Vol. 58 No. 92 Friday, May 14, 1993 p 28660 (Rule)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-4625-3]
RIN 2060-AC80
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Refrigerant Recycling
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
SUMMARY: In this action, EPA promulgates regulations under Section
608 of the Clean Air Act (the Act) that establish a recycling
program for ozone-depleting refrigerants recovered during the
servicing and disposal of air-conditioning or refrigeration
equipment. Together with the prohibition on venting during
servicing,
repair, and disposal of class I and class II substances that
took effect on July 1, 1992, these regulations should substantially
reduce emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. The regulations
require persons servicing air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment to observe certain service practices that reduce
refrigerant
emissions and establish equipment and off-site reclaimer
certification
programs, as well as a technician certification program. A sales
restriction on refrigerant is included, whereby only certified
technicians will legally be authorized to purchase such
refrigerant.
EPA's regulations also require repair of significant leaks,
based on annual leak rates of equipment. In addition, these
regulations require that ozone-depleting compounds contained
"in bulk" in appliances be removed prior to disposal of the
appliances, and that all air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment, except for small appliances, be provided with a
servicing
aperture that would facilitate recovery of the refrigerant.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 14, 1993.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to the rulemaking are contained
in Air Docket No. A-92-01 at: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. The Public Docket
is located in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (Ground Floor), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
DC. Dockets may be inspected from 8 a.m. until 12 noon, and
from 1:30 p.m. until 3 p.m., Monday through Friday. A reasonable
fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Stratospheric Ozone
Information
Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 can be contacted for further information
on weekdays from 10 to 4, Eastern Time. Debbie Ottinger, Program
Implementation Branch, Global Programs Branch, Office
of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation, can also
be contacted at Mail Code: 6205-J, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
DC 20460, (202) 233-9200.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of today's preamble
are listed in the following outline:
I. Background
A. Ozone Depletion
B. Montreal Protocol
C. London Amendments to the Protocol
D. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Recycling
E. Excise Tax
F. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
G. Accelerated Phaseout
H. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Recycling
II. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act
III. This Final Rule
A. Equipment and Refrigerants Affected
B. Overview of Requirements
C. Factors Considered in the Development of This Rule
D. Public Participation
E. Definitions and Interpretations
F. Required Practices
1. Evacuation of Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment
a. Evacuation Requirements for Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration
Equipment Besides Small Appliances
b. Evacuation of Leaky Equipment
c. Removal of Entrained Refrigerant From Oil
d. Evacuation Requirements for Small Appliances
2. Disposition of Recovered Refrigerant
3. Leak Repair
4. Handling Multiple Refrigerants in Recycling and Recovery
Equipment
G. Certification of Recycling and Recovery Equipment
1. Standards for Recovery and Recycling Machines Intended
for Use with Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment
Except Small Appliances, MVACs and MVAC-like Appliances
a. Recovery Efficiency
b. Passive or System-dependent Recovery Equipment
c. Refrigerant Recovery Rates
d. Low-loss Fittings
e. Purge Loss
f. Volume-sensitive Shutoff
2. Standards for Recovery Machines Intended for Use with Small
Appliances
3. Standards for Recycling and Recovery Machines Used with
Equipment Identical to MVACs
4. Testing of Recovery and Recycling Equipment Intended for
Use with Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment Except
Small Appliances
5. Testing of Recovery Machines Intended for Use with Small
Appliances
6. Effective Dates and Grandfathering Provisions
H. Certification of Technicians
1. Description of Proposed Voluntary Technician Training and
Certification
2. Decision to Establish a Mandatory Program
a. Overwhelming Technician Response
b. Lessened Burden to EPA and Technicians
c. Better Environmental Protection
d. Improved Productivity
3. Program Elements
a. A Mandatory Program
b. A National Program
c. Personnel to be Certified
d. Types of Certification
e. Test Content
f. Test Bank
g. Test Conditions
h. Proof of Certification
i. Additional Requirements
j. Approval Process
k. Grandfathering
I. Restriction on Sales of Refrigerants to Certified Technicians
1. Description of Proposal And Final Requirement
2. Response to Major Comments
J. Certification by Owners of Recycling or Recovery Equipment
1. Description of Proposal and Final Rule
2. Response to Major Comments
K. Certification of Reclaimers
1. Description of Proposed and Final Requirement
2. Response to Major Commenters
L. Recordkeeping Requirements
M. The Safe Disposal Program
N. Servicing Apertures
O. Exemption from Regulatory Requirements for Refrigerant
Uses for Which No High-Efficiency Recovery Technology Exists
IV. Summary of Changes to Proposed Rule
V. Summary of Supporting Analyses
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Background
A. Ozone Depletion
The stratospheric ozone layer protects the Earth from the
penetration of harmful ultraviolet (UV-B) radiation. On the
basis of substantial scientific evidence, a national and
international
consensus exists that certain man-made halocarbons, including
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, and
methyl chloroform, must be restricted because of the risk of
depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer through the release
of chlorine and bromine (WMO/UNEP Science Assessment). To the
extent depletion occurs, penetration of UV-B radiation increases,
resulting in potential health and environmental harm including
increased incidence of certain skin cancers and cataracts,
suppression
of the immune system, damage to plants including crops and aquatic
organisms, increased formation of ground-level ozone and increased
weathering of outdoor plastics. (See 53 FR 30566 for more
information
on the effects of ozone depletion.)
The original theory linking CFCs to ozone depletion was first
proposed in 1974. Since then, the scientific community has made
considerable advances in measuring and understanding the
atmospheric
processes affecting stratospheric ozone science. Repeatedly,
these scientific advances have indicated that the impact of
man-made ozone-depleting substances on the stratosphere was
more severe than previously thought. As discussed below, the
U.S. and the international community have adopted increasingly
stringent policies regarding the manufacture and use of ozone-
depleting substances in response to this evolving scientific
understanding.
B. Montreal Protocol
In response to the discovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica
and to growing evidence that chlorine and bromine could destroy
stratospheric ozone on a global basis, many members of the
international
community came to the conclusion that an international agreement
to reduce global production of ozone-depleting substances was
needed. Because releases of CFCs from all areas mix in the
atmosphere
to affect stratospheric ozone globally, efforts to reduce emissions
from specific products by only a few nations could quickly be
offset by increases in emissions from other nations, leaving
the risks to the ozone layer unchanged. EPA evaluated the risks
of ozone depletion in Assessing the Risks of Trace Gases That
Can Modify the Stratosphere (1987) and concluded that an
international
approach was necessary to effectively safeguard the ozone layer.
In September 1987, the United States and 22 other countries
signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the
Ozone Layer (the Protocol). As originally drafted, the Protocol
called for production and consumption of certain CFCs (CFC-11,
12, 113, 114, 115) and halons (Halon-1211, -1301 and -2402)
to be frozen at 1986 levels beginning July 1, 1989, and January
1, 1992, respectively, and for the CFCs to be reduced to 50
percent of 1986 levels by 1998. To date, over 90 nations
representing
approximately 95% of the world's production capacity for CFCs
and halons have signed the Montreal Protocol. EPA promulgated
regulations implementing the requirements of the 1987 Protocol
through a system of tradeable allowances. EPA apportioned the
allowances to producers and importers of ozone-depleting substances
(controlled substances) based on their 1986 level of production
and importation. It then reduced the allowances for the controlled
substances according to the schedule specified in the Protocol.
(See 56 FR 49548 (September 30, 1991)) for a more detailed
discussion
of the Protocol and EPA's regulations to implement the phaseout
of ozone-depleting substances.)
C. London Amendments to the Protocol
Under Article 6 of the Montreal Protocol, the Parties are
required to assess the science, economics and alternative
technologies
related to protection of the ozone layer every two years. In
response to this requirement, the Parties issued their first
scientific assessment in 1989 (Scientific Assessment of Ozone
Depletion). During this assessment, scientists examined the
data from land-based monitoring stations and the total ozone
mapping spectrometer (TOMS) satellite instrument and found that
there had been global ozone depletion over the northern hemisphere
as well as over the southern hemisphere. The scientific assessment
also reported that a three to five percent decrease in
stratospheric
ozone levels had occurred between 1969-1986 in the northern
hemisphere in the winter months that could not be attributed
to known natural processes.
At the Second Meeting of the Protocol Parties, held in London
on June 29, 1990, the Parties responded to this new evidence
by tightening the restrictions placed on these chemicals. The
Parties to the Protocol passed amendments and adjustments which
called for a full phaseout of the already regulated CFCs and
halons by 2000, a phaseout of carbon tetrachloride and "other
CFCs" by 2000 and a phaseout of methyl chloroform by 2004. The
parties also passed a non-binding resolution regarding the use
of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). HCFCs have been identified
as interim substitutes for CFCs because they add much less chlorine
to the stratosphere than fully halogenated CFCs. The Parties
were concerned, however, that rapid growth in the amount of
use of these chemicals over time would still pose a threat to
the ozone layer. As a result, the resolution called for the
phaseout of HCFCs by 2020 if feasible and no later than 2040
in any case.
D. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Recycling
On May 1, 1990, EPA published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM, 55 FR 18256) addressing issues related to
the development of a national CFC recycling program. This notice
emphasized that recycling is important because it would allow
the continued use of equipment requiring CFCs for service past
the year in which CFC production is phased out, thereby eliminating
or deferring the cost of early retirement or retrofit of such
equipment. The Agency continues to believe that the continued
use of these substances in existing equipment that recycling
would allow can serve as a useful bridge to alternative products
while minimizing disruption of the current capital stock of
equipment.
The ANPRM asked for comment on the feasibility of recycling
in various CFC end uses and also asked for comment on methods,
such as a deposit/refund system, that could be employed to
encourage
recycling. The Agency received 110 public comment letters in
response to the ANPRM. In general, most commenters recognized
the need for recycling to help protect the ozone layer and to
provide a source of refrigerant to service existing capital
equipment after the phaseout of CFC production is complete.
E. Excise Tax
As part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989,
the U.S. Congress levied an excise tax on the sale of CFCs and
other chemicals that deplete the ozone layer, with specific
exemptions for exports and recycling. The tax has operated as
a complement to EPA's regulations limiting production and
consumption
by increasing the costs of using virgin controlled substances.
