz cans,
which contain 56% F-12, or about 2.8 02 of F-12 per can. The total annual
sales of the products is 6 to 8 million units, so the annual consumption of
F-12 for these products is between 17 and 23 million oz.-^=2/
The F-12 is injected into the drainpipe by placing the dome-shaped plas-
tic cap on the aerosol can into the drain opening and pressing down firmly
on the can. The F-12 enters the pipe as a liquid and rapidly expands as a
gas to over 250 times its liquid volume. A shock wave is created which trav-
els through the hydrostatic head of water in the drainpipe to deliver its
energy against the clog. Drain Power delivers 4.9 liters of gas with a
recommended 1-sec burst. '
These products are used primarily in homes by members of the household.
Consumers Union reported that these types of drain openers were effective
in unclogging drainpipe blockages in tests run in their laboratories, and were
relatively safe to use, but could cause damage to drainpipes with weak joints
due to the pressure developed by the blast of expanding F-12 in the drain-
pipe.
Removal of aerosol drain openers from the market would have no impact on
environmental quality, human health, or human safety.
Alternative Products or Systems
Alternative Aerosol Propellants--
To satisfy the requirements of an aerosol drain opener, the propellant
should be toxicologically safe, nonflammable, resistant to hydrolysis, eco-
nomically acceptable, and have the pressure characteristics which permit
packaging in conventional aerosol containers and which provide suitable
pressure upon release to effectively unblock the drain. To date, F-12 has
been the only propellant tested which satisfied these properties, although
numerous alternative propellants have been considered.if!/
Other fluorocarbon propellants either may be included in possible regu-
latory action--namely, F-ll, 113, 114, and 115--or have been eliminated be-
cause of toxicological hazards such as mutagenicity or teratogenicity. F-22
and 142b have been eliminated because of toxicological hazards.
75
-------
Hydrocarbon propellants have been successful in unblocking clogged
drains in laboratory tests, but only at levels above their explosive limits
in air. The f lammability of hydrocarbons tested as drain opener propellants
such as propane, has made them unacceptably unsafe under normal use condi-
tions.
Compressed gases, such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and nitrogen,
have been tested but do not meet the effectiveness requirements of the prod-
uct. For these gases to be effective would require compression to pressures
that exceed the safety limits of the aerosol container. Lower pressures
could be used, but this would substantially reduce the effectiveness of the
product .
Research to date has produced no alternative propellant that performs as
well as F-12 without introducing other serious problems .
Alternative Techno log ie
Clogged drainpipes can be unblocked by various chemical and mechanical
methods using existing products on the market. Among the most common prod-
ucts are acidic and caustic chemical drain openers, manual rubber plungers,
drain augers (snakes), and hydraulic -powered drain openers.
Acidic and caustic chemical drain openers are produced in liquid and
granular formulations, and range from 10 to 90% caustic or acidic content.
While the effectiveness of the numerous products marketed varies under dif-
ferent conditions and between products, all are dangerous products to use.
In 1976, NEISS reports stated that over 8,800 injuries were caused by these
products. Children accidentally ingested them or burned their skin, and
users of the products received burns in the eyes and on the skin from im-
proper handling or splashing of the chemicals. Consumer publications have
continuously warned that the use of these products should be a last resort
measure only, and then extreme caution should be exercised. These recom-
mendations urge trying a nonchemical method first, such as a manual rubber
1 71 1 9 9 I
plunger or a snake. *••*•» ^ '
Most drain clogs, with the exception of bad blockages, can be cleaned
with a simple manual rubber plunger and boiling hot water. (Even boiling
hot water alone can be successful in some cases.) This device is simple to
use and relatively safe to humans and the environment, though in many cases
it provides only a temporary remedy.
For more permanent results, snakes have been successfully employed by
plumbers and household owners alike. It is a long flexible steel cable
that is fed into the drain and twisted to unblock the stoppage. Often the
snake can be used to pull the debris out of the drain to permanently remove
it. The flexibility of the snake allows it to go beyond the trap, if
76
-------
necessary, to the blockage. The disadvantage of the snake is that it may
not be of sufficient length to reach the blockage.
