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

Revision Date: 11/03   The information in the data sheet does not change. This data sheet will not be updated.
Process Code: Navy/Marines: IND-022-99; Air Force: AD04; Army: ELM
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marines: High; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative For: CFC-12 and HCFC-22
Compliance Impact: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents and CAS Numbers: 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. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (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: It 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: An electrical component cleaner, a "Sno Gun" is used to clean and freeze electronic equipment with carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is not an ozone-depleting substance (ODS); however, it contributes to global warming since carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Product testing and evaluation continues.


Compliance Benefit:

Use of alternatives to CFC-12 and HCFC-22 for circuit board troubleshooting will help facilities meet the requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 13148 requiring federal agencies to maximize the procurement and use of safe alternatives to Class I and Class II ozone-depleting substances. 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 and 370. Chemicals used as substitutions should be reviewed for SARA reporting issues.

The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as general guidelines 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 ODSs and EPCRA-targeted chemicals entering 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.
  • 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.
  • Cost to refill CO2 cylinder: $6.

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. To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the Back arrow on the Tool Bar.


NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost MSDS*
Envi-ro-tech Freezer 1672 aerosol 6850-01-406-1356 12x10oz $93.66 Click me
E-series Freeze-It 2000 Antistat 6850-01-333-1841 12x14-15oz $73.73 Click me

*There are multiple MSDSs for most NSNs. The MSDS (if shown) is only meant to serve as an example. To return from the MSDS, click the Back arrow on the Tool Bar.


Approving Authority:

Appropriate authority for making process changes should always be sought and obtained prior to procuring or implementing any of the technology identified herein.


Points of Contact: For more information

Vendors:

This is not meant to be a complete list, as there may be other suppliers of this type of equipment.

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
E-mail: nealraker@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, LP
P.O. Box 949
Amarillo, TX   79105-0949
Phone: (806) 372-8523
Fax: (806) 372-8750
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
FAX: (619) 423-4604
URL: http://www.vatran.com/
Service: Manufacturer of the “Sno-Gun” carbon dioxide pelletizing and blasting equipment.


Related Links:

None
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., June 2002.
Mr. Jim Sloan, Va-Tran Systems, Inc., January 1998.