June 4, 2014 -- Final

1

Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector

Risk Screen on Substitute for CFC-12, CFC-13, R-13B1, and R-503 in Very Low 

Temperature Refrigeration and Non-Mechanical Heat Transfer

Substitute: Ethane (R-170)

This risk screen is restricted to very low temperature (VLT) refrigeration and non-mechanical 

heat transfer (thermosiphon) applications covered under UL 471: Commercial Refrigerators and 

Freezers.

This risk screen does not contain Clean Air Act (CAA) Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

and, therefore, may be disclosed to the public.

1. INTRODUCTION

Ozone-depleting substances (ODS) are being phased out of production in response to a series of 

diplomatic and legislative efforts that have taken place over the past two decades, including the Montreal 

Protocol and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), as authorized by Section 612 of the CAAA, administers the Significant New Alternatives 

Policy (SNAP) Program, which identifies acceptable and unacceptable substitutes for ODS in specific 

end-uses based on assessment of their health and environmental impacts. 

EPA’s decision on the acceptability of a substitute is based on the findings of a screening assessment of 

potential human health and environmental risks posed by the substitute in specific applications. EPA has 

already screened a large number of substitutes in many end-use applications within all of the major ODSusing sectors, including: refrigeration and air conditioning, solvent cleaning, foam blowing, aerosols, fire 

suppression, adhesives, coatings and inks, and sterilization. The results of these risk screens are presented 

in a series of Background Documents that are available in EPA's docket.

The purpose of this risk screen is to supplement EPA’s Background Document on the refrigeration and air 

conditioning sector (EPA 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the Background Document). This risk screen 

evaluates the potential use of ethane (R-170) as a substitute for CFC-12, CFC-13, R-13B1 and R-503 in

very low temperature (VLT) refrigeration, specifically in VLT freezers, and in non-mechanical heat 

transfer (thermosiphon). VLT refrigeration systems require maintaining temperatures at approximately -

80°C (-176°F) or lower. This type of equipment requires extremely reliable refrigeration cycles to

maintain low temperatures and must meet stringent technical standards that do not typically apply to 

refrigeration systems (EPA 2013). Table 1 presents the composition of the proposed substitute. 

Table 1. Composition of R-170

Constituent Chemical Formula CAS Number Concentration

(Weight Percent)

a

Ethane C2H6; CH3CH3 74-84-0 >99%

a Negligible amounts of impurities may be present.

Section 2 of this report summarizes the results of the risk screen for the proposed substitute. The 

remainder of the risk screen is organized into the following sections:
June 4, 2014 -- Final

2

 Section 3: Atmospheric Assessment

 Section 4: Volatile Organic Compound Assessment

 Section 5: Discussion of End-Use Scenarios Modeled 

 Section 6: Potential Health Effects

 Section 7: Flammability Assessment 

 Section 8: Asphyxiation Assessment 

 Section 9: End-Use Exposure Assessment

 Section 10: Occupational Exposure Assessment 

 Section 11: General Population Exposure Assessment

 Section 12: References

2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Ethane is recommended for SNAP approval for use in very low temperature freezers and non-mechanical 

heat transfer (thermosiphons), included under Underwriters Laboratory (UL) Standard 471: Commercial 

Refrigerators and Freezers. EPA’s risk screen indicates that the use of the proposed substitute will be less 

harmful to the atmosphere than the continued use of CFC-12, CFC-13, R-13B1, and R-503. No 

significant asphyxiation risks to personnel or toxicity risks to workers, personnel, or the general 

population are expected. Ethane’s contributions to volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions is not 

significant, as ethane is exempt under CAA regulations (40 CFR §51.100(s)). It is expected that 

procedures in the material safety data sheet (MSDS) for ethane and good manufacturing practices will be 

adhered to. Additionally, it is expected that the appropriate safety and personal protective equipment 

(PPE) (e.g. protective gloves, tightly sealed goggles, protective work clothing, and suitable respiratory 

protection in case of leakage or insufficient ventilation) consistent with Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) guidelines will be used during manufacture, installation and servicing, and 

disposal of very low temperature freezers using ethane. Because units are to be installed in locations with 

adequate space or ventilation in accordance with the VLT freezer manual for ethane, as discussed in 

greater detail in Section 9, significant toxicity or flammability risk to workers is also unlikely. 

Additional safeguards, including specified refrigerant concentration limits (RCL) for ethane, are also 

provided by adherence to industry standards including American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 15,

1 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 497,2

NFPA 68,

3 Underwriters Laboratory (UL) Standard 471,4

and all federal, state and local laws regarding 

the storage and use of flammable gases. In addition, the submitter’s recent UL certification for this

equipment provides additional safeguards.

3. ATMOSPHERIC ASSESSMENT

 

1

Safety Standard for Refrigeration Systems ASHRAE Standard 15 establishes safeguards for life, limb, health, and property and 

prescribes safety requirements.

2 NFPA 497 establishes a recommended practice for the classification of flammable liquids, gases, or vapors and of hazardous 

locations for electrical installations in chemical process areas. 

3 NFPA 68 Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting applies to the design, location, installation, maintenance, 

and use of devices and systems that vent combustion gases and pressures resulting from a deflagration within an enclosure so that 

structural and mechanical damage is minimized.

4 UL 471 Standard for Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers establishes safety requirements for the construction, electrical 

system, electrical components, refrigeration system, and performance of commercial refrigerators and freezers. 
June 4, 2014 -- Final

3

This section presents an assessment of the potential risks to atmospheric integrity posed by the use of 

ethane in VLT freezers. The ozone depletion potential (ODP), global warming potential (GWP), and 

atmospheric lifetime (ALT) of the proposed substitute are presented in Table 2. 

The proposed substitute is substantially less harmful to the ozone layer, has a lower climate impact, and a 

shorter atmospheric lifetime when compared to CFC-12, CFC-13, R-13B1, and R-503. In addition, ethane 

also has a lower climate impact and shorter atmospheric lifetime than other utilized VLT refrigerant 

substitutes, such as R-508B and HFC-23.