The original excise tax was amended in 1991 to include methyl
chloroform, carbon tetrachloride and other CFCs regulated by
the amended Montreal Protocol and Title VI of the Clean Air
Act. The Energy Policy Act of 1992, section 1931 of Public Law
102-486, revised and further increased the excise tax, effective
January 1, 1993. By raising the cost of virgin controlled
substances,
the tax has created an additional incentive for industry to
shift out of these substances and increase recycling activities,
and it has encouraged the development of a market for alternative
chemicals and processes.
F. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, signed November 15,
1990, include requirements for controlling ozone-depleting
substances
that are generally consistent with, but in some cases more
stringent
than those contained in the Montreal Protocol as revised in
1990. For the substances covered by the revised Protocol's control
measures, Title VI of the Act calls for a phaseout of CFCs by
January 1, 2000 with deeper interim reductions and, in the case
of methyl chloroform, an earlier phaseout date (2002 instead
of 2005). For the HCFCs, Title VI requires use restrictions,
a production freeze in 2015 and a phaseout in 2030. EPA issued
a temporary final rule on March 6, 1991 implementing the production
and consumption limits contained in the Act for calendar year
1991. (See 56 FR 9518.) The Agency published proposed regulations
for 1992 and beyond on September 30, 1991 (See 56 FR 49548).
As discussed below, on January 19, 1993, EPA proposed regulations
to implement an accelerated phaseout of class I substances and
some class II substances.
In addition to the phaseout of ozone-depleting substances,
title VI includes a variety of other provisions intended to
reduce emissions of ozone-depleting substances. Section 608,
the foundation for the regulations promulgated today, provides
for EPA to promulgate regulations to achieve the "lowest achievable
level" of emissions of ozone-depleting substances and to maximize
recycling of such substances. Section 608 also bans the knowing
venting of ozone-depleting substances during the maintenance,
service, repair, or disposal of appliances and industrial process
refrigeration. Section 609 establishes a specific program requiring
the recovery and recycling of refrigerant used in motor vehicle
air conditioners, specifically requires training and certification
of technicians, and restricts the sale of small containers of
CFCs. Other Title VI sections call for mandatory labeling, a
ban on nonessential products, a program to review the safety
of alternatives to class I and class II substances, and
requirements
of federal entities to conform to Title VI regulations and to
maximize the use of safe alternatives.
G. Accelerated Phaseout
Based on new scientific evidence developed since the passage
of the Clean Air Act Amendments and the issuance of implementing
regulations, the international community, led by the United
States, has agreed to further accelerate the phaseout of already
regulated ozone-depleting substances. Virtually all class I
substances will be phased out in less than three (3) years (by
January 1, 1996) and halons will be phased out by January 1,
1994. The following section describes the most recent scientific
and international developments regarding ozone depletion.
1. New Scientific Data Regarding Ozone Depletion
Significant scientific advances have occurred since the initial
Protocol assessments in 1989. Several subsequent reports since
that time have indicated a more rapid rate of ozone depletion
than previously believed. The most recent Montreal Protocol
Scientific Assessment, issued December 17, 1991, contains
information
from ground-based monitoring instruments, as well as from satellite
instruments, from the years 1979-1991. The data indicate
significant
decreases in total-column ozone have occurred in winter, and
for the first time, also show decreases in spring and summer,
in both the northern and southern hemispheres at middle and
high latitudes. The data further show no significant depletion
has occurred in the tropics. TOMS data indicate that for the
period 1979 to 1991, decreases in total ozone at 45 degrees
south latitude ranged between 4.4 percent in the fall to as
much as 6.2 percent in the summer, while depletion at 45 degrees
north latitude ranged between 1.7 percent in the fall to 5.6
percent in the winter. Data from the ground-based Dobson network
confirm these losses in total column ozone during the thirteen-
year period. These findings show almost twice as much depletion
as the average rate measured by the ground-based network over
a twenty-year period. Based on this new data, scientists have
concluded that the ozone in the stratosphere during the 1980s
disappeared at a much faster rate than experienced in the previous
decade.
The recent UNEP Science Assessment also includes new data
on the estimated ozone depletion potentials (ODPs) of ozone-
depleting substances. The assessment placed the ODP of methyl
bromide, a chemical previously thought to have an insignificant
effect on stratospheric ozone, at 0.6, with a range of uncertainty
between 0.44-0.69. On November 25, 1992, the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol agreed to assign methyl bromide an ODP of
0.7 (based on an update of the science assessment).
On February 3, 1992, NASA released preliminary data acquired
by the ongoing Arctic Airborne Stratospheric Experiment-II (AASE-
II), a series of high-altitude instrument-laden plane flights
over the northern hemisphere (see Interim Findings: Second Airborne
Arctic Stratospheric Expedition). Additional data were also
obtained from the initial observations by NASA's Upper Atmosphere
Research Satellite (UARS), launched in September 1991. The
measurements
show higher levels of chlorine monoxide (ClO) (the key agent
responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion) over Canada and
New England than were observed during any previous series of
aircraft flights. In fact, the ClO levels over the United States
and Canada and as far south as the Caribbean were many times
greater than gas phase models had predicted. These levels are
only partially explainable by enhanced aerosol surface reactions
due to emissions from the volcanic eruptions of Mount Pinatubo.
The expedition also found that the levels of hydrogen chloride
(Hcl), a chemical species that stores atmospheric chlorine in
a less reactive state, to be low, providing new evidence for
the existence of chemical processes that convert stable forms
of chlorine into ozone-destroying species.
In addition, the levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx) were also
observed to be low, providing evidence of reactions that take
place on the surface of aerosols that diminish the ability of
the atmosphere to control the buildup of chlorine radicals.
New observations of Hcl and nitrogen oxide (NO) imply that chlorine
and bromine are more effective in destroying ozone than previously
believed.
The NASA findings indicate that in late January of 1992,
the Arctic air was chemically "primed" for the potential formation
of a springtime ozone "hole" similar to that formed each spring
over Antarctica. These findings also are consistent with theories
that ozone depletion may occur at an accelerated rate on aerosol
surfaces in the stratosphere anywhere around the globe, and
not only on polar stratospheric clouds as was previously believed.
After collecting more data, NASA released an April 30, 1992
"End of Mission Statement," which indicated that while a rise
in stratospheric temperatures in late January prevented severe
ozone depletion from occurring in the Arctic this year, observed
ozone levels were nonetheless lower than had previously been
recorded for this time of year. This information has further
increased the Agency's concern that significant ozone loss may
occur over populated regions of the earth, thus exposing humans,
plants and animals to harmful levels of UV-B radiation, and
adds support to the need for further efforts to limit emissions
of anthropogenic chlorine and bromine.
In response to the preliminary findings, President Bush
announced
on February 11, 1992, that the United States would unilaterally
accelerate the phaseout schedule for ozone-depleting substances,
and he called upon other nations to agree to an accelerated
phaseout schedule as well. The President also asked U.S. producers
to reduce voluntarily 1992 output of class I substances to half
of the 1986 baseline levels. In addition, the President directed
EPA to re-evaluate the phaseout schedule for HCFCs, and to consider
the phaseout of methyl bromide.
2. Copenhagen Revisions to the Montreal Protocol
On November 25, 1992, the Fourth Meeting of the Montreal
Protocol was convened. In this meeting, the Parties took a number
of actions, including accelerating the phaseout schedule of
CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform and
added HCFCs and methyl bromide to the list of chemicals to be
controlled under the Montreal Protocol.
The following adjustments to the phaseout schedules of
previously-
controlled substances were adopted at the Copenhagen meeting:
(a) Accelerating the phaseout schedule for the originally-
controlled CFCs (class I, group I substances) to require a 75%
reduction in production and consumption (production plus imports
minus exports) from 1986 baseline levels for 1994 and 1995,
and a complete phaseout by 1996;
(b) Accelerating the phaseout schedule for halons (class
I, group II substances) to require a complete phaseout in
production
and consumption by 1994:
(c) Accelerating the phaseout schedule for other fully
halogenated
CFCs (class I, group III substances) to require a reduction
from 1989 levels, 75% in 1994 and 1995, and a complete phaseout
of production and consumption by 1996;
(d) Accelerating the reduction schedules for carbon
tetrachloride
(class I, group IV) by requiring a reduction from 1989 levels
of 85% in 1995, and a complete phaseout in 1996;
(e) Accelerating the phaseout schedule for methyl chloroform
(class I, group V) by reducing production and consumption to
50% of 1989 levels in 1994, and phasing out completely by 1996.
(f) Establishing criteria for identifying essential uses
and a process for excepting limited production and consumption
of the above chemicals following their phaseout (see below).
These adjustments go into effect in approximately six months.
In addition, the Parties adopted the following amendments
to the Protocol:
(a) Freezing consumption of HCFCs (class II substances)
beginning
in 1996 to a baseline ceiling of: 100% of 1989 the ozone depletion
potential (ODP) weighted level of HCFC consumption, plus 3.1%
of the ODP-weighted 1989 CFC consumption, followed by reductions
in the baseline to 65% by 2010, 90% by 2015, and 99.5% by 2020;
and completely phasing out consumption by 2030;
(b) Adding hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs) to the list of
controlled substances, specifying their ozone depletion potential,
and phasing their production and consumption out completely
by 1996;
(c) Listing methyl bromide as a controlled substance with
an ozone depletion potential of 0.7, and freezing production
and consumption beginning in 1995 at 1991 consumption levels;
(not including amounts used for quarantine and preshipment uses);
(d) Establishing a procedure for the approval by the Parties
for continued production and consumption after phaseout to meet
essential use requirements; essential uses are defined as those
necessary for health or safety, or critical to the functioning
of society, and where there are no available alternatives or
existing stocks of banked or recycled material;
(e) Establishing reporting requirements for HCFCs, HBFCs,
and methyl bromide;
(f) Establishing reporting requirements for imports and exports
of controlled substances to and from non-parties to the Protocol;
and
(g) Extending the prohibitions on trade with respect to foreign
states not party-specified, which include banning imports from
foreign states not a party of Annex C, Group II ozone-depleting
substances (HBFCs) and banning exports to foreign states not
a party of HBFCs, commencing 1 year of the Copenhagen Amendments
entry into force.
The Amendments will enter into force under the Protocol
following
their ratification by at least twenty Parties. This is projected
to be accomplished by January 1, 1994.
The Parties also made a number of procedural and definitional
changes that affect implementation of the Protocol and that
are included in the proposed accelerated phaseout regulation.