Hydraulic-powered drain openers are similar to the manual rubber plunger
in principal except that they can usually generate more force than the manual
device. Hydro Plunger®, a product of IASA International, Inc., of New York
City, is a manually operated water plunger that resembles a bicycle pump.
Water is drawn into the 15-in. long cylinder by pulling the handle, and then
expelled through a nozzle inserted into the drain by pushing the handle.
Another type of device is attached to the end of a garden hose and forces
water from the hose into the drain in a pulsating movement in order to un-
block the clog with the water pressure.
The mechanical devices are relatively safe to use, cause no environmen-
tal problems, and are successful in unblocking clogged drains in most cases.
The chemical methods are usually successful in unclogging drains by eating
away the blockage, but can be harmful to the pipes, the environment, and the
people using them if improperly utilized.
Economic Considerations
In late 1976, the consumer price for two aerosol products--Drain Power®,
and Drano Aerosol Plunger®--was $2.36 for 5 oz and $1.75 for 5 oz, respec-
tively. By comparison, a rubber plunger can be purchased for about $1.00, a
small snake for about $5.00, and a Hydro Plunger® for $6.25. The chemical
drain openers range in price from about $0.50 to $2.00 for 12 oz of granules,
and from about $0.40 to $1.10 for 1 pt of liquid formulation.^^'
In general, the most inexpensive devices are the mechanical ones
(plunger, snake, and Hydro Plunger®), since they are not consumed in opera-
tion, and can last many years. The chemical products are consumed in the
operation and, if severe and repetitive problems occur, may cost more to
use. Substitution of the mechanical devices for the aerosol drain openers
would reduce the cost to the consumer, while substitution of chemical prod-
ucts for the aerosol products would not affect the cost, since these prod-
ucts are approximately equivalent in price per operation.
77
-------
REFERENCES
1. Bell, W. L. Lynx Laboratories, Inc., Memphis, Tennessee.
2. Vega, R. Essential Chlorofluorocarbon Aerosol Products. Submitted to
the Chlorofluorocarbon Work Group, Environmental Protection Agency, by
Whitmire Research Laboratories, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, December 27,
1976.
3. Davidson, J. B., et al. Personal Communication. Virginia Chemicals,
Inc., Portsmouth, Virginia.
4. Vega, R. Personal Communication. Whitmire Research Laboratories, Inc.,
St. Louis, Missouri.
5. Chemical Marketing Reporter. March 14, 1977.
6. Price Information from Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Kansas City,
Missouri, Sales Office.
7. Midwest Research Institute. Technical Alternatives to Selected Chloro-
fluorocarbon Uses. EPA Contract No. 68-01-3201, Task I, Publication No.
EPA-560/1-76-002, February 1976.
8. Bureau of Domestic Commerce. Economic Significance of Fluorocarbons.
Office of Business Research and Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce,
December 1975.
9. Shah, S. Personal Communication. Accra Pac, Inc., Elkhart, Indiana.
10. Massey, D. Personal Communication. VGA Corporation, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana.
11. Tempo Corporation, Solon, Ohio; Overland Auto Paint, Overland Park,
Kansas.
12. Fluchere, H. Airbrush Techniques for Commercial Art. Revised Edition,
Reinhold and Company, New York, 1961.
78
-------
13. Kadel, G. Air Brush Art. Times Publishing Company, Cincinnati, Ohio,
1939.
14. Catalogs and price lists from:
Badger Air-Brush Company, Chicago, Illinois
Thayer and Chandler, Inc., Chicago, Illinois
Wold Air-Brush Company, Chicago, Illinois
Poosche Airbrush Company, Chicago, Illinois
DeVilbliss Company, Toledo, Ohio
15. Kraings, S. Personal Communication. Badger Air Brush Company, Chicago,
Illinois.
16. Eskaus, T. M. Personal Communication. Poosche Airbrush Company,
Chicago, Illinois.
17. Land, C. Personal Communication. Wold Air-Brush Company, Chicago,
Illinois.
18. Pratt, P. Personal Communication. Thayer and Chandler, Inc., Chicago,
Illinois.
19. Tank, G. Personal Communication. DeVilbliss Company, Toledo, Ohio.
20. Coldsnow, K. Personal Communication. Coldsnow Artist Supply Company,
Kansas City, Missouri.