Table 2. Atmospheric Impacts of Ethane Compared to Other VLT Refrigerants

Refrigerant Ozone Depleting Potential 

(ODP)

a

Global Warming Potential

(GWP)

b

Atmospheric Lifetime in 

Years (ALT)

Ethane 0 5.5 c 0.17 d

R-13B1 (Halon 1301) 15.9 7,140 65b

CFC-12 0.82 10,900 100b

CFC-13 1 14,420 640b

R-503 0.599 14,560 NAe

R-508B 0 13,396 NAf

HFC-23 0 14,760 270

a WMO 2010 Scientific Assessment Report (2011)

b

IPCC 4th Assessment Report (Forster et al. 2007), unless otherwise noted.

c Global Cooling Inc. (2012)

d Gonzalez et al. (2011)

e R-503 is a blend consisting of CFC-13 (60%) and HFC-23 (40%). The ALT for CFC-13 is 640 years and the ALT for HFC-23 is 270 years. 

f R-508B is a blend consisting of HFC-23 (46%) and perfluoroethane (PFC-116) (54%). The ALT for HFC-23 is 222 years and the ALT for PFC116 is 10,000 years. 

4. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ANALYSIS

Ethane is exempt from the definition of volatile organic compound (VOC) under CAA regulations (40 

CFR 51.100(s)). Therefore, environmental impacts from the release of ethane as a VOC are not a 

significant concern.

5. DISCUSSION OF END-USE SCENARIOS MODELED

Ethane is proposed as a secondary heat transfer fluid in the thermosiphon of a very low temperature

(VLT) freezer. The VLT freezer uses a Stirling refrigeration system coupled to a thermosiphon to cool the 

interior space (see Error! Reference source not found.). The thermosiphon is a hermetic copper tube 

and condenser attached to the Stirling machine’s cold head and does not penetrate the Stirling machine. 

The working medium in the Stirling engine is helium gas which does not undergo phase change. The 

thermosiphon, containing ethane, carries out the thermal transport from the interior of the freezer to the 

cold acceptor of the Stirling (Berchowitz and Kwon 2012).
June 4, 2014 -- Final

4

Figure 1. Main components of VLT freezer with Stirling Refrigeration System

Source: Global Cooling (2012)

The submission states that the VLT freezer thermosiphon will contain a maximum charge size of 100 

grams (Global Cooling 2012). UL Standard 471, however, states that commercial refrigeration units 

containing flammable refrigerants can have a charge size of up to 150 grams. Both charge sizes, 100 

grams and 150 grams, are modeled in this risk screen. 

To represent a reasonable worst-case scenario, it is assumed that a catastrophic leak of refrigerant occurs 

while the VLT freezer is installed at the end-use. In these locations, the freezers are typically clustered 

side by side, spaced 25.4 cm (10 in) apart and in laboratory rooms with 3.0 m (10 ft) ceilings (Carnegie 

Mellon University 2007). A typical laboratory module has a minimum width of approximately 10 ft, but 

will vary in length based on the number of modules configured in a row, typically ranging up to an ideal 

length of approximately 33 ft long (National Institutes of Health 2008). Therefore, the analysis in this risk 

screen conservatively assumes that the VLT freezer is installed in one laboratory module that is 3.0 m (10 

ft) wide, 3.0 m (10 ft) long, and 3.0 m (10 ft) high. This space is assumed to have an effective volume of 

28 m

3

(1,000 ft3), with an effective floor area of 9.3 m

2

(100 ft2) (i.e., excluding the space filled by the 

freezers and other items in the laboratory). 

Under the worst case scenario, the full charge of the unit is assumed to be emitted over the course of one 

minute into the laboratory with 4 air changes per hour (ACH) (E.O. Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory 2013). A vertical concentration gradient is not assumed because ethane has approximately the 

same density as air (specific gravity of ethane relative to air is 1.0378 [air = 1]), and, therefore, when the 

full charge is released, the proposed substitute is expected to disperse evenly and immediately. It was 

assumed that an individual is present at the start of the leak and remains in the room until the charge is 

completely released. Table 3. End-Use Scenario Model AssumptionsTable 3 details the assumptions in 

the models throughout this risk screen (i.e., in Sections 7, 8, and 9).
June 4, 2014 -- Final

5

Table 3. End-Use Scenario Model Assumptions

Parameter Assumption

Refrigeration Unit VLT Freezer

Room Laboratory Module 

Charge Size (g) 100a and 150b

Length of Release (minutes) 1

Effective Room Size (volume - m3) 28 (1,000 ft3)

a

Room Ventilation (ACH) 4

c

Vertical Concentration Gradient No

a Global Cooling Inc. (2012)

b UL 471

c E.O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (2013)

EPA recognizes that VLT freezers may be placed in a variety of room types with different sizes and 

ventilation rates. In addition, more than one VLT freezer may be installed in the same space, as the units 

are fairly small with a volume of 0.78 m3 (27.5 ft3) and dimensions of 2.0 m x 0.87 m x 0.91 m (79 in x 34

in x 36 in), which is similar in capacity to a household refrigerator (Stirling Ultracold 2013). When units

are installed in smaller, enclosed spaces, there is a higher risk for flammability, asphyxiation, or toxicity 

concerns. To address these concerns, this risk screen incorporates threshold analyses in addition to the 

worst-case scenario modeling. The results from the threshold analyses are used to establish guidelines for 

choosing an effective room size, charge size, and ventilation rate such that use of ethane in VLT freezers

does not present risk to end-users or servicing technicians. 

6. POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS

To assess potential health risks from exposure to the proposed substitute in VLT freezers, EPA identified 

the relevant toxicity threshold values for comparison to modeled exposure concentrations for different 

scenarios. To protect consumers from the potential dangers of a catastrophic refrigerant leak from a VLT 

freezer, ASHRAE Standard 34 determined refrigerant concentration limits (RCLs) to reduce the risks of 

acute toxicity, asphyxiation, and flammability hazards in occupied spaces (ASHRAE 2010b). ASHRAE 

Standard 15 implements the aforementioned standard, requiring that “the concentration of refrigerant in 

an enclosed space following a complete discharge of a high-probability system shall not exceed the RCL” 

(ASHRAE 2010a). As such, this risk screen references the RCL in addition to the lower flammability 

limit, hypoxia No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL), and exposure limits, as an additional, 

conservative limit to ensure that significant flammability, asphyxiation, and end-use exposure risks, 

respectively, do not occur. 

For the occupational exposure analysis, potential risks from chronic worker exposure to ethane 

concentrations were evaluated by comparison to the workplace guidance level (WGL). In the absence of

an established short-term exposure level (STEL), acute exposure guideline (AEGL), or an emergency 

response planning guideline (ERPG), potential short-term, end-use exposures to ethane were compared to 

the excursion limit.

5 Table 4 lists the relevant toxicity limits, followed by Table 5 which describes each 

of these exposure limits in more detail. EPA’s approach for identifying or developing these values is 

discussed in Chapter 3 of the Background Document. 

