||Alternative Formulations to Reduce CFC (Chlorofluorocarbons) Use in U.S. Exempted and Excluded Aerosol Products.
Nelson, T. P. ;
Wevill, S. L. ;
||Radian Corp., Austin, TX.;Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. Air and Energy Engineering Research Lab.
Air pollution ;
Product development ;
||Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy.
||The report examines products exempted and excluded from those affected by the 1978 ban on the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as aerosol propellants, the present consumption of CFCs still utilized for these products in the U.S., and alternative formulations which may be used to reduce or eliminate the CFC content of these products. (NOTE: The ban allowed for exemptions if it could be demonstrated that no acceptable alternative propellants were available and that the products were essential. Essentiality was based on three criteria: (1) the product's economic significance, (2) the environmental and health impacts of the product and its substitutes, and (3) the effects on the quality of life resulting from no longer having the product or a reasonable substitute available. Also, if a CFC served some purpose other than as a propellant, that product was excluded from the regulation.) The study shows that about 40% of the CFC usage in these products can be immediately replaced by available substitutes. It identified seven categories of products for which immediate replacement of all of the CFC content is not technically feasible.
||Sponsored by Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. Air and Energy Engineering Research Lab.
|NTIS Title Notes
||Final rept. Apr-Sep 89.
||PC A08/MF A01