AEROSOL COOLING SPRAY SUBSTITUTES FOR CFC-12 AND HCFC-22

Revision Date: 10/00
Process Code: Navy/Marines: ID-22-99; Air Force: AD04; Army: ELM
Usage: Navy: Medium; Marines: High; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Compliance Impact: Low
Alternative for: CFC-12 and HCFC-22
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Dichlorodifluoromethane (CAS: 75-71-8)
Overview:

Halocarbon (halogenated carbon based molecules, primarily carbons with bromine, chlorine, or fluorine atoms as part of their molecular structure) aerosol cooling sprays have long been used for troubleshooting circuit boards where thermally intermittent components were suspected. Typically they were tested with CFC-12 or HCFC-22. EPA regulations have banned these materials from this application because recovery of the spent gas has been too difficult. The alternatives that are readily available and also environmentally innocuous are as follows:

  1. Compressed air-vortex cooling: This involves the use of a vortex tube powered by compressed air. This typically small, hand-held device uses shop air (8 to 15 SCFM @ 80-125 psig) passed through a vortex chamber to produce a cooling effect. Outlet temperatures of approximately -40o F are produced. However, the supply air must be both clean and dry for proper operation of the vortex tube.
  2. Liquid nitrogen: Nitrogen dispensed from a flask can be used to spray at the component; however, care must be taken when using the nitrogen gun, as component temperatures can reach -270o F. Cost is approximately $500.
  3. HFC-134a: HCFC-134a can also be used as a freeze spray in place of CFC-12 and HCFC-22, if compressed air and nitrogen are unavailable. However, HFC-134a sprays have been shown to produce higher levels of electrostatic discharge than either CFC-12 or HCFC-22.
  4. Sno Gun: The "Sno Gun" is another electrical component cleaner. "Sno Guns" are used to clean and freeze electronic equipment with carbon dioxide, which is not an ODS, but does contribute to global warming since carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Although not yet specifically approved for use by the Air Force, product testing and evaluation continues.


Compliance Benefit:

Use of alternatives to CFC-12 and HCFC-22 for circuit board troubleshooting such as vortex cooling, liquid nitrogen, HFC-134a, and carbon dioxide will help facilities meet the requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843 requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to Class I and Class II ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the elimination of CFC-12 and HCFC-22 at the facility decreases the possibility that the facility would meet any of the reporting thresholds under 40 CFR 355, 370 and EO 12856. Chemicals used as substitutions should be reviewed for SARA reporting issues.

The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of workload involved.
Materials Compatibility:

Each of these alternatives use relatively inert and non-toxic compounds but some products are not compatible with certain materials or components. Check with the original equipment manufacturer to verify material compatibility.
Safety and Health:

Potential hazards such as room ventilation issues, eye irritation, and skin freezing or burning when exposed to escaping coolant gases need to be considered. Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these technologies.
Benefits:
  • Reduces the amount of ozone-depleting substances and EPCRA targeted chemicals going into the environment.
  • Reduces the exposure to constituents that have adverse effects to human health.


Disadvantages:
  • CFC alternatives can be expensive.
  • Electrostatic discharge exists with some alternatives.


Economic Analysis:

The capital cost of the CO2 component cooler (COMP-CO2LD) system includes the control unit, a 20-lb. cylinder, and a cart, which is used to make the system portable. The following economic analysis was obtained from a case study on “Eliminating CFC-113 and Methyl Chloroform in Aircraft Maintenance Procedures” for the government of Thailand by the U.S. EPA Solvent Elimination Project.

Assumptions:

  • Number of CC-1 units needed to replace CFC-12: 50
  • Cost of CO2 system: $340.00
  • Labor requirements for both systems are approximately equal.
  • Number of CFC-12 cylinders used/year: 300
  • Number of CO2 cylinders needed to replace CFC-12 cylinders are equal.
  • Cost per CFC-12 cylinder: $105.00
  • Cost to refill CO2 cylinder: $6.00

Annual Operating Cost Comparison for CO2 and CFC-12 Component Cooling

  CO2 CFC-12

Capital Cost:

$17,000

$0

Operational Costs:

   

Material:

$1,800

$31,500

Total Operational Costs:

$1,800

$31,500

Total Recovered Income:

$0

$0

Net Annual Cost/Benefit:

-$1,800

-$31,500

Economic Analysis Summary

    Annual Savings for CO2 component cooler: $29,700
    Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $17,000
    Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 7 months

Click Here to view an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.


Approving Authority:

Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost MSDS*
Envi-ro-tech Freezer 1672 aer 6850-01-406-1356 12x10oz $93.66 Click me
E-series Freeze-It 6850-01-333-1841 12x14-15oz $73.73 Click me

*There are multiple MSDSs for most NSNs.
The MSDS (if shown above) is only meant to serve as an example.


Points of Contact:

Navy:
Mr. Peter Mullenhard
Navy Shipboard Environmental Information Clearinghouse, GEO-CENTERS, Inc.
1755 Jeff Davis Highway
Suite 910
Arlington, VA 22202
Phone: (703) 416-1023 ext 109 or (703) 416-1132
FAX: (703) 416-1178


Ms. Terry Taylor
Commanding Officer
NADEP, NAS Jacksonville
Material Engineering Lab, Mail Code: 4.3.4.4
Bldg. 793, NADEP
NAS Jacksonville, FL 32212
Phone: (904) 542-4519 ext 125
DSN: 942-4519
FAX: (904) 542-4523


Vendors:

ITW Vortec
10125 Carver Rd.
Cincinnati,  OH   45242
Phone: (800) 441-7475 
or (513) 891-7475
FAX: (513) 891-4092
Service: Manufacturer of vortex tubes

Exair Corporation
1250 Century Circle North
Cincinnati,  OH   45246-3309
Phone: (800) 903-9247 
FAX: (513) 671-3363
Email: techelp@exair.com
URL: http://www.exair.com
Contact: Mr. Neal D. Raker, Application Engineer
Service: Manufacturer of Compressed-Air Vortex Cooler, Manufacturer of industrial compressed air products, vortex tubes and component coolers.

Tech Spray, Inc.
P.O. Box 949
Amarillo,  TX   79105-0949
Phone: (800) 858-4043 
Contact: Ms. Corry Carter
Contact: Mr. Jimmy Witcher, Sales Representative
Service: Manufacturer of HFC-134a Freeze Spray NSN: 6850-01-406-1356, Manufacturer Envir-Ro-Tech Freezer, product number P1672-10S, Sells “Envi-Ro-Tech Duster,” part number 1671-10S

Va-Tran Systems, Inc.
677 Anita Street
Suite A
Chula Vista,  CA   91911-4661
Phone: (619) 423-4555 102
FAX: (619) 423-4604
URL: http://www.vatran.com
Contact: Mr. Jeff Sloan
Service: Manufacturer of the “Sno-Gun” carbon dioxide pelletizing and blasting equipment.


Sources:

Ms. Terry Taylor, Material Engineering Lab, NADEP Jacksonville, January, 1998.
Mr. David Robinson, Unit Environmental Coordinator, OC-ALC/TIPE, Tinker AFB, OK, January, 1998.
Mr. Pete Mullenhard, GEO-CENTERS, Inc., January, 1998.
Mr. Jim Sloan, Va-Tran Systems, Inc., January, 1998.

[Back]