21. Sholey, B. Personal Communication. R. Clawson Commercial Art Supply,
Kansas City, Missouri.
22. Pennington, A. Personal Communication. Spotlite Model Railroad Shop,
Kansas City, Missouri.
23. Shaw, M. Personal Communication. Hobby Lane, Kansas City, Missouri.
24. Hawks, T. Personal Communication. King's Crown Military Shop, Overland
Park, Kansas.
25. Knowles, W. Personal Communication. Hobby Haven, Overland Park,
Kansas.
26. Selleck, A. Personal Communication. Mitann, Inc., Canoga Park,
California.
79
-------
27. Litchfield, E. Personal Communication. U.S. Bureau of Mines - Fire
and Explosion Branch, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
28. The Merck Index. M. Windholz, ed. Merck and Company, Inc., Rahway,
New Jersey, 1974.
29. Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances, 1975 Edition. H. E.
Christensen, ed. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Rockville, Maryland, June 1975.
30. Freon® Technical Bulletin B-2. Freon® Properties and Applications.
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware.
31. Patty, F. A., ed. Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. Interscience
Publishers, Inc., New York, 1958.
32. Foster, R. Personal Communication. Mine Ventilation, Mine Enforcement
Safety Administration (MESA), Denver Technical Support Center, Denver,
Colorado; Mr. Andrews. Personal Communication. Division of Health,
Mine Enforcement Safety Administration (MESA), Denver Technical Support
Center, Denver, Colorado.
33. Ives, E., L. Kirk, and J. Lister. Personal Communications. E. I.
du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware.
34. Crandell, R. Personal Communication. Dow Chemical Company, Midland,
Michigan.
35. Mossel, J. Personal Communication. ICI America, Wilmington, Delaware.
36. Fountas, G. Personal Communication. Contour Chemical Company, Woburn,
Massachusetts.
37. Earth, R. Personal Communication. Price-Driscoll Corporation,
Farmington, New York.
38. Canavan, P. Personal Communication. General Electric Company,
Waterford, New York.
39. Mr. Bastian. Personal Communication. Orb Industries, Upland,
Pennsylvania.
40. Treece, J. Personal Communication. Binks Manufacturing Company,
Franklin Park, Illinois.
80
-------
41. Chem-Pak, Inc. Personal Communication. Winchester, Pennsylvania.
42. Cherbenak, G. Personal Communication. Nordson Corporation, Amherst,
Ohio.
43. Tank, G. Personal Communication. DeVilbliss Company, Toledo, Ohio.
44. Skubon, M. J. Personal Communication. Ashland Chemicals, Columbus,
Ohio.
45. Stoner's Ink Company. Personal Communication. Quarryville,
Pennsylvania.
46. Watson, M. A. Domestic Shoe Production: Where Will the Winding Road
Lead? Leather and Shoes, September 1976.
- 47. Kansas City Times. May 19, 1977.
48. Dymon, Inc. Personal Communication. Kansas City, Kansas.
49. Reed, A. Personal Communication. CRC Chemicals, Inc., Warminster,
Pennsylvania.
50. Faust, D. G. Aerosol Lubrication. In: Standard Handbook of Lubrica-
tion Engineering, J. J. O'Conner, ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968.
' 51. Bowers, B. P. East Penn Manufacturing Company, Inc., Lyon Station,
Pennsylvania. Written Communication to George Wirth, CFC Working
Group, Environmental Protection Agency, January 7, 1977.
52. Bowers, B. P. Personal Communication. East Penn Manufacturing
Company, Inc., Lyon Station, Pennsylvania.
• 53. Hill, W. L. Non-Skid: The State of the Art Today. TAPPI, 56,
August 3, 1973.
54. Flecher, C. H., Jr. Anti-Skids Treatments Utilizing Colloidal Silica.
TAPPI, 56:67-69, 1973.
55. Pellet, G. H. Fumed Alumina, Anti-Skid: Properties and Performance.
TAPPI, 56:70-73.
. 56. Tares, R. S. Non-Skids on Corrugated and Solid Fiber. TAPPI, 56:63-
66, 1973.
81
-------
57. Humolka, C. A. Non-Skid Varnishes. TAPPI, 56:74-75, 1973.
58. Butcher, W. J., and R. Carstens. Improved Application of the Non-Skid
Colloidal Silica and Alumina Product. TAPPI, 56:76-77, 1975.