The changes include:
(a) The approval of destruction technologies and the requirement
that Parties that plan to operate destruction facilities do
so in accordance with Good Housekeeping Procedures developed
by the Parties or with their equivalent;
(b) Clarification of the definition of controlled substances
to exclude insignificant quantities under defined circumstances,
and to encourage Parties to minimize emissions of such excluded
substances;
(c) Clarification of the reporting requirements and treatment
of international transshipments;
(d) Clarification of the definition of controlled substance
to exclude the import and export of recycled and used controlled
substances from the calculation of consumption, but to require
reporting of data concerning these imports and exports.
3. The Proposed Accelerated Phaseout Regulation
In July 1992, EPA issued its final rule and regulatory program
implementing section 604 of the Clean Air Act Amendments. Section
604 limits the production and consumption of ozone-depleting
chemicals. EPA controls production and consumption by issuing
allowances or permits that are expended in the production or
importation of these chemicals. Trading of these allowances
is permitted.
The regulation requires producers of class I substances to
gradually reduce their production of these chemicals and to
phase them out completely as of January 1, 2000 (2002 for methyl
chloroform). In addition to the production limits, the rule
requires a similar reduction in consumption.
In February 1992, the President requested that U.S. producers
voluntarily reduce their production of CFCs by half of the baseline
year levels and phase out CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, methyl
chloroform and halons by January 1, 1996. He also announced
that the U.S. would revisit the phaseout schedule for HCFCs.
Several months earlier, EPA had received a petition from
the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Environmental
Defense Fund (EDF) and Friends of the Earth (FOE), requesting
earlier phaseouts of ozone-depleting substances and that EPA
add methyl bromide to the list of class I substances and also
phase out its production. Another petition was submitted by
the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy that also supported
earlier phaseouts of CFCs and certain HCFCs.
Based on these national and international developments, EPA
proposed on January 19, 1993, to accelerate the phaseout of
CFCs, methyl chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, halons, HCFC-
141b, HCFC-142b, and HCFC-22. The Agency is also proposing to
add methyl bromide and HBFCs to the list of major class I
substances
and phase them out by 2000 and 1996, respectively. In addition,
the proposal addresses various trade provisions required by
the Montreal Protocol.
H. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Recycling
On December 10, 1992, EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM, 57 FR 238). In that notice, EPA proposed
regulations
under section 608 of the Clean Air Act (the Act) that would
have established a recycling program for ozone-depleting
refrigerants
recovered during the servicing and disposal of air-conditioning
or refrigeration equipment. The proposed regulations would have
required persons servicing air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment to observe certain service practices that reduce
refrigerant
emissions and would have established equipment and off-site
reclaimer certification programs. The proposal did not include
a mandatory program for certifying technicians; however, comments
were solicited on the need and prudence of such a mandatory
program. In addition, EPA would have required that ozone-depleting
compounds contained "in bulk" in appliances be removed prior
to disposal of the appliances, and that all air-conditioning
and refrigeration equipment, except for small appliances and
room air conditioners, be provided with a servicing aperture
that would facilitate recovery of the refrigerant.
II. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act
Section 608 of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, provides
the legal basis for this rulemaking. It requires EPA to establish
a comprehensive program to limit emissions of ozone-depleting
substances during their use and disposal.
Section 608 is divided into three subsections. In brief,
the first requires regulations to reduce the use and emission
of class I substances (CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and
methyl chloroform) and class II substances (HCFCs) to the lowest
achievable level, and to maximize the recycling of such substances.
The second subsection requires that the regulations promulgated
pursuant to subsection (a) contain requirements concerning the
safe disposal of class I and class II substances. Finally, the
third subsection establishes self-effectuating prohibitions
on the venting into the environment of class I or class II
substances,
and eventually their substitutes, during servicing and disposal
of air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment.
In particular, subsection (a) of section 608 requires EPA
to promulgate regulations "establishing standards and requirements
regarding the use and disposal" of both class I and class II
substances. The regulations required are to "reduce the use
and emission of such substances to the lowest achievable level"
and are to "maximize the recapture and recycling of such
substances."
Subsection (a) calls for EPA to promulgate such regulations
with respect to "the use and disposal of class I substances
during the service, repair, or disposal of appliances and
industrial
process refrigeration" by January 1, 1992. (Appliance is defined
by section 601(1) as "any device which contains and uses a class
I or class II substance as a refrigerant and which is used for
household or commercial purposes, including any air conditioner,
refrigerator, chiller, or freezer." EPA believes that motor
vehicle air conditioners (MVACs) are included within the scope
of the term "appliance" but that the servicing regulations
promulgated
pursuant to section 609 of the Act eliminate the need to promulgate
servicing regulations for MVACs under section 608. MVACs, however,
are subject to disposal regulations promulgated today under
section 608.) These regulations were to become effective by
July 1, 1992.
Paragraph (2) of subsection (a) expands the scope of the
recycling and emission reduction regulations by requiring EPA
to promulgate additional regulations by November 15, 1994, that
establish standards and requirements regarding the use and disposal
of both class I and class II substances not covered by the initial
set of regulations, i.e., all other uses of class I and class
II substances. These regulations are to go into effect not later
than 12 months after their promulgation. Subsection (a) further
provides that the regulations promulgated pursuant to it may
include requirements to use alternative substances, to minimize
the use of class I or class II substances, or to promote the
use of safe alternatives to class I and class II substances.
Subsection (b) of section 608 requires that the regulations
under section 608(a) establish standards and requirements for
the safe disposal of class I and class II substances. These
are to include (1) requirements that such substances contained
"in bulk in appliances, machines or other goods" be removed
prior to the disposal of such items or their delivery for
recycling;
(2) requirements that "any appliance, machine or other good
containing a class I or class II substances in bulk" be "equipped
with a servicing aperture or an equally effective design feature
which will facilitate the recapture of such substance;" and
(3) requirements that products in which a class I or class II
substance is an "inherent element" be disposed of "in a manner
that reduces, to the maximum extent practicable, the release
of such substance into the environment."
The provisions of subsections (a) and (b) ultimately (by
November, 1994) apply to all uses of class I and class II
substances,
including air-conditioning and refrigeration, solvents, foam
blowing, and fire control. However, these subsections focus
first on the use and disposal of refrigerants during the service,
repair, or disposal of air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment.
Refrigerants also receive special emphasis in subsection
(c) of section 608, which provides in paragraph (1) that, effective
July 1, 1992, it is "unlawful for any person, in the course
of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance
or industrial process refrigeration, to knowingly vent or otherwise
knowingly release or dispose of" class I or class II refrigerants
in a manner that "permits such substances to enter the
environment."
Certain de minimis releases are exempted from this
self-effectuating
prohibition. As discussed below in Section III. D, EPA will
consider releases to be de minimis when they occur while the
recycling and recovery requirements of this regulation are
followed.
Section 608(c)(2) extends the prohibition on venting to substances
that are substitutes for class I and class II refrigerants
effective
November 15, 1995, unless the Administrator determines that
such venting or releases do not pose a threat to the environment.
The Agency notes that since MVACs are covered by the term
"appliance,"
the servicing and disposal of MVACs are subject to the prohibition
on venting.
The refrigerant recycling and safe disposal requirements
promulgated today are a major step in the implementation of
section 608. EPA research indicates that in all air-conditioning
or refrigeration sectors, emissions during servicing and disposal
of equipment account for between 50 and 94 percent of total
emissions during the life cycle of the equipment (Regulatory
Impact Analysis: the National Recycling and Emission Reduction
Program, (RIA)). The recovery and recycling requirements published
today should significantly reduce emissions during servicing
and disposal. In those sectors where leakage during use accounts
for a significant percentage of total emissions, EPA is
establishing
a program for requiring the repair of such leaks. EPA will consider
in the future the regulation of non-refrigerant applications
of class I and class II compounds under section 608. These
regulations
may include requirements for emission-reducing engineering controls
and work practices and/or requirements to use alternative
substances
in those uses for which substitutes exist. In determining what
further actions to take under section 608, EPA will consider
the accelerated phaseout dates for class I substances, the expected
costs, and environmental benefits of further regulation.
III. This Rule
A. Equipment and Refrigerants Affected
1. Equipment Affected
Today's final rule applies to the servicing and disposal
of most air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment, including
household air conditioners and refrigerators, commercial air
conditioners and chillers, commercial refrigeration, industrial
process refrigeration, refrigerated transport, and air-conditioning
in vehicles not covered by EPA's regulations under section 609
of the Clean Air Act (which apply to the service of motor vehicle
air conditioners, or MVACS). As mentioned above, the rule also
applies to the disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment, including MVACs. Following is a description of the
major categories of equipment that will be affected by the rule:
Household Refrigeration. This category consists of refrigerators
and freezers intended primarily for household use, though they
may be used outside the home (e.g., in an office). In terms
of the number of units currently in operation, this is the largest
sector affected by this rule, with an estimated 159 million
units. The amount of refrigerant (charge) in each of these units,
however, is quite small relative to the charge in equipment
in other sectors, ranging from six ounces to approximately one
pound of CFC-12. The quantity of refrigerant in this sector
that is available for recycling at servicing and disposal is
estimated to be approximately 6,000 metric tons per year when
weighted by the ozone-depletion potential of the refrigerant.
(This and other estimates in this section are based on figures
from 1990.) This makes up approximately 19% of the total available
from the sectors affected by this rule when these quantities
are weighted by the ozone depletion potentials (or ODPs) of
the refrigerants. Because servicing is relatively rare in this
sector, approximately 90% of this 17% would be recovered at
disposal.
Other Refrigerated Appliances. Other refrigerated appliances
include dehumidifiers, vending machines, ice makers, and water
coolers. These equipment types have charge sizes and service
characteristics similar to those in the Household Refrigeration
sector. The total number of units of these types in current
operation is approximately 23 million units. The quantity of
refrigerant in this sector that is estimated to be available
for recycling at servicing and disposal is 700 metric tons per
year (ODP-weighted), which makes up approximately two percent
of the total available from the sectors affected by this rule.