 

5

It should be noted that this risk screen evaluates both short-term occupational and end-use (i.e., non-occupational) exposure by 

comparison to the excursion limit, which is typically used to evaluate short-term occupational exposure. EPA believes, however, 

that in the absence of an AEGL, STEL, or ERPG, the excursion limits provides a reasonable proxy. Notably, the ACGIH 

methodology (i.e., a calculation of three times the TLV-TWA) has also been used by DOE (2008) to develop a temporary 

emergency exposure limit for ethane (3,500 mg/m

3

or 2,900 ppm 15-min TWA), which applies to the general population. 
June 4, 2014 -- Final

6

Table 4. Exposure Limits of Ethane

Workplace Guidance Limit 

(Long-term Exposure)

ppm

Excursion Limit 

(Short-term Exposure)

ppm

Refrigerant Concentration Limit 

(RCL) ppm

1,000a (ACGIH TLV) 3,000b 7,000c

a ACGIH (2012)

b Calculated as three times the TLV-TWA. (ACGIH 2004)

c ASHRAE (2010b)

Table 5. Explanation of Exposure Limit-Related Terminologya

Organization Definition

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

AIHA American Industrial Hygiene Association

Exposure Limit Definition Explanation

Short-Term Exposure

STEL Short-Term Exposure Limit A 15-minute TWA exposure that should not be exceeded at any 

time during a workday, even if the 8-hour TWA is within the TLV–

TWA, set by ACGIH. 

AEGLb,c

Acute Exposure Guideline Level 1 AEGL-1 is the airborne concentration of a substance above which it 

is predicted that the general population, including susceptible 

individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or 

certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are 

not disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of 

exposure. 

Acute Exposure Guideline Level 2 AEGL-2 is the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm or 

mg/m3) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general 

population, including susceptible individuals, could experience 

irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or 

an impaired ability to escape.

Acute Exposure Guideline Level 3 AEGL-3 is the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm or 

mg/m3) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general 

population, including susceptible individuals, could experience lifethreatening health effects or death.

ERPG

Emergency Response Planning 

Guideline 1 

The maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed 

that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without 

experiencing other than mild transient health effects or perceiving a 

clearly defined, objectionable odor according to AIHA. 

Emergency Response Planning 

Guideline 2 

The maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed 

that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without 

experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health 

effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability to 

take protective action according to AIHA.

Emergency Response Planning 

Guideline 3 

The maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed 

nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without 

experiencing or developing life-threatening health effects according 
June 4, 2014 -- Final

7

to AIHA.

Excursion Limit d Excursion Limit Because methane (and other short-chain alkane gases through 

butane) does not have a TLV-short-term exposure limit, an 

excursion limit may be applied. Excursions in worker exposure 

levels may exceed 3 times the TLV-TWA for no more than a total of 

30 minutes during a workday, and under no circumstances should 

they exceed 5 times the TLV-TWA, provided that the TLV-TWA is 

not exceeded according to ACGIH. 

IDLH Immediately Dangerous to Life and 

Health

If exposed to this concentration, room occupants are expected to 

be able to escape the room within 30 minutes without experiencing 

escape-impairing or irreversible health effects.

TEELe

Temporary Emergency Exposure 

Limit 1

TEEL-1 is the maximum concentration in air below which it is 

believed nearly all individuals could be exposed without 

experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or 

perceiving a clearly defined, objectionable odor. 

Temporary Emergency Exposure 

Limit 2

TEEL-2 is the maximum concentration in air below which it is 

believed nearly all individuals could be exposed without 

experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health 

effects or symptoms that could impair their abilities to take 

protective action.

Temporary Emergency Exposure 

Limit 3

TEEL-3 is the maximum concentration in air below which it is 

believed nearly all individuals could be exposed without 

experiencing or developing life-threatening health effects. 

RCL Refrigerant Concentration Limit The RCL for a refrigerant is intended to reduce the risks of acute 

toxicity, asphyxiation, and flammability hazards in normally 

occupied, enclosed spaces. The RCL for each refrigerant is the 

lowest of the Acute-Toxicity Exposure Limit (ATEL), Oxygen 

Deprivation Limit (ODL), and Flammable Concentration Limit (FCL). 

Determination assumes full vaporization with no removal by 

ventilation, dissolution, reaction, or decomposition and complete 

mixing of refrigerant in the space to which it is released.

Long-Term Exposure

PEL Permissible Exposure Limit This is an 8-hour time-weighted average exposure limit set by 

OSHA. 

TLV-TWA Threshold Limit Value –TimeWeighted AverageThe TWA concentration for a conventional 8-hour workday and a 

40-hour workweek, to which it is believed that nearly all workers 

may be repeatedly exposed, day after day, for a working lifetime 

without adverse effect according to ACGIH. 

a All information in this table taken from EPA (1994) except where otherwise noted.

b EPA (2012)

c Applicable to emergency exposure periods ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.

d ACGIH (2004)

e Chemical exposure guidelines to use for emergency planning if no AEGL or ERPG is available. TEELs are developed based on concentration 

limits or toxicology parameters (DOE 2008).

According to the MSDS, chronic exposure to ethane may cause damage to the heart or central nervous 

system if inhalation, skin contact, or eye contact with ethane occurs. The most likely pathway of exposure 

is through inhalation. If ethane is inhaled, person(s) should be immediately moved to fresh air. In 

accordance with the MSDS, EPA further recommends that if breathing is difficult, person(s) be given 
June 4, 2014 -- Final

8

oxygen, provided a qualified operator is present, and medical attention be sought. In the case of dermal 

exposure, the MSDS for ethane recommends that person(s) immediately flush the skin with plenty of 

water for at least 15 minutes while removing contaminated clothing and shoes. 

Furthermore, to avoid the risk of static discharges and gas ignition, soak contaminated clothing 

thoroughly with water before removing it. Any contact with rapidly expanding ethane gas may cause 

burns or frostbite. If this is the exposure case, the MSDS recommends attempting to warm up the frozen 

tissues and seeking medical attention. Bathe (not rub) the affected area with lukewarm, not hot, water and 

consult a physician. If water is not available, cover the affected area with a clean, soft cloth. Alternatively, 

if the fingers or hands are frostbitten, warm the affected area by placing it in the armpit; gently exercise 

the affected part while being warmed, and seek medical attention immediately.