59. TAPPI STANDARD. Coefficient of Static Friction of Corrugated and Solid
Fiberboard (Inclined Plant Method). Proposed New Suggested Method T-
815. TAPPI, 55:1129-1131, 1972.
60. TAPPI STANDARD. Coefficient of Static Friction of Corrugated and Solid
Fiberboard. Proposed New Suggested Method T-816. TAPPI, 55:1132-1133,
1972.
61. Mercer, R. Personal Communication. Hoerner-Waldorf, Kansas City,
Missouri.
62. Baugher, E. Personal Communication. Hoerner-Waldorf, St. Joseph,
Missouri.
63. Terreri, A. Personal Communication. Production Superintendent, Inter-
national Paper, Company, Kansas City, Missouri.
64. Ferdy, J. Personal Communication. St. Regis Paper Company, Kansas City,
Missouri.
65. Martin, R. Personal Communication. Packaging Corporation of America,
Blue Springs, Missouri.
66. Watts, J. C., W. 0. Roberts, and T. Arnold. Personal Communications.
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware.
67. Taylor, V. L. U.S. Patent 3,032,401, May 1, 1962, Assigned to E. I.
du Pont de Nemours.
68. Taylor, V., and J. Geuiffrida. Personal Communications. Cabot Research
Center, Billerica, Massachusetts.
69. McSweeney, J. Personal Communication. Nalco Chemical Company, Oak
Park, Illinois.
70. Dychman, E. Personal Communication. Department of Defense, Alexandria,
Virginia. Presentation at EPA Public Hearing on Chlorofluorocarbons,
Washington, D.C., January 18, 1977.
71. Stephenson, G. M. Personal Communication. Miller-Stephenson Chemical
Company, Inc., Danbury, Connecticut.
82
-------
72. Pavek, D. Tech Spray. Amarillo, Texas; Presentation at EPA Public
Hearing on Chlorofluorocarbons, Washington, B.C., December 3, 1976, and
Supporting Data.
73. Transcript of Public Hearing on Chlorofluorocarbons, Washington, D.C.,
January 18, 1977.
74. Thorpe, R. Falcon Safety Product, Inc., Mountainside, New Jersey;
Written Communication to George Wirth, CFC Working Group, Environmental
Protection Agency, March 8, 1977, and Personal Communications with
Midwest Research Institute.
75. Dolphin, J. Personal Communication. Burglar Alarm Section, Underwriter
Laboratory, Inc., Chicago, Illinois.
76. McKay, J. Personal Communication. ADT Security Systems, Kansas City,
Missouri.
77. Burglar Alarms. Consumer Reports, April 1977. pp. 71-77.
78. Beyer, W. Personal Communication. Delta Electric Corporation, Marion,
Indiana.
79. Schull, W. Personal Communication. Spartan Manufacturing Company,
Flora, Illinois.
80. Streeter, L. Personal Communication. Signaltone, Inc., Livonea,
Michigan.
81. Boat and Motor. Buyers Guide, 1977.
82. Boating '76. A Statistical Report on America's Top Family Sport.
MAREX/NAEBM, 1976.
83. Boating Statistics, 1975. CG-357, Coast Guard, Department of Transpor-
tation, 1975.
84. Higgins, J. Personal Communication. Neal Boat Company, Kansas City,
Missouri.
85. Knowles, R. Personal Communication. Covert Marine Company, Blue
Springs, Missouri.
86. Sunbeam Corporation. Personal Communication. Oak Brook, Illinois.
83
-------
87. Fisher, W. Personal Communication. Chief Engineer, Signaltone, Inc.,
Livonea, Michigan.
88. Farwell's Rules of the Nautical Road, Fourth Edition. U.S. Naval In-
stitute, Annapolis, Maryland, 1968.
89. Federal Requirements for Recreational Boats. CG-290, Coast Guard, De-
partment of Transportation, July 1976.
90. Buell, R. Personal Communication. Buell Manufacturing Company, Lyons,
Illinois.
91. Lt. Welch. Personal Communication. Compliance Branch for Carriage Re-
quirements, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C.