Residential Air-conditioning. This sector includes window
units, packaged terminal air conditioners, central air
conditioners,
light commercial air conditioners, and heat pumps. There are
approximately 85 million units in this sector, making it the
second largest. The residential air-conditioning sector is similar
to the household refrigeration and other appliances sectors
because the equipment stock is large, the equipment is infrequently
serviced, and charge sizes are small (4-7 pounds). The quantity
of refrigerant in this sector that is available for recycling
at servicing and disposal is estimated to be 1800 metric tons
per year (when weighted by the ozone-depletion potential of
the refrigerant), which makes up approximately six percent of
the total available from the sectors affected by this rule.
This figure is lower than that for household refrigeration because
residential and light commercial air-conditioning relies
exclusively
upon HCFC-22, which has approximately five percent of the ozone-
depletion potential of CFC-12.
Transport Refrigeration. The Transport Refrigeration sector
consists of refrigerated ship holds, truck trailers, railway
freight cars, and other shipping containers. With less than
one million transport refrigeration units currently in use,
this sector is relatively small. Trailers, railway cars, and
shipping containers are commonly charged with CFC-12. Ship holds,
on the other hand, rely on HCFC-22 and ammonia. The average
charge size in this sector is approximately 18 pounds, which
is relatively small compared to all but household sectors. The
quantity of refrigerant in this sector that is estimated to
be available for recycling at servicing and disposal is 1900
metric tons per year (ODP-weighted), which makes up approximately
six percent of the total available from the sectors affected
by this rule. Unlike equipment in the household sectors, equipment
in the transport refrigeration sector is usually serviced every
year. Thus, refrigerant recovered and recycled at servicing
would account for approximately 25% of the total recovered and
recycled in this sector.
Retail Food. The retail food sector includes refrigerated
equipment found in supermarkets, convenience stores, restaurants,
and other food service establishments. The equipment includes
small reach-in refrigerators and freezers, refrigerated display
cases, walk-in coolers and freezers, as well as large parallel
systems. Convenience stores and restaurants typically use stand-
alone refrigerators, freezers, and walk-in coolers. In contrast,
supermarkets usually employ large parallel systems, which connect
many display cases to a central condensing unit by means of
extensive refrigerant piping. Because the piping required to
connect all of the cases may be miles long, these systems can
contain charges of over 500 pounds. Charges are typically CFC-
12, CFC-502, or HCFC-22. The estimated total stock of retail
food equipment is approximately 1.6 million units. The quantity
of refrigerant in this sector that is estimated to be available
for recycling at servicing and disposal is 9,000 metric tons
per year (ODP-weighted), which makes up approximately 28% of
the total available from the sectors affected by this rule.
Cold Storage Warehouses. Cold storage warehouses are used
to store meat, produce, dairy products, and other perishable
goods. There are approximately 665 million cubic feet of
refrigerated
space in cold storage warehouses throughout the United States.
This sector is similar to the retail food sector, but its equipment
is serviced even more frequently (up to four times each year)
and can be charged with even greater quantities of refrigerant.
The quantity of refrigerant in this sector that is estimated
to be available for recycling at servicing and disposal is 83
metric tons per year (ODP-weighted), which makes up less than
one percent of the total available from the sectors affected
by this rule.
Commercial Comfort Air-conditioning. Chillers are used to
regulate the temperature and humidity in offices, hotels, shopping
centers, and other large buildings. There are approximately
170,000 units currently installed, making this sector one of
the smallest affected by the recycling rule in terms of stock
size.
There are three major types of chillers: centrifugal,
reciprocating,
and screw. Each of these is named for the type of compressor
employed. Centrifugal chillers, used to cool areas ranging from
30,000 to 600,000 square feet, are generally the largest and
can be charged with up to 900 kg (about 2000 pounds) of
refrigerant.
These chillers may use CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-500, or HCFC-22.
(Recently, centrifugal chillers utilizing HCFC-123 have been
introduced to the market; however, these new chillers currently
have a very small fraction of the market and are therefore not
included in this analysis.) Reciprocating chillers, used to
cool areas of less than 30,000 feet, are generally the smallest
and typically contain charges of about 160 pounds of CFC-12
or HCFC-22. Screw chillers are used to cool areas from 30,000
to 100,000 square feet and are charged with about 500 pounds
of HCFC-22. All of the systems are serviced frequently. The
quantity of refrigerant in this sector that is available for
recycling at servicing and disposal is estimated to be 5200
metric tons per year (ODP-weighted), which makes up approximately
16% of the total available from the sectors affected by this
rule.
Chillers are long-lasting relative to most air-conditioning
and refrigeration equipment. Most will last over 20 years and
some will last 30 years or more. EPA believes that recovery
and recycling is already common in the chiller sector due to
the large charges of refrigerant involved.
Industrial Process Refrigeration. The industrial process
refrigeration sector includes industrial ice machines and ice
rinks, as well as many complex, customized systems used in the
chemical, pharmaceutical, petrochemical, and manufacturing
industries.
Equipment in this sector is often critical to the continuous
production of valuable materials. As a result, industrial process
equipment is usually designed, manufactured, and installed with
special care to minimize down-time for servicing and repair.
This sector uses a variety of refrigerants, including CFC-
11, CFC-12, CFC-500, CFC-502, and HCFC-22. Charge sizes can
be very large, ranging from 750-3000 lbs for ice rinks, and
rising as high as 20,000 lbs for built-up centrifugal units.
The quantity of refrigerant in this sector that is available
for recycling at servicing and disposal is estimated to be 2000
metric tons per year (ODP-weighted), which makes up approximately
six percent of the total available from the sectors affected
by this rule. Due to the high reliability of industrial process
equipment, servicing is uncommon, and most recovery will occur
at disposal. EPA believes that recycling is already common in
this sector.
Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners (MVACs). Motor vehicle air
conditioners (MVACs) include air conditioners in automobiles
and trucks. These recycling regulations only affect the disposal
of MVACs, because the servicing of MVACs is covered by regulations
implementing section 609 of the Clean Air Act Amendments.
Nevertheless,
with between 120 and 140 million MVACs currently on the road,
this sector is one of the largest sectors affected by the recycling
rule. Most MVACs use CFC-12, but some now use HFC-134a.
MVACs have the highest leakage rates of refrigerant charges
of any equipment type affected by the recycling rule. Limited
studies suggest that only 40 percent of all MVACs still contain
a refrigerant charge at disposal. The original charge, moreover,
is small (two to four pounds). However, the quantity of refrigerant
in this sector that is available for recycling at disposal is
estimated to be 5000 metric tons per year, which makes up
approximately
17% of the total available from the sectors affected by this
rule.
Comfort Cooling in Vehicles Other Than Trucks and Automobiles.
Although the servicing of MVACs is covered by regulations
implementing
section 609 of the Act, the servicing (and disposal) of air
conditioners in other vehicles, such as trains, airplanes, ships,
buses, construction equipment, and farm vehicles would be covered
by these recycling regulations. Due to the lack of data available
on releases from the cooling systems used in these applications,
these uses were not analyzed. However, the quantity of refrigerant
available for recycling from this sector is expected to comprise
only a small fraction of the total available from the sectors
affected by this rule.
2. Refrigerants Affected
Although EPA is not expressly required to include class II
substances in the recycling regulations to become effective
on July 1, 1992, EPA proposed to include class II substances
in today's rule for a number of reasons. First, the prohibition
on venting that became effective on July 1 covers both class
I and class II substances, and EPA considered it desirable to
provide a clear, consistent framework for fully implementing
the prohibition on venting for all refrigerants. The Agency
believed that this framework would minimize confusion and maximize
compliance with the prohibition. Second, the goals of this
regulation,
to minimize refrigerant emissions and to help ensure that a
supply of high-quality refrigerant is available to service
equipment
in the future, apply to both class I and class II refrigerants.
Without specific requirements, recycling could proceed improperly,
leading to excessive HCFC emissions, contamination of refrigerant,
and damage to equipment. Third, most technicians routinely work
with both types of refrigerants and therefore would need the
equipment to handle refrigerants in accordance with the rule
even if class II substances were not included. Industry
representatives
on the STOPAC Subcommittee for Recycling agreed with this rationale
and with the inclusion of class II substances in the regulation.
A number of commenters also supported the inclusion of class
II substances in the regulation, citing the reasons above. Several
of these stated that including class II substances would result
in a more consistent and less confusing regulatory structure
for the industry, especially since the prohibition on venting
affects both class I and class II substances. Commenters believed
that compliance with the prohibition on venting and with the
regulations would be diminished if only class I substances were
covered by the rule. Commenters also noted that most recycling
and recovery equipment handles both class I and class II
substances,
implying that the cost of purchasing certified equipment to
process class II substances would be negligible. One commenter
noted that inclusion of class II substances in the regulation
would provide additional protection to human health and the
environment.
Commenters who opposed including class II substances in the
regulation argued that efforts to comply with Section 608 for
class I substances would consume significant industry resources
and that users of both class I and class II substances would
probably recycle class II substances if they were complying
with regulations for class I substances. Commenters also stated
that a delay in regulating class II substances could encourage
borderline uses to convert from class I to class II based on
the savings realized from avoiding the cost of complying with
the regulation. However, one commenter believed that EPA should
examine other possibilities for making the conversion from class
I to class II substances economically attractive, for instance
by easing equipment certification and recordkeeping standards.
After reviewing the comments, EPA continues to believe that
the inclusion of class II substances in this regulation is
warranted.
The positive consequences of regulating class II substances
at this time far outweigh the possible negative consequences.
As a number of commenters observed, the prohibition on venting
requires persons servicing and disposing of appliances containing
class II substances to recover or recycle the refrigerant in
any event, and the cost of the recycling and recovery procedure
itself is by far the most important component of the costs of
this rule. By extending this rule to class II substances, EPA
expects to facilitate compliance with the venting prohibition
by providing: (1) Clear guidance to technicians recovering class
II substances on what releases do and do not constitute violations
of the prohibition, (2) information on the performance of recycling
and recovery equipment intended for use with class II substances
through the equipment certification program, and (3) information
on how to recycle effectively and efficiently through the
technician
certification program. EPA believes that this will both reduce
emissions and increase the quality of recycled refrigerant.
At the same time, the rule will provide incentives for moving
from class I to class II substances because it establishes somewhat
less stringent requirements for HCFCs (such as HCFC-22) than
for CFCs. EPA further notes that section 608(a)(2) requires
EPA to promulgate regulations concerning the recovery and recycling
of class II substances by November 15, 1994, approximately 18
months after the promulgation of this rule. This relatively
short period before regulations are mandated minimizes any possible
benefits of delaying the regulations.