In case of ocular exposure, the MSDS for ethane recommends that person(s) immediately flush the eyes, 

including under the eyelids, with copious amounts of water for at least 15 minutes. EPA’s review of the 

human health impacts of this proposed substitute is contained in the public docket for this decision. The 

potential health effects of ethane can be minimized by following the exposure guidelines and ventilation 

and PPE recommendations outlined in the MSDS for ethane and this risk screen. 

7. FLAMMABILITY ASSESSMENT

ASHRAE Standard 34 classifies ethane as a Class A3 refrigerant. Ethane is flammable when its 

concentration in the air is in the range of between 3 percent and 12.5 percent by volume (30,000 ppm to 

125,000 ppm). In the presence of an ignition source (e.g., static electricity, a spark resulting from a switch 

malfunction, or a cigarette), an explosion or a fire could occur when the concentration of ethane exceeds 

its lower flammability limit (LFL) of 30,000 ppm, posing a significant safety concern for workers and 

personnel if it is not handled carefully. Only refrigerant technicians certified to work with flammable 

refrigerants should handle VLT units containing ethane during manufacturing, installation, servicing, 

transportation and disposal. The remainder of this section assesses the flammability risks and summarizes 

the recommended measures to ensure safe handling and use of the refrigerant during servicing, disposal, 

and end-use.

7.1 Flammability Risk during Manufacture

In production facilities or other facilities where large quantities of the refrigerant will be stored, proper 

safety precautions should be in place to minimize the risk of explosion. As indicated by the submitter, the 

proposed substitute is purchased and not manufactured on site. However, Global Cooling manufactures 

the very low temperature freezers and, during the final stage of freezer manufacture, the thermosiphon is 

filled with the proposed substitute. According to the submitter, the magnitude of release is approximately 

0.2 grams per filling and 10 units are manufactured and filled each day. A flow restrictor and two manual 

valves must be opened for the filling process to take place. A Schrader-type valve6is attached to the fill 

tube (removed after pinch-off) so that the delivery line is sealed and opened only on connection to the fill 

tube (Global Cooling Inc. 2012). Any release of refrigerant is expected to take place during this filling 

activity which is assumed to occur in a factory area with proper ventilation rates. 

All ethane storage and transport equipment should be installed with safety devices that minimize the 

likelihood of catastrophic releases. VLT freezers installed with ethane should be clearly labeled as 

containing a flammable refrigerant charge. EPA believes that because relevant safety standards, the 

 

6 A Schrader-type valve is a spring-loaded valve, similar to those used on car tires, that consists of an externally threaded hollow 

cylindrical metal tube with a core that threads down into them. This valve opens only when a properly equipped refrigerant hose 

is fully seated onto the valve, which depresses the core and allows refrigerant to flow through (Stanfield & Skaves 2008). 
June 4, 2014 -- Final

9

MSDS for ethane, and OSHA requirements under 29 CFR 1910 (e.g., proper ventilation and storage 

practices within manufacturing facilities to prevent fire and explosion) are followed by workers, 

flammability during manufacture is not a concern. 

7.2 Flammability Risk during Servicing and End-Use

The risk of flammability during servicing and end-use for the reasonable worst-case scenario (see Section 

5) was investigated for ethane. Both servicing and end-use of very low temperature freezers charged with 

ethane are expected to take place in the same location. The submitter indicates that during servicing, the 

cooling machine is replaced and the proposed substitute is recovered using recovery equipment designed 

specifically for flammable hydrocarbon refrigerants (i.e., equipped with flammable gas leak detectors and 

monitors and without potential sources of ignition) with sufficient onboard storage capacity and suitable 

for the refrigerant in terms of the pressure rating and compatibility of valve seals.7 For example, the 

Caresaver Universal Refrigerant Recovery Unit specified by the submitter has an onboard storage 

capacity of 250 g, which is sufficient for two VLT freezer units charged with ethane. In this process, a 

flow restrictor and two valves must be opened for filling. When the charging valve is disconnected, only 

about 0.02 grams of the proposed substitute is expected to be released. In order to determine the potential 

flammability risks during servicing or end-use in case of a catastrophic release of refrigerant in the 

laboratory hallway, concentrations of ethane immediately following a complete release of refrigerant, 

were compared to the lower flammability limit (LFL) for ethane (30,000 ppm). Table 6 presents the 

results of the analysis.

Table 6. Flammability Assessmenta

Scenario Charge Size (g) Effective Room 

Size (m3)

Maximum Instantaneous 

Concentration

(ppm)b,c

Reasonable Worst-Case 1 100 28 (1,000 ft3) 2,900 

Reasonable Worst-Case 2 150 28 (1,000 ft3) 4,300 

Threshold Analysis 1: Charge Size 1,100 28 (1,000 ft3) 30,000

Threshold Analysis 2a: Room Size 100 2.7 (95 ft3) 30,000

Threshold Analysis 2b: Room Size 150 4.0 (141 ft3) 30,000

 Bold font indicates modeling results.

 a Cells highlighted in green are the scenarios with acceptable exposure levels given various modeling assumption options.

b Lower Flammability Limit of ethane is equal to 30,000 ppm

c Values provided in these columns refer to the concentration in entire room because a vertical concentration gradient is not assumed. In 

this scenario, 100% of the charge size leaks. The air flow rate is 4 ACH. 

As demonstrated in Table 6, the maximum instantaneous concentration of ethane in the entire room at a 

charge size 100 grams would be approximately 2,900 ppm, which is less than 10 percent of the LFL for 

ethane. At a charge size of 150 grams, the maximum instantaneous concentration of ethane in the room 

would be approximately 4,300 ppm, which is approximately 14 percent of the LFL for ethane. As such, 

under the reasonable worst-case scenarios, ethane is not expected to present a significant risk of 

flammability.

EPA, however, also recognizes that multiple VLT freezers may be used in an individual room, and as 

such, also performed threshold analyses based on the total charge size (i.e., for all freezers in a given 

space). The results of the threshold analyses indicate that for flammability to be of concern within an 

effective room size of 28 m

3

, the total charge size would have to be at least 1,100 grams, which is 

approximately 7 times the maximum charge size of a single VLT freezer. The submitter states that 

 

7 GIZ (2010)
June 4, 2014 -- Final

10

anywhere from five or six to hundreds of VLT freezers are likely to be installed side-by-side in 

laboratories and other proposed end-use locations. Based on this analysis, to reduce flammability risk, a 

room with effective volume of 28 m3should not exceed 11 freezers with an individual charge size of 100 

grams or 7 freezers with an individual charge size of 150 grams; and an individual freezer of 100 grams 

or 150 grams should not be placed in a room smaller than 2.7 m3(95 ft3) or 4.0 m3(141 ft3), respectively. 

