Whitmyre Research

2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600

Arlington, Virginia 22201

(703) 351-5072

(703) 243-4399 (FAX)

April 16, 2008

Monica Shimamura

Stratospheric Protection Division

SNAP Program

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (6205J)

1310 L Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

RE: Response to USEPA Request for Untrained Worker Scenario as Part of the 

Fault Tree Analysis for Use of HCR-188C in White Goods

Dear Ms. Shimamura:

I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce myself and to discuss further an unresolved 

issue that remains following Margaret Sheppard’s departure from the SNAP program. I 

am an exposure assessor, risk assessor, and board-certified toxicologist with almost 30 

years of experience in the field. As a consultant, I have developed exposure assessment 

methods and have prepared numerous exposure assessment and risk assessments for 

submission to the USEPA on a variety of products ranging from refrigerants (SNAP) to 

pesticides (OPP) and PMN chemicals (OTS). I am looking forward to working with you 

on completing the last hurdle for approval of HCR-188C for refrigerant use in white 

goods -- the fault tree analysis that has been requested by the Agency.

My thanks to you and your colleagues for your continued interest in the use of HCR188C in white goods. To continue the discussion, we respectfully request that the 

Agency reconsider it’s request to require an untrained worker scenario in the fault tree 

analysis for white goods, for the following reasons:

(1) Adequate warnings will be present on canisters of HCR-188C and on 

appliances. Standard warnings for flammable gases apply and will be present on the 

warning plate of the appliance and on the canister of HCR-188C. Proposed language is 

“NO SMOKING. FLAMMABLE REFRIGERANT HCR-188C IN SYSTEM. USE 

PROPER CARE IN CHARGING, RECOVERING, AND STORAGE OF 

REFRIGERANT. ONLY CERTIFIED TRAINED TECHNICIAN TO HANDLE THIS 

PRODUCT.” The warning label will also refer technicians to the appliance 

manufacturer’s web site for more information. 
Ms. Monica Shimamura

Response to USEPA Request for Untrained Worker Scenario for Fault Tree Analysis

April 16, 2008

Page 2

(2) Liability considerations preclude handling of flammable gases by 

untrained workers. It is unlikely that a major chain (e.g., Best Buy) would attempt a 

repair at a homeowner’s home with untrained technicians for liability reasons. Most 

repairs and/or recycling are anticipated to occur at appliance servicing centers. We have 

directed that only trained certified technicians handle HCR-188C. It is unlikely that a 

service center or appliance recycling center in the US would allow an untrained 

technician to work with, or handle, any product that is flammable without proper training. 

The potential for legal liability would prevent a service center from employing untrained 

technicians to perform this critical work. 

(3) Guidelines have been established for safe use of HCR-188CC. At the 

Agency’s request, detailed guidelines for the safe handling of HCR-188C have been 

developed. A major feature of these guidelines is the training of workers who will handle 

this material during its initial charging into new appliances, recovery from appliances 

being serviced, and recovery during recycling/disposal of appliances. As with any other 

product, when warning labels and safety guidelines are provided to the user, it is up to the 

individual end user to follow proper procedures. Safe handling is more likely to happen 

if the individual using the product has received proper training. This is why we are 

specifying that HCR-188C is to be used only by trained technicians. 

 

(4) OSHA regulations and industry guidelines would ensure safe handling. 

The use of untrained technicians for use of HCR-188C would be counter to (1) OSHA 

rules; (2) general industry standards for handling of flammable gases; and (3) Right-toKnow laws. At a minimum, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) specific to any 

hazardous or flammable substance used at a job location are required to be available to 

workers handling any such material. An MSDS for HCR-188C would describe the 

flammable nature of the material and would contain the standard hazard statements for a 

flammable gas. The intent of OSHA is clearly spelled out in the document “Model 

Training Program for Hazard Communication”, available from the OSHA web site. This 

document provides the clear intent of OSHA to place the responsibility on employers for 

providing chemical hazard communication programs that include MSDSs, labels and 

warnings, and worker training. Further, these measures must be provided at the time of 

the worker’s initial assignment in their work area, and whenever a new physical or 

chemical hazard occurs in their work area. Employee training must describe (1) methods 

and observations that can detect the presence or release of the hazardous material; (2) the 

health hazards of the chemicals located in their work area; (3) measures that workers can 

take to protect themselves from hazards (such as appropriate work practices); and (4) 

details of the hazard communication program, including an explanation of labels and 

MSDSs, and how the workers can obtain and use the hazard information.
Ms. Monica Shimamura

Response to USEPA Request for Untrained Worker Scenario for Fault Tree Analysis

April 16, 2008

Page 3

(5) Requiring an untrained worker scenario is unprecedented. The handling 

of HCR-188C by an uninformed and untrained worker constitutes a negligent misuse 

scenario, because it is violation of the proposed product labeling. Being required to assess 

a negligent misuse scenario is unusual and seems inappropriate. In my almost 30 years of 

conducting hundreds of risk assessments for a variety of products under FIRFA, TSCA, 

Proposition 65, and for Canadian and European regulatory bodies, I have never before 

been required by any regulatory agency to provide an assessment of a negligent misuse 

scenario for any product. Nor do I see any value in performing such an assessment. 

(6) Forcing an untrained worker scenario puts us in a “Catch-22”situation. 

If we are required to include an untrained worker scenario in the fault tree analysis, we 

will literally have to perform an assessment for which input data for the fault tree model 

do not exist. Nor would there be any reasonable way of developing the input data for 

such a scenario. An analysis of such a scenario would be of limited or no value to the 

Agency, because it would be based solely on conjecture and not on data. I am assuming 

that the Agency would only want us to conduct scientifically-defensible assessments, 

which is not possible for the requested scenario. 

I would like to remind the Agency’s Stratospheric Protection Division that Mr. Maruya 

received a “2008 Environmental Achievement Award” for HCR-188C from the Agency’s 

Region IX office on April 14, 2008, in San Francisco. We hope that this event will foster 

a spirit of cooperation on the part of the Agency in expediting the approval of HCR-188C 

for use in white goods. We are looking forward to, and would greatly appreciate, a 

timely response to this letter.

I will be providing a signed hardcopy of this letter to you for your files via first class 

mail. Feel free to contact me at (703) 351-5072 or by email at riskscicom@aol.com if 

you have any questions, or if you would like to discuss this letter. 

 

Best regards,

Gary Whitmyre, D.A.B.T.

CC: Richard Maruya (A.S. Trust)