B. Overview of Requirements
EPA's final rule has five main elements, which, taken together,
satisfy the criteria of section 608 concerning recycling, emissions
reduction, and disposal. First, the Agency requires technicians
servicing and disposing of air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment to observe certain service practices that reduce
refrigerant
emissions. Second, EPA requires technicians servicing
air-conditioning
and refrigeration equipment to obtain certification through
an EPA-approved testing organization and restricts sales of
refrigerant to these certified technicians. Third, EPA establishes
equipment and reclaimer certification programs. These would
have the goals of verifying: (1) That all recycling or recovery
equipment sold was capable of minimizing emissions and (2) that
reclaimed refrigerant on the market was of known and acceptable
quality to avoid equipment failures from contaminated refrigerant.
Fourth, EPA requires repair of substantial leaks, based on annual
leak rates which vary according to two categories of refrigeration
equipment. Fifth, to implement the safe disposal requirements
of section 608, EPA requires that ozone-depleting refrigerants
in appliances, machines, and other goods be removed from those
items prior to their disposal, and that all air-conditioning
and refrigeration equipment except for small appliances and
room air conditioners be provided with a servicing aperture
that would facilitate recovery of the refrigerant. Small appliances
will require a process stub for easy access.
In order to allow the regulated community sufficient time
to come into compliance with the requirements, EPA will phase
them in over a period of one to eighteen months. In addition,
the Agency will "grandfather in" equipment meeting certain minimum
requirements set forth in Section III, as well as "grandfather"
technicians who have fulfilled certain requirements. These
grandfathering
provisions are intended to encourage the regulated community
to begin recycling as soon as possible using available equipment
rather than delaying action until certified equipment is available.
C. Factors Considered in the Development of this Rule
Section 608 of the Clean Air Act provides the statutory basis
for the standards and requirements contained in these regulations.
The statutory standards against which the regulations concerning
the use and disposal of ozone-depleting substances are to be
measured is whether they "reduce the use and emission of such
substances to the lowest achievable level" and "maximize the
recapture and recycling of such substances." EPA believes that,
in the context of recycling, these standards are complementary,
i.e., that maximizing recycling will also mean reducing the
use and emission of these substances to the lowest achievable
level. EPA also believes that these standards bear a relationship
to the de minimis releases permitted, notwithstanding the general
prohibition on venting or other releases contained in section
608(c). In other words, emissions that occur while complying
with EPA's recovery and recycling requirements, which achieve
the lowest achievable level of emissions, will only be de minimis
releases.
In applying the statutory standards concerning use, emissions,
and recycling, EPA is taking into account both technological
and economic factors. The phrases "lowest achievable level"
and "maximize recycling" are not defined in the Act. EPA does
not believe that these standards are solely technological in
nature, but rather contemplate a role for economic factors in
determining the lowest achievable level of emissions and maximum
amount of recycling. As discussed in the proposed rule, EPA's
program takes into account in an appropriate manner the technology
available, costs, benefits, and leadtimes involved. EPA believes
that the language of the Clean Air Act and the legislative history
of section 608 both support its approach.
In jointly-submitted comments, two environmental organizations
(Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Friends of the
Earth (FOE)) contended that EPA's consideration of costs and
benefits in this rulemaking was unlawful. The organizations
stated that they "do not assert that the statutory language
totally precludes any economic considerations. But we do insist
that the legally permissible scope for such considerations is
far more limited than the broad cost-benefit test EPA has
asserted."
The commenters then assert that the "term `lowest achievable
emission level' clearly reflects the term `lowest achievable
emission rate,' or `LAER,' used since 1977 in part D of title
I" and proceed to argue that a variant of this standard, described
as "the most stringent test for technology-based standards under
the Act" controls EPA's standard-setting authority under section
608 of the Act. According to NRDC/FOE, "standards under section
608 should be set at levels reflecting the best controlled sources
in each relevant sector of the air-conditioning and refrigeration
industry. As long as those levels have been achieved by some
members of a given sector, they must be considered achievable
across the sector. The only basis for lessening the stringency
of such requirements would be if they are so costly that typical
firms in that sector could not bear them."
Other commenters, however, supported the method used by EPA
to analyze costs and benefits in determining what standards
to propose.
EPA has carefully considered the comments of NRDC and FOE
on this issue, as well as those of other parties, and continues
to believe that its approach to the analysis of costs and benefits
is appropriate and permissible under section 608. EPA first
notes that, in determining the appropriate standards, EPA has
not applied a strict cost-benefit test. Rather, EPA has focussed
primarily on the state of recovery technology and only secondarily
considered costs and benefits, along with the varied applications
of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment and the structure
of the equipment service and disposal industry. The Agency is
allowing use of less than the most efficient technology available
only when the costs of using this technology in the field far
outweigh the benefits.
The Agency believes that it has fulfilled its statutory
obligation
to establish "the lowest achievable level of emissions" and
that in many cases its standards represent the best that can
be technologically achieved. The standards proposed by EPA
generally
reflect the performance of the "best controlled source" in each
sector under commonly encountered conditions in the field. The
variability of these conditions is considerably greater in each
air-conditioning and refrigeration industry sector than it is
in most other industry sectors, particularly those affected
by LAER. Thus, for instance, the fact that a recovery device
removing R-12 from an appliance at 70 degrees F can achieve
a twenty-inch vacuum does not imply that EPA should set its
evacuation requirements at this level, because the same recovery
device would scarcely be able to reach a ten-inch vacuum on
R-502 at 90 degrees F.
Where the performance of the best controlled sources is not
the standard, EPA has found that the costs of implementing the
controls far outweigh the benefits. For instance, according
to appliance manufacturers, between 80 and 90 percent of firms
in the small appliance sector make fewer than 10 repairs a year
that require recovery of refrigerant. The most efficient recovery
devices intended for use in this sector may recover between
5 and 10 percent more refrigerant from a small appliance than
the least efficient, but they also cost approximately four times
as much ($900 vs. $215). For a firm performing 10 recovery jobs
per year on refrigerators charged with 6 ounces of refrigerant,
this difference results in the recovery of no more than 6
additional
ounces of refrigerant per year. At the same time, the cost of
the more efficient equipment could have an appreciable impact
on firms in this sector, approximately 37 percent of which EPA
estimates are in poor financial condition prior to imposition
of the regulation (RIA). Thus, EPA is permitting the use of
the less efficient recovery equipment. This is in accord with
the comments of NRDC and FOE, which acknowledge that if controls
are "so costly that typical firms in that sector could not bear
them," then less stringent controls are warranted.
Nevertheless, as discussed further in the response to the
comments document, to the extent that there is a difference
between EPA's approach and the approach suggested by NRDC and
FOE, EPA does not believe that it is legally compelled to adopt
the approach to economic considerations suggested by NRDC/FOE.
In sum, the Agency believes that its approach of focusing primarily
on the technological feasibility and only secondarily on economic
issues is authorized by section 608.
The stringency of the regulations promulgated to implement
these standards are affected by the amount of leadtime between
their date of promulgation and their effective date. The longer
the leadtime, the more time there would have been for technological
innovations and development to occur, thereby permitting the
establishment of more stringent standards. Conversely, shorter
leadtimes necessitate standards based more on the degree of
emission control and performance achievable by equipment already
available or equipment that will be available in the near future.
With respect to the present set of regulations, the leadtime
is necessarily short as section 608(a)(1) provides for an effective
date of July 1, 1992, for the regulations covering the use and
disposal of class I substances used in appliances and industrial
process refrigeration. Because the effective date has passed,
these regulations as they pertain to recovery/recycling of class
I and class II substances will go into effect thirty days following
publication of this rule (unless stated otherwise). For regulations
authorized by section 608(a)(2), the initial effective date
must be within 12 months of promulgation.
EPA has considered these factors in developing these
regulations,
and the Agency believes that it has designed a program that
will achieve the lowest achievable level of emissions and maximize
recycling, taking into account in an appropriate manner the
technology available, costs, benefits, and the leadtimes involved.
Through extensive discussions with industry representatives
and environmental organizations, EPA has attempted to identify
significant emissions and methods for controlling them during
the repair, service, and disposal of air-conditioning or
refrigeration
equipment. In many cases, the requirements will mandate activity
already being undertaken by standard-setting and equipment
certification
organizations in the heating, ventilation, air-conditioning,
and refrigeration (HVAC/R) sector. They are also very similar
to the steps being taken to recycle refrigerant in MVACs, an
area where recycling has been successfully implemented.
EPA also took into consideration the over 15,000 comments
requesting that a mandatory technician certification be included
in the final rule. EPA views a mandatory technician certification
program as instrumental in facilitating a workable recovery
and recycling program. Commenters expressed the need of technicians
for a level playing field, as well as for consistent knowledge
with which to perform recovery and recycling properly.
EPA has attempted to develop a regulatory program that
accommodates
the wide variety of sizes and types of equipment subject to
this regulation. In setting its efficiency standards for recycling
and recovery equipment, EPA has considered among other factors
both the charge size and frequency of servicing for different
types of equipment. In general, as charge size and frequency
of servicing increase, potential emissions increase, and higher
recovery efficiencies are justified. For instance, the household
refrigeration and other refrigerated appliances categories that
combine to make up the "small appliances" category in today's
rule have small charges and are serviced infrequently. Under
today's final rule, recovery equipment in this category would
be subject to a standard that requires recovery of between 80
and 90% of the refrigerant (depending upon whether or not the
compressor of the small appliance is operational). On the other
hand, equipment containing more than 200 lbs of charge would
be subject to a standard that requires recovery of over 99%
of the refrigerant. Equipment standards are discussed in detail
in section III.G.
EPA additionally considered average leak rates of average-
maintained equipment in setting the three levels of annual leak
rates that would trigger mandatory repair of such leaks. EPA
also considered the numerous comments that requested EPA to
include a mandatory provision in this rulemaking for repairing
substantial leaks.
EPA has also considered typical methods of disposal in
developing
these regulations. Under this proposal, equipment that is typically
dismantled on-site before disposal (retail food refrigeration,
cold storage warehouse refrigeration, chillers, and industrial
process refrigeration) must have the refrigerant removed and
recovered in accordance with EPA's proposed requirements for
servicing. For these types of equipment, the persons who perform
servicing usually also perform disposal. This is generally not
the case, however, for smaller items such as household
refrigerators
and freezers, room air conditioners, and motor vehicle air
conditioners.