ASHRAE Standard 34 also more conservatively recommends that the RCL for ethane (8.7 g/m3of ethane 

or 7,000 ppm by volume) should not be exceeded. Based on a room with an effective volume of 28 m3, 

this corresponds to a limit of 2 freezers with an individual charge size of 100 grams or 1 freezer with an 

individual charge size of 150 grams. Thus, EPA believes that when VLT freezer units are installed in 

spaces that are consistent with manufacturer recommendations and the guidelines of relevant safety 

standards (e.g., ASHRAE 15 and 34), flammability risk is not a significant concern.

Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely that a laboratory, laboratory hallway, or storage space as small as 

those determined in the threshold analyses would exist. The submitter states that the freezer units have 

dimensions of 2.0 m x 0.87 m x 0.91 m (79 in x 34 in x 36 in), meaning that the bottom area of the freezer 

of 0.80 m2.The unit, therefore, would cover 91% and 66% of the floor area determined in the threshold 

analyses for 100 g and 150 g charge sizes, respectively. It is further unlikely that the entire refrigerant 

charge would accidentally release into the space. The refrigerant is located in the thermosiphon which is a 

3/8 inch copper tube that wraps around the 16-gauge stainless steel inner liner of the freezer. A 

catastrophic release of refrigerant could only occur if the inner liner were punctured sufficiently and at the 

right place to penetrate the thermosiphon tube. The thermosiphon is placed sufficiently behind the thermal 

breaker and is encased in polyurethane foam, further reducing the likelihood of such a puncture. Endusers, however, should still ensure that there is adequate space (i.e., the effective volume of the room 

should be larger than 2.7 or 4.0 m3), depending on the charge size of the VLT freezer (see Table 6) and 

ventilation in any room where the VLT freezers are installed to mitigate the risk of fire or explosion 

resulting from a catastrophic leak during end-use or servicing activities. 

Catastrophic releases of large quantities of refrigerant, especially in areas where refrigerant is stored, 

could lead to an explosion in the presence of an ignition source. For this reason, it is important that only 

properly trained and certified technicians handle ethane. The submitter has provided safety guidelines for 

handling ethane, which should be followed. As a further precaution, certification requirements and 

training programs for technicians that handle ethane should be developed using these guidelines. During 

servicing operations, technicians should ensure that proper ventilation is in place through the use of fans 

(or other mechanical ventilation devices) and portable refrigerant detectors should be used to alert 

technicians to the presence of flammable gases in the area. In addition, VLT freezers installed with ethane 

should be clearly labeled as containing a flammable refrigerant. Because relevant safety standards and the 

MSDS for ethane are followed by service technicians and because ethane refrigeration units will be 

installed in areas with adequate space and ventilation, EPA believes that flammability during servicing 

and end-use is not expected to be of concern. 

8. ASPHYXIATION ASSESSMENT

The risk of asphyxiation for a reasonable “worst-case” scenario was investigated for ethane. In this 

section, risk of asphyxiation is assessed in three ways: 1) modeling the oxygen concentration under the 

charge size and room size specified in the worst-case scenario, 2) performing a threshold analysis of 

minimum charge size needed to cause an asphyxiation risk in the room size specified in the worst-case 

scenario 3) performing a threshold analysis of the maximum room size needed to cause an asphyxiation 

risk with the charge size specified in the worst-case scenario. This analysis does not consider conditions 

that are likely to occur that would reduce the levels to which individuals would be exposed, such as open 

doors or windows, fans operating, conditioned airflow (either heated or cooled), or even openings at the 

bottom of doors that allow air to flow in and out. As specified in Section 4, this analysis does not assume 
June 4, 2014 -- Final

11

a vertical concentration gradient when the proposed substitute is released. If the proposed substitute 

passes the screening analysis with these restrictive assumptions in place, it can be reasonably assumed 

that no risks of asphyxiation will be present under real-world conditions. The reasonable worst-case 

scenarios that are modeled in this asphyxiation assessment are summarized in Table 7 below. 

Table 7. Asphyxiation Assessmenta

Scenario Charge Size (g) Effective Room Size 

(m3)

Percent Oxygen 

Concentration in 

Roomb

Reasonable Worst-Case 100 85 (3,000 ft3) 21

Reasonable Worst-Case 150 85 (3,000 ft3) 21

Threshold Analysis 1: Charge Size 44,800 85 (3,000 ft3) 12

Threshold Analysis 2a: Room Size 100 0.19 (6.7 ft3) 12

Threshold Analysis 2b: Room Size 150 0.28 (9.9 ft3) 12

 Bold font indicates modeling results.

 a Cells highlighted in green are the scenarios with acceptable exposure levels given various modeling assumption options.

 b The typical concentration of oxygen in air is considered to be 21 percent (Mackenzie & Mackenzie 1995).

In order for a risk of asphyxiation to occur, the normal concentration of oxygen in air (21 percent) must 

be reduced to 12 percent.8 Based on the worst-case scenario modeling assumptions, ethane in a VLT 

freezer does not present a significant risk of asphyxiation. The concentration of ethane in the air following 

the release of either charge size does not exceed 0.44 percent, which has an insignificant impact on the 

normal concentration of oxygen in air. This modeling does not take into account any ventilation which is 

likely to occur, such as conditioned airflow, open doors, or even openings at the bottom of doors that 

allow air to flow in and out, as mentioned above, therefore, the actual asphyxiation risk to personnel is 

likely to be even smaller than modeled. 

The space where a VLT freezer with ethane is installed must allow for adequate room for end-users to 

access the machine. To further prevent risk of asphyxiation, end-users should ensure that there is adequate 

space accounting for other appliances, furniture, or storage (i.e., the effective volume of the room should 

be larger than 0.19 or 0.28 m3, depending on the charge size of the refrigeration unit [see Table 7] and 

ventilation (in accordance with the MSDS for ethane) in any room where the VLT freezers are installed.

Additionally, adherence to ASHRAE 34, which provides more conservative concentration limits, will 

ensure that asphyxiation is not a risk. Minimum room sizes according to the RCL stated in ASHRAE 34 

can be found in Section 6. Because VLT freezers are unlikely to be installed in spaces where full release 

of ethane would displace enough oxygen to cause asphyxiation, EPA does not believe that the use of 

ethane in VLT freezers with either charge size (i.e., 100 grams or 150 grams) poses a significant risk of 

asphyxiation or impaired coordination to laboratory personnel. 

9. END-USE EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

This section presents estimates of potential personnel exposures to ethane during use of VLT freezers. 