92. Mr. Lambrechtse. Personal Communication. Ladd Research Industries,
Burlington,'Vermont.
93. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents in
the Workroom Environment with Intended Changes for 1976. Adopted by
ACGIH for 1976.
94. Sanders, P. A. Principles of Aerosol Technology. Van Nostrand,
Reinhold Company, New York, 1970.
95. MRI estimate of F-12 gas volume.
96. Compressed gas prices from Puritan-Bennett Corporation, Kansas City,
Missouri.
97. Cox, R. P. Kyros Corporation, Madison, Wisconsin; Written Communica-
tions to George Wirth, CFC Working Group, Environmental Protection
Agency, January 11 and March 10, 1977; Personal Communication with
Midwest Research Institute.
98. Keller, W. Personal Communication. 3M Business Products Center,
Kansas City, Missouri.
99. Maiwurm, S. Italdo Originals, Newark, Delaware; Written Communication
to George Wirth, CFC Working Group, Environmental Protection Agency,
March 10, 1977; Personal Communication with Midwest Research Institute.
100. Maiwurm, S. Testimony at Informal Hearing of EPA Panel on Fully Halo-
genated Chlorofluorocarbons, Washington, D.C., August 1, 1977.
84
-------
101. Friedman, A. Chemtronics, Inc., Hauppauge, New York; Presentation at
Public Participation Meeting on Chlorofluorocarbons, Washington, D.C.,
January 18, 1977; Personal Communication with Midwest Research Insti-
tute.
102. Glass, R. L. National Electronic Service Dealers Association; Letter
to Mr. Richard Pavek, Submitted to CFC Working Group, Environmental
Protection Agency at Public Participation Meeting on Chlorofluorocar-
bons, Washington, D.C., December 3, 1976.
103. Myers, E. Personal Communication. Office of the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering, The Pentagon, Washington, D.C.
104. Sims, W. Personal Communication. Night Vision Laboratories,
Ft. Belvoir, Virginia.
105. Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Household Fire
Warning Equipment. NFPA 74-1974, National Fire Protection Association,
Boston, Massachusetts.
106. Thorpe, R. F. A New Concept in Heat Detector Design. Fire Journal,
March 1977.
107. Jacoby, S. Everguard Fire Alarm Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
Presentation at Public Participation Meeting on Chlorofluorocarbons,
Washington, D.C., January 18, 1977; Personal Communication with Midwest
Research Institute.
108. Underwriters Laboratory Standard No. 539. Underwriters Laboratory,
Chicago, Illinois.
109. Stitt, T. Air Hose Replaces Electric Circuit in New Fire Detection
System. Coal Age, September 1973. p. 88.
110. America Burning. Report of the National Commission on Fire Prevention
and Control, U.S. Government Printing Office, Stock No. 520-00004.
111. Madden, R. Personal Communication. Executive Director, Fire Equipment
Manufacturers Association, Chicago, Illinois.
112. Wisniewski, R. Personal Communication, Senior Engineering Assistant,
Fire Protection Department, Underwriters Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois.
113. Anselmo, A. Personal Communication. Factory Mutual System, Norwood,
Massachusetts.
85
-------
114. Dineen, J. Personal Communication. Fire Marshall, Overland Park,
Kansas.
115. Riley, J. Personal Communication. The Ansul Company, Marionette,
Wisconsin.
116. Ford, C. Personal Communication. Manager, Fire Extinguishants, E. I.
du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware.
117. Fristrom, R. Personal Communication. Chief Scientist, Fire Problems
Program, Applied Physics Laboratory, Silver Springs, Maryland.
118. Gunther, C. Personal Communication. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware.
119. Horowitz, B. Personal Communication. Edcor Safety, Kansas City,
Missouri.
120. Glamorene Products Corporation. Personal Communication. Clifton,
New Jersey.
121. Kolodny, E. R. Glamorene Products Corporation, Clifton, New Jersey;
Presentation at Public Participation Meeting on Chlorofluorocarbons,
Washington, D.C., January 18, 1977; Written Communication to Midwest
Research Institute.
122. Drain Cleaners. Consumer Reports, October 1976. pp. 592-593.
86
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
1. Report No.
EPA 560/1-77-004
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
Investigation of Alternatives for Selected Aerosol Propellant
and Related Applications of Fluorocarbons
5. Report Date
October 1977
6.