This equipment is disposed of by consumers and generally enters
the waste stream with the charge intact. EPA is proposing distinct
safe disposal requirements for this equipment, which would make
the final person in the disposal chain (e.g., a scrap metal
recycler) responsible for ensuring that refrigerant has been
recovered from equipment before the final disposal of the
equipment.
Equipment covered by these requirements also includes
dehumidifiers,
water coolers, and other relatively portable equipment in addition
to household refrigerators and freezers and MVACs. EPA's safe
disposal program is discussed in detail in section III.M.
D. Public Participation
EPA has worked extensively with outside groups in developing
this proposal. In particular, the Agency established and met
repeatedly with the Subcommittee for Recycling and Emissions
Reduction of EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Protection Advisory
Committee
(STOPAC). The STOPAC is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered
in 1989 under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.
section 9(c), to provide independent counsel to EPA on specific
issues affecting the international negotiations and domestic
implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Since the enactment
of the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990, the STOPAC has also
provided advice on the implementation of Title VI of this
legislation.
The Subcommittee for Recycling has over 50 members representing
air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment manufacturers,
wholesalers, servicers, and users, manufacturers of recycling
and recovery equipment, refrigerant manufacturers and reclaimers,
educational organizations, state and local governments, and
environmental groups. To date, EPA has met with members of the
Subcommittee six times: The Subcommittee as a whole met twice,
and smaller groups met to discuss equipment certification,
technician
certification, reclaimer certification and safe disposal. Summaries
of these meetings are available in the public docket for this
rulemaking.
EPA also worked with the air-conditioning and refrigeration
industry's primary standards-setting organizations, the Air-
conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) and the American
Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers,
Inc. (ASHRAE), in developing its rule. Wherever appropriate,
EPA has incorporated standards and guidelines from these
organizations
into the proposed rule. Examples of incorporated standards include
the ARI Standard 700-1988, Specifications for Fluorocarbon
Refrigerants,
and the ARI Standard 740-1993 (an update of 700-1991), Performance
of Refrigerant Recovery, Recycling, and/or Reclaim Equipment.
EPA also considered the ASHRAE Guideline 3, Reducing Emission
of Fully Halogenated Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) Refrigerants in
Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Equipment and Applications,
in developing its rule.
In addition to convening the Subcommittee for Recycling,
EPA met with various industry representatives to gather data
on refrigerant emissions, to better understand current industry
practices, and to discuss a range of technical issues. The data
on refrigerant emissions were used to update EPA's vintaging
analysis, which analyzes emissions by equipment type and life
cycle stage (e.g., manufacturing, use, servicing, or disposal).
This analysis has been used to calculate the potential costs
and benefits of this rule and to identify opportunities for
further emissions reductions. The data used in the analysis
is presented in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this
proposal, also available in the public docket. Industry groups
that have provided or commented on data include appliance
manufacturers,
chiller manufacturers and servicers, industrial process
refrigeration
manufacturers and users, commercial refrigeration manufacturers
and users, refrigerated transport manufacturers, servicers and
users, and manufacturers and users of comfort air cooling systems
for commercial vehicles.
Following proposal of the rule, EPA held a public hearing
on December 23, 1992. During the comment period, over 20,000
comments were submitted to EPA. All of these comments were
considered
in the development of the final rule. Major comments are addressed
in the preamble to this rulemaking. All other comments are
addressed
in the "Response to Comments Document" that can be found in
Air Docket A-92-01.
E. Definitions and Interpretations
Appliance
As was proposed, EPA is adopting the Act's definition of
"appliance". The Act defines "appliance" as "any device which
contains and uses a class I or class II substance as a refrigerant
and which is used for household or commercial purposes, including
any air conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or freezer." EPA
interprets this definition to include all air-conditioning and
refrigeration equipment except that designed and used exclusively
for military applications. Thus, the term "appliance" includes
all the sectors of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment
described under Section III.A. above, including household
refrigerators
and freezers (which may be used outside the home), other
refrigerated
appliances, residential and light commercial air-conditioning,
transport refrigeration, retail food refrigeration, cold storage
warehouses, commercial comfort air-conditioning, motor vehicle
air conditioners, comfort cooling in vehicles not covered under
section 609, and industrial process refrigeration. (In sections
608(a) and 608(c), the Act refers specifically to "industrial
process refrigeration," a term that is not defined. EPA believes
that all refrigeration equipment categorized as industrial process
refrigeration in Section III.A. above also falls within the
broad statutory definition of "appliance.")
In the proposal, the Agency requested comment on using its
authority under section 608(a)(2) to adopt a broader definition
of appliance that would include equipment designed and used
exclusively for military applications. EPA received comments
both favoring and opposing the inclusion of military equipment
in the term "appliance." Commenters favoring inclusion noted
that the military is a large user of CFCs and argued that military
equipment should be exempt from the regulation only in time
of war or when compliance with the regulations would lessen
the military effectiveness of the equipment. Commenters opposing
inclusion (the Department of Defense, or DOD) argued that
regulation
of equipment designed and used exclusively for military
applications
was not necessary, because DOD was committed to meeting recovery
and recycling standards at least as stringent as those in the
commercial sector, "except where the unique design and use of
the equipment or other mission critical operations preclude
this." In cases in which commercial standards could not be met,
DOD stated that it would set its own standards to minimize
environmental
hazards while ensuring mission accomplishment. DOD also stated
that "equipment designed and used exclusively for military
applications"
comprised a relatively small percentage of their equipment,
further reducing environmental concerns.
EPA agrees that there may be situations in which the unique
design and use of military equipment makes it impossible to
recover or recycle refrigerant during the servicing, maintenance,
repair, or disposal of the equipment. However, the Agency
reemphasizes
that if the air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment used
in a military application is identical to equipment used in
a commercial application, then it is covered by the Act's
definition
(and hence by these regulations). For example, a room air
conditioner
used on a military base is still considered an appliance even
though the use of that particular piece of equipment may not
be for commercial or household purposes. Similarly, although
a refrigerator in some other government facility is not used
for household or commercial purposes, that refrigerator is still
considered an appliance because that identical kind of equipment
is used for household or commercial purposes in other contexts.
For purposes of enforcing these regulations, EPA will consider
"identical equipment" to include air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment whose system of working parts (e.g., compressor, motor,
evaporator, and condenser) is identical to that in equipment
used for a household or commercial purpose. Equipment that has
been modified only externally for a military application (e.g.,
painted or encased in a new cabinet) will still be considered
"identical" to equipment used for household or commercial purposes
and will therefore be subject to these regulations.
Approved Equipment Testing Organization
EPA defines Approved Equipment Testing Organization as any
organization which has applied for and received approval from
EPA to test recycling and recovery equipment.
Certified Refrigerant Recycling Equipment
EPA defines Certified Refrigerant Recycling Equipment as
equipment certified by an approved testing organization to meet
EPA's final standards on equipment purchased before November
15, 1993, that meets EPA's standards for grandfathered equipment.
Commercial Refrigeration
As is discussed in more detail in section III.F.3, EPA is
establishing a maximum allowable leak rate of 35% per year for
industrial process and commercial refrigeration. EPA is defining
commercial refrigerant as the refrigeration appliances utilized
in the retail food and cold storage warehouse sectors. Retail
food includes the refrigeration equipment found in supermarkets,
convenience stores, restaurants and other food service
establishments.
Cold storage includes the equipment used to store meat, produce,
dairy products, and other perishable goods. All of the equipment
contains large refrigerant charges, typically over 75 pounds.
Disposal
EPA is defining "disposal" as the process leading to and
including:
(1) The discharge, deposit, dumping or placing of any discarded
appliance into or on any land or water,
(2) The disassembly of any appliance for discharge, deposit,
dumping or placing of its discarded component parts into or
on any land or water, or
(3) The disassembly of any appliance for reuse of its component
parts.
High-Pressure Appliance
Because the physical properties of high, very high, and low-
pressure refrigerants differ, EPA is establishing somewhat
different
requirements for technicians and equipment servicing high, very
high, and low-pressure appliances. EPA defines high-pressure
appliances as appliances that use a refrigerant with a boiling
point between -50 and 10 degrees Centigrade at atmospheric pressure
(29.9 inches Hg). This definition would include equipment using
CFCs -12, -114, -500, and -502, and HCFC-22. EPA has changed
this definition since the proposal to include CFC-114 in response
to comments stating that the physical differences between CFC-
114 and the other high-pressure refrigerants did not warrant
a special category for the latter. The proposed intermediate-
pressure appliance category has consequently been eliminated.
Industrial Process Refrigeration
As is discussed in more detail in section III.F.3, EPA is
establishing a maximum allowable leak rate of 35% per year for
industrial process and commercial refrigeration. EPA is defining
industrial process refrigeration as complex customized appliances
used in the chemical, pharmaceutical, petrochemical and
manufacturing
industries. The sector is also defined to include industrial
ice machines and ice rinks.
Low-Loss Fitting
EPA is requiring that recovery or recycling machines
manufactured
after November 15, 1993, possess low-loss fittings. EPA had
proposed that the term "low-loss" fitting include only
automatically
closing fittings. A number of commenters disagreed with this
definition, noting that automatically closing fittings can restrict
refrigerant flow in some cases, slowing the recovery process,
and that automatic fittings sometimes open or close unexpectedly,
releasing refrigerant. These commenters recommended that EPA
expand its definition of low-loss fitting to include fittings
that can be closed manually, such as manual ball valve fittings.
The commenters noted that "manual ball valves are in wide use
in the refrigeration industry and have proven themselves to
be safe and reliable." In response to these comments, EPA is
defining a low-loss fitting as any device that is intended to
establish a connection between hoses, air-conditioning and
refrigeration
equipment, or recovery or recycling machines and that is designed
to close automatically or manually when disconnected, minimizing
the release of refrigerant from hoses, air-conditioning or
refrigeration
equipment, and recovery or recycling machines.
Low-Pressure Appliance
EPA defines low-pressure appliances as appliances that use
a refrigerant with a boiling point above 10 degrees Centigrade
at atmospheric pressure (29.9 inches Hg). This definition includes
appliances using CFCs -11 and -113, and HCFC-123.