Personnel exposure analysis was performed to determine acute/short-term laboratory personnel exposures 

resulting from potential catastrophic leakage of refrigerant from VLT freezers. The analysis was 

undertaken to determine the 30-minute TWA for ethane, which was compared to the 30-min Excursion 

Limit for ethane. The results of the end-use exposure assessment are presented in Table 8to assess the risk 

to personnel. The estimated exposures were derived using conservative assumptions, and represent a 

worst-case scenario with a low probability of occurrence, as the analysis does not consider opened 

 

8

Twelve percent oxygen in air is the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) for hypoxia (ICF 1997).
June 4, 2014 -- Final

12

windows, fans operating, conditioned airflow (either heated or cooled) and other variables that would 

reduce the levels to which individuals would be exposed.

Table 8. End-Use Exposure Assessmenta

Scenario Charge Size 

(g)

Effective Room 

Size (m3)

30-min TWA EndUse Exposure 

(ppm)b

Reasonable Worst-Case 1 100 28 (1,000 ft3) 1,600

Reasonable Worst-Case 2 150 28 (1,000 ft3) 2,400

Threshold Analysis 1: Charge Size 187 28 (1,000 ft3) 2,993

Threshold Analysis 2a: Room Size 100 15 (530 ft3) 2,988

Threshold Analysis 2b: Room Size 150 23 (810 ft3) 2,923

Bold font indicates modeling results.

a Cells highlighted in green are the scenarios with acceptable exposure levels given various modeling assumption options.

b See Table 4 for more information.

Under the reasonable worst-case scenario described in Section 5, catastrophic releases of ethane from a 

VLT freezer with a charge size of 100 grams and 150 grams were modeled. The modeling indicates that 

the maximum anticipated personnel exposure concentration for ethane with a 150-gram charge size is 

2,400 ppm, within the range of the 30-min Excursion Limit of 3,000 ppm. However, the maximum 100-

gram charge size indicated by the submitter is below the 30-min Excursion Limit. Because the modeling 

was done using a conservative laboratory module size and the submitter reported the maximum charge 

size for the VLT freezer to be 100 grams, personnel exposure to the proposed substitute at end-use is not 

considered a significant risk. To mitigate risk during end-use, EPA recommends that for a minimum room 

volume of 28 m3, the charge size not exceed 112 grams, and for a maximum charge size of 150 grams, the 

VLT freezer not be installed in a room of volume less than 38 m3. To minimize the risk of exposure, EPA 

recommends that refrigeration units be installed in rooms with adequate space and/or the ventilation and 

engineering control (e.g., local ventilation such as a fan or vents on doors to adjoining rooms) outlined in 

the MSDS. To prevent exposure and potential serious side effects during larger releases, EPA 

recommends that the charge size for an ethane VLT freezer does not exceed the RCL (7,000 ppm) and 

proposes to require compliance with UL 471. Proper leak protection devices and engineering control 

requirements and adherence to the MSDS will further ensure that exposure limits are maintained below 

those described in Table 8.

10. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

This section assesses potential exposures to workers during manufacture, installation, servicing, and 

disposal of ethane. As indicated by the submitter and discussed in Section 5.1, the proposed substitute is 

purchased and not manufactured on site. The charging of ethane VLT freezer units occurs at the final 

stage of freezer manufacture. 

To ensure that use of the proposed substitute in VLT freezers does not pose an unacceptable risk to 

workers during servicing and disposal, occupational exposure modeling was performed using a boxmodel approach. For a detailed description of the methodology used for this screening assessment, the 

reader is referred the occupational exposure and hazard analysis described in Chapter 5 of the 

Background Document. Estimates of refrigerant release per event for various release scenarios and data 

on number of events in 2010 were obtained from the Vintaging Model.9For the VLT freezer end-use, the 

 

9

ICF International maintains the Vintaging Model for EPA in order to simulate the aggregate impacts of the ODS phaseout on 

the use and emissions of various fluorocarbons and their substitutes over a period of several years across 60 different end-uses. 

The model tracks the use and emissions of various compounds for the annual vintages of new equipment that enter service in 

each end-use. The vintage of each type of equipment determines such factors as leak rate, charge size, number of units in 

operation, and the initial ODS substance that the equipment contained. 
June 4, 2014 -- Final

13

release per event was conservatively assumed to be 0.25 percent of the equipment charge during servicing 

and 35 percent of the equipment charge during disposal.10 Additionally, EPA is proposing to allow 

intentional venting or release of ethane as a refrigerant during installation, servicing, maintenance and 

disposal from very low temperature refrigeration equipment and non-mechanical heat transfer equipment. 

If venting does occur, EPA recommends that it is done in a well-ventilated area (e.g., outdoors). 

Therefore, scenarios in which 100% of the equipment charge was released during servicing and disposal 

were also considered. The release rate per event was multiplied by the number of events estimated to 

occur over a workday. These assumptions result in approximately eight potential exposure events per day. 

For disposal, it was conservatively assumed that 10 units are disposed during an 8-hour work day. The 

modeled exposure concentrations were compared to the estimated short-term occupational exposure limits 

at servicing and long-term exposure limits at disposal. Ethane does not have an established STEL or 

AEGL value so the short-term modeling results for ethane were evaluated using the calculated 30-min

Excursion Limit (3,000 ppm). 

10.1 Occupational Exposure during Manufacture

Ethane is produced around the world for use in a wide variety of end-uses. As indicated in the SNAP 

submission, however, the proposed substitute is not manufactured by the submitter. Where manufacture 

occurs in the United States, the MSDS for ethane should be referenced and proper engineering controls 

and PPE used. Ethane is not expected to pose a risk to workers during manufacture when the engineering 

controls and PPE recommendations referenced in the MSDS for ethane are followed. Engineering 

controls should include local ventilation (e.g., chemical hoods) for standard manufacturing procedures so 

workers can avoid physical contact with the refrigerant and to achieve emission control. 

