STANDARD REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

P-07-0601 

ENGINEER: Maj’d El-Zoobi

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: 

USE: 
TABLE 1: EXPOSURE SUMMARY FOR P-07-601

V

Inha

Exp

conce

Supply Chain 

Component 

Scenario Assessment 

Basis No. of Sites No. of Workers Days / Yr Hrs / Day 

Mg/m^3 

•••
MANUFACTURING EXPOSURE:

Presentation of the Results of the Study and Comparison With the Current Assessment: 

Inhalation Exposure Concentration Assessed Values 

CEB’s Current Assessment Submitter Inhalation Monitoring 

Study 

Worker Activity 

8 hr TWA Exposure concentration (ppm) 

Comments 8 hr TWA 

Exposure concentration (ppm) 

Comments 

Other Available Inhalation Exposure Concentration Data 

Worker Activity

CEB Data Submitter Data 

Chemical Operator Cylinder Vent Operator Freon Cylinder vent Operator Area samples Personal samples Note (1): Table A-6, “Summary of Personal Occupational Exposure Monitoring Data for”, Occupational EEnvironmental Release Data for, PEI Associates, 1990. The vapor pressure and boiling point of (the GS basis), mmHg and C, are comparable to the correspoNCS, which are mmHg and C, respectively. Hence the GS data is valid for comparison purposes. 
Servicing of MACs: 

Three documents containing occupational exposure data and information covering the  were made available by CCD for CEB’s review. These documents comprised, firsavailable journal article by J. Jetter of EPA that was included in the original PMsecond, a monitoring study for at in the US, and third, a risk the . The following is a discussion of these data sources. “Fault Tree Analysis for Exposure to in the U

J. Jetter, US EPA: 

This article was published in 2001 in Risk Analysis, and was included as part of tsubmission. This article describes a scenario where that the This scenario is not considered to be routine because the is aware ooccurred, takes action to mitigate the situation, and does not proceed to continue work unaware of what has occurred while being exposed to the resulting higher expoconcentration. “Personal Air Sampling For 

This is a monitoring study conducted by a third party for , who is not the PThis study covered monitoring in service shops in the throughout the US. It was nthe following reasons: 

1. The study design called for 24 samples but only 13 were obtained, indicati

inadequacy in whether the study is representative. 

2. The accuracy of some of the results are in question because break-through 

some of the samples. 

3. The study design may have resulted in inherent bias in that the shops that 

agreed on this beforehand. This issue is indicated in the study conclusio

The mean and highest concentrations were ppm and ppm, respectively. The asconcentration, based on PEI (1990), is ppm (the GS value of ppm was not utilcovers a scenario of intentional environment, which is curdisallowed by clean air act rules). Given the study deficiencies described above, the maximum value and the assessed value are in the same order of magnitude, the awas considered to be a more accurate measure of exposure. It is noted that the va , the basis of the GS estimate, which is mmHg, is greater than that “Risk Assessment for Alternative Refrigerant HFO-1234yf”

This is the only document among the three that covers the PMN substance. The scencovered in this document and the rational for including or excluding them from the assessment are given below: Occupational Exposure Scenario Rational for Acceptance or 

Exclusion 

Equipment Rupture in Shop Excluded because it is not a 

routine event since the work would cease after the event and 
mitigation would occur. 

Large Unnoticed Leak Accepted. Since it is unnoticed, 

the technician continues to work and is exposed to the resulting ambient concentration. 

Flammable mixture is formed Not typically covered in the NC 

program.