Major Maintenance, Service, or Repair
EPA is permitting persons servicing appliances to evacuate
(or, in the case of low-pressure appliances, to pressurize)
appliances to atmospheric pressure when the maintenance, service,
or repair is not major and when an evacuation of the appliance
to the environment is not performed after the servicing or repair
is completed. As is discussed in section III.F.1.b, many non-
major repairs involve uncovering only a small opening in the
appliance and take place in only a few minutes, limiting both
the quantity of refrigerant that escapes and the quantity of
air and moisture that enter the system. However, major repairs
involve uncovering larger openings in the system and are more
time consuming, allowing refrigerant to escape and air to enter.
This in turn necessitates an evacuation of the appliance to
the environment at the conclusion of service. EPA is defining
"major maintenance, service, or repair" as maintenance, service,
or repair that involves removal of the appliance compressor,
condenser, evaporator, or auxiliary heat exchanger coil.
Motor Vehicle Air Conditioner (MVAC)
Although the servicing of motor vehicle air conditioners
(MVACs) is covered by the MVAC refrigerant recycling rule, 40
CFR part 82 subpart B, the disposal of motor vehicle air
conditioners
is covered by this rule. EPA is adopting the definition of MVAC
in the MVAC refrigerant recycling rule as the definition of
MVAC in this rule. In the MVAC rule, MVAC is defined as mechanical
vapor compression refrigeration equipment used to cool the driver's
or passenger's compartment of any motor vehicle. Motor vehicle
is in turn defined as "any vehicle which is self-propelled and
designed for transporting persons or property on a street or
highway, including but not limited to passenger cars, light
duty vehicles, and heavy duty vehicles." Transport refrigeration
and air conditioning systems using HCFC-22 are excluded from
the definition of MVAC.
MVAC-like Appliance
Some of the air conditioners that are covered by this rule
are identical to MVACs, but they are not covered by the MVACs
refrigerant recycling rule (40 CFR part 82 subpart B, 57 FR
31241) because they are used in vehicles that are not defined
as "motor vehicles." These air conditioners include many systems
used in construction equipment and farm vehicles. Like MVACs
in cars and trucks, these air conditioners typically contain
two to three pounds of CFC-12 and use open-drive compressors
to cool the passenger compartments of vehicles. As is discussed
in section III.G.3, EPA is adopting the requirements regarding
the certification and use of recycling and recovery equipment
in the MVACs rule for MVAC-like appliances covered by this rule.
EPA is also allowing technicians who service MVAC-like appliances
to be certified by a certification program approved under the
MVAC rule, if they wish. EPA is defining MVAC-like appliance
as mechanical vapor compression, open-drive compressor appliances
used to cool the driver's or passenger's compartment of a non-
road vehicle, including agricultural and construction vehicles.
The definition excludes appliances using HCFC-22.
Normally Containing
EPA is establishing stricter evacuation requirements for
high pressure appliances or appliance components "normally
containing"
more than 200 pounds of refrigerant. As is discussed in section
III.G, EPA considered the environmental impact of the refrigerant
that remains in the large appliance or appliance component after
recovery is complete in setting the more stringent standards.
(During disposal and during many service procedures, this remaining
refrigerant is ultimately released to the environment). The
quantity of refrigerant that remains in an appliance or appliance
component is related to two variables: (1) The internal pressure
of the appliance or appliance component, and (2) the internal
volume of the appliance or appliance component. The internal
volume is in turn related to the mass of refrigerant that is
inside the appliance or appliance component when the appliance
is operating with a full charge of refrigerant. Thus, EPA is
defining "normally containing" as containing the quantity of
refrigerant within the appliance or appliance component when
the appliance is operating with a full charge of refrigerant.
It is important to note that although the mass of refrigerant
in an appliance or appliance component can be changed through
leakage or system pump-down, only the quantity of refrigerant
normally contained by the appliance or appliance component can
be considered in determining whether or not the stricter
requirements
apply.
Opening
EPA is requiring that technicians recover refrigerant from
appliances before "opening" them for maintenance, service or
repair. EPA defines "opening" an appliance as any service,
maintenance,
or repair on an appliance that could be reasonably expected
to release refrigerant from the appliance to the atmosphere
unless the refrigerant were previously recovered from the
appliance.
Person
EPA is requiring that refrigerant transferred between air-
conditioning or refrigeration equipment owned by different persons
must be fully reclaimed. EPA defines person as any individual
or legal entity, including an individual, corporation, partnership,
association, state, municipality, political subdivision of a
state, Indian tribe, and any agency, department, or instrumentality
of the United States, and any officer, agent, or employee thereof.
This is identical to the definition used in the regulations
concerning the production and consumption of ozone-depleting
substances (40 CFR 82.3(r)).
Process Stub
EPA is requiring that small appliances and room air conditioners
sold after November 15, 1993 be provided with a process stub
to facilitate removal of the refrigerant at servicing. The Agency
defines process stub as a length of tubing that provides access
to the refrigerant inside a small appliance or room air conditioner
and that can be resealed at the conclusion of repair or service.
Reclaim
EPA is adopting a slightly modified form of ASHRAE's definition
of "reclaim." According to ASHRAE, to reclaim refrigerant is
to:
Reprocess refrigerant to new product specifications by means
which may include distillation. Will require chemical analysis
of the refrigerant to determine that appropriate product
specifications
are met. This term usually implies the use of processes or
procedures
available only at a reprocessing or manufacturing facility.
EPA is refining this definition to refer specifically to the
ARI Standard 700-1988, Specifications for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants
(included as Appendix A to the proposed rule) for the "new product
specifications" and also for the appropriate type of chemical
analysis to ensure that these specifications are met. For the
Agency's purposes, the most important part of the definition
of reclaim is the requirement to chemically analyze the final
product to verify purity. Without such analysis and verification,
the Agency will not consider refrigerant to have been reclaimed.
Recover
EPA also is adopting ASHRAE's definition of "recover:" to
remove refrigerant in any condition from a system without
necessarily
testing or processing it in any way.
Recycle
Although the Act's usage of the term "recycle" is very broad,
encompassing, for instance, the term "reclaim" as defined above,
EPA defines the term more narrowly in its regulations. Once
again, EPA is adopting ASHRAE's definition, with minor changes.
ASHRAE states that to recycle is to:
Clean refrigerant for reuse by oil separation and single
or multiple passes through devices, such as replaceable core
filter-driers, which reduce moisture, acidity and particulate
matter. This term usually applies to procedures implemented
at the field job site or at a local service shop.
The key difference between "recycle" and "reclaim" is that the
former does not involve chemical analysis of the product. Recycling
essentially encompasses all types of treatment of refrigerant
that do not involve such chemical analysis. As explained in
a later section of this notice, EPA is requiring for two years
that all refrigerant changing hands must be fully reclaimed,
implying that the vast majority of recycling will take place
on site as opposed to at a local service shop.
Self-contained Recovery Equipment
Recovery equipment can be divided into two main types: Self-
contained and system-dependent. EPA referred to these two types
of equipment as "active" and "passive" respectively in the
proposal,
but has changed the terminology in response to comments indicating
that "self-contained" and "system-dependent" are the more common
terms used in the industry. While self-contained equipment has
its own means to draw refrigerant out of the refrigerator system,
system-dependent equipment relies solely upon the compressor
in the appliance and/or the pressure of the refrigerant in the
appliance to recover the refrigerant. EPA defines these two
types of equipment accordingly.
Small Appliance
EPA proposed to define as a "small appliance" air-conditioning
or refrigeration equipment containing less than one pound of
charge during normal operation. This classification was intended
to include household refrigerators, household freezers,
dehumidifiers,
vending machines, and water coolers, for which EPA proposed
to establish special servicing and safe disposal requirements.
The rule establishes separate requirements for small appliances
in three areas. First, small appliances, unlike other appliances,
can be evacuated using equipment certified under Appendix C.
Second, technicians servicing small appliances can be certified
by taking an unproctored rather than proctored test. Third,
small appliances can be manufactured with a process stub rather
than a servicing aperture. The rationale for establishing somewhat
less stringent requirements for the servicing and disposal of
small appliances is that they contain smaller quantities of
refrigerant and are serviced less often than other appliances.
EPA received a number of comments stating that the use of
the one-pound limit to define "small appliances" was inappropriate.
These comments stated that the one-pound limit excluded some
household refrigerators and freezers, and also excluded equipment,
such as room air conditioners, that had the same technical
attributes
and was serviced by the same work force as household refrigerators
and freezers. The commenters suggested that EPA adopt a definition
that would include room air conditioners, packaged terminal
air conditioners, and packaged terminal heat pumps in addition
to household refrigerators and freezers, dehumidifiers, vending
machines, and drinking water coolers. The commenters argued
that the former types of equipment, like the latter, are charged
and sealed at the factory, contain relatively small quantities
of refrigerant (particularly when that quantity is weighted
by the relatively low ozone-depletion potential of HCFC-22),
and are serviced infrequently by the same technicians who service
household refrigerators and freezers. Thus, they should be treated
the same way in the rule as household refrigerators and freezers.
EPA believes that the commenters are correct that room air
conditioners, packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs), and
packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs) are sufficiently similar
in these respects to household refrigerators and freezers to
justify inclusion in the definition of "small appliance." EPA
is therefore revising its proposed definition of "small appliance"
to:
Small appliance means any of the following products that
are fully manufactured, charged, and hermetically sealed in
a factory with five (5) pounds or less of refrigerant:
Refrigerators
and freezers designed for home use, room air conditioners
(including
window air conditioners and packaged terminal air conditioners),
packaged terminal heat pumps, dehumidifiers, under-the-counter
ice makers, vending machines, and drinking water coolers.
System-dependent Recovery Equipment
As discussed above in the explanation of the term
"self-contained
equipment," EPA defines a system-dependent recovery device as
a device that relies upon the compressor in an appliance to
remove the refrigerant into an external container.
Technician
EPA is establishing in today's rule a number of requirements
that apply to technicians. EPA defines technician as any person
who performs maintenance, service, or repair to air-conditioning
or refrigeration equipment that could reasonably be expected
to release CFCs or HCFCs into the atmosphere, e.g., installer,
contractor employee, in-house service personnel, and in some
cases, owner. Technician also means any person disposing of
air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment except for small
appliances and MVACs.