7. Author(s) Thomas W. Lapp, Gary L. Kelso Larry Breed,
Gadberry, Thomas Milne, Vern Hopkins
Howard
8. Performing Organization Rept.
No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
Task V
11. Contract/Grant No.
Contract No.
68-01-3201
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Toxic Substances
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
Final
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts Several aerosol propellent and related applications of fluorocarbons were ex-
amined to identify existing and technologically feasible alternatives. Associated
cost factors were also considered. Interested parties brought these fluorocarbon ap-
plications to the attention of an interagency work group (EPA, FDA, and CPSC) as be-
ing possible "essential uses" of these substances. The applications examined under
the task were: flying insect insecticides, other pesticides, spray paints, air
brushes, mine safety devices, mold release agents, lubricants, battery terminal pro-
tection, paper frictionalizing indicator, electronic cleaners, burglar alarm system,
portable acoustic warning devices, pressurized cleaners, aerosol computer tape devel-
oper, diamond grit spray, electronic diagnostic chillers, fire alarm system, fire
extinguishing agents, and drain openers.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17o. Descriptors
Fluorohydrocarbons
Environmental impacts
Air pollution
Economics
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Aerosols
Propellents
I7b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Methane/chloro-trifluoro
Freons
I7c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
Release unlimited
19. Security Class (This
Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
20. Security Class (This
UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
91
22. Price
FORM NTis-33 (REV. 10-73) ENDORSED BY ANSI AND UNESCO.
THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED
USCOMM-DC
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM NTIS-35 (Bibliographic Data Sheet based on COSATI
Guidelines to Format Standards for Scientific and Technical Reports Prepared by or for the Federal Government,
PB-180 600).
1. Report Number. Each individually bound report shall carry a unique alphanumeric designation selected by the performing
organization or provided by the sponsoring organization. Use uppercase letters and Arabic numerals only. Examples
FASEB-NS-73-87 and FAA-RD-73-09.
2. Leave blank.
3. Recipient's Accession Number. Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. Title and Subtitle. Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, subordinate subtitle to the
main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume number and include
subtitle for the specific volume.
5- Report Date. Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected
(e.g., date of issue, date of approval, date of preparation, date published).
6. Performing Organization Code. Leave blank.
7. Author(s). Give name(s) in conventional order (e.g., John R. Doe, or J.Robert Doe). List author's affiliation if it differs
from the performing organization.
8. Performing Organization Report Number. Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. Performing Organization Name and Mailing Address. Give name, street, city, state, and zip code. List no more than two
levels of an organizational hierarchy. Display the name of the organization exactly as it should appear in Government in-
dexes such as Government Reports Index (GRI).
10. Project/Task/Work Unit Number. Use the project, task and work unit numbers under which the report was prepared.
11. Contract/Grant Number. Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Mailing Address. Include zip code. Cite main sponsors.
13- Type of Report and Period Covered. State interim, final, etc., and, if applicable, inclusive dates.
14. Sponsoring Agency Code. Leave blank.
15. Supplementary Notes. Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with . . .
Translation of ... Presented at conference of ... To be published in ... Supersedes . . . Supplements . . .
Cite availability of related parts, volumes, phases, etc. with report number.
16. Abstract. Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report.
If the report contains a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis, (a). Descriptors. Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the
proper authorized terms that identify the major concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used
as index entries for cataloging.
(b). Identifiers and Open-Ended Terms. Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use
open-ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c). COSATI Field/Group; Field and Group assignments are to be taken from the 1964 COSATI Subject Category List.
Since the majority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be the specific
discipline, area of human endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary
Field/Group assignments that will follow the primary posting(s).
18. Distribution Statement. Denote public releasability, for example "Release unlimited", or limitation for reasons other
than security. Cite any availability to the public, other than NTIS, with address, order number and price, if known.
19 & 20. Security Classification. Do not submit classified reports to the National Technical Information Service.
21. Number of Pages. Insert the total number of pages, including introductory pages, but excluding distribution list, if any.
22. NTIS Price. Leave blank.
FORM NTIS-35 (REV. 10-73) USCOMM-DC 828S-P74
------- |