Exposure to the refrigerant is expected to take place during filling of the thermosiphon, which occurs at 

the final stage of manufacture of the freezer. Less than five minutes is required to fill and pinch-off the 

filling tube. Therefore, the total fill process time in one day is approximately 50 minutes, assuming 10 

units are manufactured in one day. According to the submitter, the magnitude of release is approximately 

0.02 g per filling. (Global Cooling 2012) The filling activity is assumed to occur in a factory area with 

proper ventilation rates and carried out using the process described in Section 5.1. The Threshold Limit 

Value-Time Weighed Average (8-hour TWA) for ethane is 1,000 ppm for an 8-hour work day (ACGIH 

2012). Assuming an 8-hour work day in factory room with volume 5,667 m3, workers would be exposed 

to approximately 0.2 grams of isobutane per day, or a concentration of 3.5 x 10-5 ppm, which is 

approximately 3.5 x 10-6 percent of the 8-hour recommended exposure limit for ethane. This amount of 

exposure is insignificant in comparison to the 8-hour TWA. Additionally, because of established 

equipment design and installation practices, significant exposures to ethane will be unlikely. Thus, EPA 

does not believe that manufacturing, including charging, of VLT freezers with ethane presents a 

significant concern to workers. 

10.2 Occupational Exposure during Servicing

As indicated by the submitter, when ethane VLT freezers are serviced, the refrigerant will need to be 

removed using recovery equipment designed for hydrocarbon refrigerants. The total time to replace a 

cooling machine would be one hour. It takes ten minutes to extract the proposed substitute and it takes 

less than five minutes to fill and pinch-off the filling tube. Exposure to the proposed substitute is only 

expected to occur when the charging valve is disconnected. (Global Cooling 2012) 

For servicing of the VLT freezers, it was conservatively assumed that the release per event was 0.25 

percent of the equipment charge and eight events of servicing a unit occur in an 8-hour work day. The 

maximum 30-minute time weighted average (TWA) exposure for ethane was estimated for the servicing 

 

10 During disposal it is assumed that 100 percent of the refrigerant charge remains in the unit.
June 4, 2014 -- Final

14

exposure scenarios (see Table 9). The modeling results indicate that the maximum anticipated 

occupational exposure concentrations for ethane are very low with either a 100-gram or 150-gram charge 

size for both 0.25% and 100% release of refrigerant during servicing. Because ethane does not have shortterm exposure limits and the exposure concentrations modeled are significantly small, occupational 

exposure to the proposed substitute during servicing is not considered a significant risk to workers. 

Further, the estimated exposures were derived using conservative assumptions, and represent a worst-case 

scenario with a low probability of occurrence. These types of systems are typically serviced in wellventilated areas by trained personnel using proper industrial hygiene techniques and PPE. 

EPA is proposing to allow intentional venting or release of ethane as a refrigerant during installation, 

servicing, maintenance and disposal from very low temperature and non-mechanical heat transfer 

equipment. However, both servicing and end-use of VLT freezer units are expected to take place in the 

same room. Servicing is likely to be done by a service technician using refrigerant recovery equipment 

with an onboard storage capacity that is sufficient for more than one VLT freezer unit charged with 

ethane, as described in Section 7.2. Given that the recovery equipment is efficient and capable of 

servicing multiple units in the end-use location and it is cost-effective to recover the ethane refrigerant, 

EPA does not expect venting to occur frequently. During servicing operations, technicians should ensure 

that proper ventilation is in place through the use of fans (or other mechanical ventilation devices) and 

portable refrigerant detectors should be used to alert technicians to the presence of flammable gases in the 

area. If a technician is servicing a bank of these VLT freezer units charged with ethane and venting occurs 

frequently, EPA recommends the use of this safety equipment to prevent the concentration of ethane in 

the room from exceeding its RCL. 

Table 9. Occupational Risk Assessment during Servicinga

Component

30-minute TWA Occupational Exposure 

(ppm)

Charge Size: 100 grams

30-minute TWA Occupational 

Exposure (ppm)

Charge Size: 150 grams

30-min 

Excursion Limitb

(ppm)

0.25% Release 100% Release 0.25% Release 100% Release

Ethane 0.35 74 0.53 212 3,000 

a Cells highlighted in green are the scenarios that are deemed to be acceptable given various modeling assumption options.

b Calculated as three times the TLV-TWA. ACGIH (2004)

10.3 Occupational Exposure during Disposal

According to the submitter, at disposal of the VLT freezer, the proposed substitute is intended to be 

recovered using a Caresaver Universal Refrigerant Recovery Unit and recycling of the proposed 

substitute will be a decision taken by the gas supply companies who receive the recovered proposed 

substitute (Global Cooling 2012). Disposal of VLT freezers is expected to occur with limited frequency at 

disposal facilities and with limited duration of exposure to the refrigerant charge. Potential exposures to 

the refrigerant during recovery and disposal are expected to occur during activities related to draining the 

refrigerant from the machine unit into cylinders (e.g., connecting of pipes). 

Two disposal scenarios were analyzed: the first scenario assumed 35 percent of the equipment charge was 

release per event, and the second scenario assumed 100 percent was released per event.11 The latter 

scenario accounts for the possibility that venting of the entire charge of ethane could occur during 

disposal if EPA finalizes a rule that would allow venting of ethane in these end uses. It was 

conservatively assumed that 10 events of disposing a unit occur in an 8-hour work day for the first 

scenario while the second scenario assumes that a catastrophic leak of the entire refrigerant charge only 

 

11 During servicing and disposal it is assumed that 100 percent of the original refrigerant charge is remaining in the 

unit.
June 4, 2014 -- Final

15

occurs for one unit, based on the assumption that the assembly line is shutdown following this event. The 

modeling indicates that 8-hour worker exposure concentrations for ethane will at no point exceed 40

percent of the long-term exposure limits for ethane during disposal of VLT freezers with either a 100-

gram or 150-gram charge size. Table 9 displays the maximum 8-hr occupational exposure levels for each 

charge size for both 35% and 100% release of refrigerant during disposal. Because modeled exposure 

levels in every scenario are significantly lower than the exposure guidelines for ethane, occupational 

exposure to the proposed substitute during disposal is not considered a toxicity threat. Further, the 

estimated exposures were derived using conservative assumptions, and represent a worst-case scenario 

with a low probability of occurrence. These types of systems are typically disposed of by trained 

personnel using proper industrial hygiene techniques.

Table 10. Occupational Risk Assessment during Disposala

Component

8-Hour TWA Occupational 

Exposure (ppm)

Charge size: 100 grams

8-Hour TWA Occupational 

Exposure (ppm)

Charge size: 150 grams

8-Hour Long 

Term Exposure 

Limits (ppm)

35% Release 100% Release 35% Release 100% Release

Ethane 18 52 27 78 1,000b

 

a Cells highlighted in green are the scenarios that are deemed to be acceptable given various modeling assumption options.

 b ACGIH (2012)

Although anticipated occupational exposures are well below the exposure limits for ethane, the 

recommendations for proper engineering controls and PPE in the MSDS for ethane should be followed. 

Adequate ventilation should always be established during any use, handling, or storage of ethane.

Engineering controls should include vapor-in air detection systems and local exhaust ventilation during 

use of ethane to prevent dispersion of the proposed substitute throughout the work place. In addition, an 

eye wash and safety shower should be near the manufacturing facility and locations where isobutane is 

stored and ready for use. In general, use of PPE selected in accordance with OSHA 29 CFR 1910.132, 29 

CFR 1910.133, 29 CFR 1910.134, and ANSI Z88.2 is recommended, such as splash goggles, 

mechanically-resistance gloves and metatarsal shoes (i.e., steel-toed boots) when handling cylinders, 

chemically-resistant gloves when handling the gas mixture (e.g., butyl rubber, chlorinated polyethylene, 

or neoprene), and protective clothing (Natural Refrigerants 2008). Because proper handling and disposal 

guidelines are followed in accordance with good industrial hygiene and manufacturing practices and the 

MSDS for ethane, there is no significant risk to workers during the manufacturing, installation, servicing, 

and disposal of ethane.

11. GENERAL POPULATION EXPOSURE

General population exposures to ambient air, surface water and solid waste to releases of ethane are not 

expected when manufactured for use and used as a refrigerant in VLT freezers. The proposed substitute is 

proposed for use in a thermosiphon that is hermetically sealed by a pinch-off tube. Thus, significant 

releases are not anticipated. At room temperature, ethane is a gas and, therefore, releases to ground or 

surface water are not anticipated, as ethane is anticipated to dissipate into the atmosphere upon release to 

outside air (i.e., because natural ventilation rates would be higher and there is no enclosed space to keep 

ethane concentrated). Should air releases during manufacturing operations occur, engineering controls 

should be used (e.g. carbon absorption scrubbers) to collect ethane and prevent the release of ethane to the 

atmosphere. EPA believes that by using proper engineering controls and by following disposal and 

containment recommendations outlined in the proposed substitute’s MSDS, exposure to ethane is not 

expected to pose a significant toxicity risk to the general population. 
June 4, 2014 -- Final

16

12. REFERENCES

ACGIH. 2004. The Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices. 

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Available at: www.acgih.org. 

ACGIH. 2012. Guide to Occupational Exposure Values. American Conference of Governmental 

Industrial Hygienists.

ANSI/ASHRAE. 2010a. Standard 15: Safety Standard for Refrigeration Systems. American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

ANSI/ASHRAE. 2010b. Standard 34: Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants. American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 

ANSI/ASHRAE. 2013a. Standard 62: Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. American Society 

of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

Berchowitz, D.M., and Y. Kwon. 2012. Environmental Profiles of Stirling-Cooled and Cascade-Cooled 

Ultra-Low Temperature Freezers. Sustainability (mdpi) 4, no 11: 2838-2851.

Carnegie Mellon University. 2007. Construction of Biosafety Containment Laboratories. Available at: 

http://www.cmu.edu/ehs/facilities---construction/biosafety---containment---laboratories.html.

E.O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 2013. Self-Benchmarking Guide for High-Tech Buildings: 

Laboratories. Available at: http://hightech.lbl.gov/benchmarking-guides/lab-v2.html.

Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. 

Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland. (2007). Errata. In: 

Climate Change 2007:The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. 

Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Available at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-errata.pdf.

GIZ. 2010. Guidelines for the safe use of hydrocarbon refrigerants: A handbook for engineers, 

technicians, trainers and policy-makers – For a climate friendly cooling. Available at: 

http://www.giz.de/Themen/en/dokumente/giz2010-en-guidelines-safe-use-of-hydrocarbon.pdf

Gonzalez, G. Abad, N. D. C. Allen, P. F. Bernath, C. D. Boone, S. D. McLeod, G. L. Manney, G. C. 

Toon, C. Carouge, Y. Wang, S. Wu, M. P. Barkley, P. I. Palmer, Y. Xiao, and T. M. Fu. 2011. Ethane, 

ethyne and carbon monoxide concentrations in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere from ACE 

and GEOS-Chem: a comparison study. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 9927-9941. Available at: 

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/9927/2011/acp-11-9927-2011.pdf.

Global Cooling Inc. 2012. Ethane in Very Low Temperature Refrigeration. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program Submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Global Cooling Inc. 2013. Follow-up information provided to EPA. Flammability Risk Assessment of R170 (Ethane) for Use in Very-Low Temperature Freezer Thermosiphon. June 2013. Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program Submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
June 4, 2014 -- Final

17

ICF. 1997. Physiological Effects of Alternative Fire Protection Agents - Hypoxic Atmospheres 

Conference. Stephanie Skaggs prepared the proceedings of the conference held May 22, 1997 in New 

London, CT.

Mackenzie, F.T. and J.A. Mackenzie. 1995. Our changing planet. Prentice-Hall.

National Institutes of Health. 2008. Design Requirements Manual for Biomedical Laboratories and 

Animal Research Facilities. Available at: 

http://orf.od.nih.gov/PoliciesAndGuidelines/BiomedicalandAnimalResearchFacilitiesDesignPoliciesandG

uidelines/Pages/DesignRequirementsManualPDF.aspx

Natural Refrigerants. 2008. Material Data Safety Sheet – Ethane (R-170). Available at: 

http://www.refrigerants.com/MSDS/nri-R170.pdf

Stanfield, C. & D. Skaves. 2008. Fundamentals of HVAC/R. Section Four: Refrigerants and the 

Refrigeration System, Unit 25: Accessing Sealed Refrigeration Systems. Pearson Higher Education. 

Available at: http://www.pearsonhighered.com/samplechapter/0132223678.pdf

Stirling Ultracold. 2013. Technical Data Sheet: Stirling Ultracold SU780U Ultra-Low Temperature 

Freezer. Athens, Ohio. Available at: http://stirlingultracold.com/lib/sitefiles/pdf/SU780U-Cutsheet.pdf

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008. DOE Handbook – Temporary Emergency Exposure Limits For 

Chemicals: Methods And Practice. Available online at: http://orise.orau.gov/emi/scapa/files/doe-hdbk1046-2008_ac.pdf.

U.S. EPA. (1994). Significant New Alternatives Policy Technical Background Document: Risk Screen 

on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-depleting Substances: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning. 

Stratospheric Protection Division. 

U.S. EPA. 2012. Acute Exposure Guidelines (AEGLs) Definitions. Available online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl/pubs/define.htm.

U.S. EPA. 2013. Refrigerants and Air Conditioning: Ozone Layer Protection – Alternatives/SNAP. 

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/index.html.