Very High-Pressure Equipment
EPA defines very high-pressure equipment as air-conditioning
and refrigeration equipment that uses a refrigerant with a boiling
point below -50 degrees Centigrade at atmospheric pressure.
This definition includes equipment using refrigerants 13 and
503.
F. Required Practices
EPA is requiring persons servicing or disposing of
air-conditioning
and refrigeration equipment to observe certain service practices
that minimize emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. The
most fundamental of these practices is the requirement to recover
refrigerant rather than vent it to the atmosphere. As noted
above, the knowing venting of class I or class II refrigerant
during servicing or disposal (except for de minimis releases
associated with a good faith attempt to recapture, recycle,
or safely dispose of the refrigerant) has been expressly prohibited
by section 608(c) of the Act since July 1, 1992.
Knowing venting is any release that permits a class I or
class II substance to enter the environment and that takes place
with the knowledge of the technician during the maintenance,
servicing, repairing, or disposal of air-conditioning or
refrigeration
equipment. Two commenters argued that EPA was interpreting "knowing
release" too narrowly. These commenters asserted that a technician
who fills a leaking system is knowingly venting refrigerant.
As discussed below in Section III.F.3, this rule requires repair
of leaks above a certain size in equipment normally containing
more than 50 pounds of refrigerant. However, the venting
prohibition
itself, which applies to the maintenance, service, repair, and
disposal of equipment, does not prohibit "topping off" systems,
which leads to emissions of refrigerant during the use of
equipment.
The provision on knowing releases does, however, include the
situation in which a technician is practically certain that
his or her conduct will cause a release of refrigerant during
the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of equipment.
Knowing releases also include situations in which a technician
closes his or her eyes to obvious facts or fails to investigate
them when aware of facts that demand investigation.
Section 608(c)(1) of the CAA exempts "de minimis" releases
associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle
or safely dispose of these substances from the prohibition.
In their statement prior to the passage of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, the Senate managers explained that, "The
exception is included to account for the fact that in the course
of properly using recapture and recycling equipment, it may
not be possible to prevent some small amount of leakage."
(Congressional
Record S16948, October 26, 1990). From this statement and the
statutory text, EPA considers it appropriate to conclude that
emissions accompanying the proper use of recapture and recycling
equipment would generally be considered "de minimis." EPA is
therefore interpreting as "de minimis" those emissions that
take place at servicing and disposal when:
(i) The required practices set forth in 82.158 of this
proposed regulation are observed and recovery or recycling machines
that meet the requirements set forth in 82.158 of this proposed
regulation are used, or
(ii) The requirements of the MVAC regulation (40 CFR part
82, subpart B) are observed.
Such emissions represent the lowest achievable level of
emissions,
but because the requirements for recovery and recycling machines
would vary somewhat from sector to sector and because the charge
sizes involved vary considerably from sector to sector, the
quantities considered de minimis would also vary from sector
to sector.
1. Evacuation of Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment.
EPA is requiring that before air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment is opened for maintenance, service, or repair, the
refrigerant in either the entire system or the part to be serviced
(if the latter can be isolated) must be transferred to a system
receiver (a component of the system that is designed to hold
excess refrigerant charge and that can be used to hold the charge
during servicing or repair) or to a certified recycling or recovery
machine. The same requirements apply to equipment that is to
be disposed of, except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-
like appliances, whose disposal is covered by Section III.M.
below. In order to ensure that the maximum amount of refrigerant
possible is captured rather than released, EPA is requiring
that air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment be evacuated
to or below specified levels of vacuum. As discussed in the
proposal, the Agency has considered a number of factors in
developing
these levels, including the technical capabilities, ease of
use, and costs of recycling and recovery equipment, the possible
impact of evacuation on the air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment, the servicing times that would be necessary to achieve
different vacuums, and the amounts of refrigerant that would
be released under different evacuation requirements and their
predicted impact on the ozone layer (and indirectly, on human
health and the environment). Since the rule was proposed, the
Agency has reviewed numerous public comments regarding the proposed
evacuation levels and has refined its analysis. As a result,
some of the proposed requirements have been changed. These changes
are discussed below.
As was proposed, the required levels of evacuation vary
depending
upon the type of equipment to be serviced or disposed of and
the date of manufacture of the recovery or recycling machine
(i.e., whether it met certification requirements for new equipment
or had been grandfathered). However, some of the distinctions
between different types of equipment have been changed since
the rule was proposed. For small appliances, the requirements
also vary depending on the capacities of the recovery system
used under the circumstances (e.g., with an operating vs. a
nonoperating refrigerator compressor).
Technicians repairing MVAC-like appliances are not subject
to the evacuation requirements below, but are subject to a
requirement
to "properly use" (as defined at 40 CFR 82.32(e)) recycling
and recovery equipment approved pursuant to 82.36(a). As is
discussed in more detail in section III.G.3, EPA is adopting
the equipment certification and use requirements of the MVACs
refrigerant recycling rule (40 CFR part 82, subpart B) for MVAC-
like appliances.
The required evacuation levels and equipment standards (for
"grandfathered" equipment) become effective 60 days after
publication
of this rule. Although EPA had proposed that these requirements
become effective 30 days after publication of the rule, some
commenters believed that 30 days would not constitute sufficient
time for technicians to become aware of EPA's requirements and
to acquire equipment that met EPA's grandfathering standards.
Upon reconsideration of the issue, EPA agreed. The Agency again
notes, however, that the prohibition on venting refrigerants
during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances
has been in effect since July 1, 1992.
a. Evacuation requirements for air-conditioning and
refrigeration
equipment besides small appliances. When recovery and recycling
machines manufactured or imported after November 15, 1993, are
employed for recovery, EPA is requiring evacuation to 0 inches
of vacuum, 10 inches of vacuum, 15 inches of vacuum, or 29 inches
of vacuum, depending on the size and type of air-conditioning
or refrigeration equipment being serviced. If grandfathered
recovery or recycling devices are used, EPA proposes to require
evacuation to 0 inches of vacuum in very high-pressure systems
and in small systems using HCFC-22, 4 inches of vacuum in high-
pressure systems, and 25 inches of vacuum in low-pressure systems,
because the grandfathered equipment may not be capable of achieving
higher levels (see Section III.G.). The table below lists
requirements
for evacuation (pressure readings) for each type of
air-conditioning
and refrigeration equipment and for certified and grandfathered
recovery and recycling machines.
Table 1.-Required Levels of Evacuation for Air-Conditioning
or
Refrigeration Equipment
[Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like
equipment]
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ Inches of vacuum
(relative to
³ standard
atmospheric pressure
³ of 29.9
inches Hg) {1}
ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ Using recovery
³ Using recovery
Type of air-conditioning or refrigeration ³ or recycling
³ or recycling
equipment ³ equipment
³ equipment
³ manufactured
³ manufactured
³ before
³ on or after
³ November 15,
³ November 15,
³ 1993
³ 1993
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³
³
HCFC-22 equipment, or isolated component ³ 0
³ 0
of such equipment, normally containing ³
³
less than 200 pounds of refrigerant. ³
³
HCFC-22 equipment, or isolated component ³ 4
³ 10
of such equipment, normally containing ³
³
200 pounds or more of refrigerant. ³
³
Other high-pressure equipment, or ³ 4
³ 10
isolated component of such equipment, ³
³
normally containing less than 200 pounds ³
³
of refrigerant. ³
³
Other high-pressure equipment, or ³ 4
³ 15
isolated component of such equipment, ³
³
normally containing 200 pounds or more ³
³
of refrigerant. ³
³
Very high-pressure equipment ............ ³ 0
³ 0
Low-pressure equipment .................. ³ 25
³ 29
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
{1} EPA is explicitly defining the required evacuation levels in
relation
to standard, as opposed to local, atmospheric pressure. A number
of
commenters noted that because local atmospheric pressure drops
with
elevation, it is difficult (and sometimes physically impossible)
for
persons working at high elevations to attain the required vacuums
if they
are measured relative to local atmospheric pressure. Because the
quantity
of refrigerant remaining in a piece of air-conditioning or
refrigeration
equipment is related to its absolute rather than relative
pressure,
pulling a shallower gauge vacuum at a higher elevation has the
same impact
on the environment as pulling a deeper vacuum at sea level.
Persons
performing appliance repair, maintenance, service or disposal at
high
elevations should make appropriate adjustments to the above chart
to
account for the difference between standard and local atmospheric
pressure.
i. High-pressure air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment.
There are a number of differences between the above evacuation
levels and those that were proposed. The most significant of
these is the distinction now made between high-pressure air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment utilizing HCFC-22 and
other high-pressure equipment. In the proposal, EPA requested
comment on establishing less stringent evacuation standards
for equipment utilizing HCFC-22. The Agency noted that the high
saturation pressure of HCFC-22 makes it difficult (and in some
cases, impossible) to draw deep vacuums on this refrigerant
but, at the same time, permits a high percentage of this
refrigerant
to be recovered at relatively shallow vacuums. EPA stated that
the latter consideration, along with the relatively low ozone-
depletion potential of HCFC-22 (compared to those of the CFCs)
may make deeper vacuums unnecessary. A number of commenters
concurred with this reasoning. Many commenters emphasized the
difficulty of pulling deep vacuums on air-conditioning and
refrigeration
equipment using R-22 (HCFC-22), particularly in the high ambient
temperatures typically found on rooftops during the summer months.
Under these conditions, commenters noted, only recovery equipment
with high-quality compressors would be able to attain the
compression
ratio necessary to draw a 10-inch vacuum, and even this equipment
would not be able to achieve a 20-inch vacuum. Moreover, the
discharge temperature of the refrigerant in these situations
would often be high enough to burn the oil in the recovery device
compressor, leading to its failure.
EPA has performed an analysis that attempts to determine
appropriate evacuation levels for various types of refrigerants
and equipment, considering the physical characteristics of the
refrigerants (e.g., saturation pressure, which is related both
to the compression ratio necessary to achieve a certain vacuum
level and to the percentage of refrigerant that is recovered
at that vacuum level), their ozone-depletion potentials, the
costs of recycling and recovery equipment, and labor costs.
This analysis indicates that recovery of HCFC-22 into a vacuum
is justified only for large charge sizes (greater than 200 pounds).
For smaller charges, the avoided damage to human health and
the environment do not appear to justify the time and expense
of drawing a vacuum even if a vacuum were attainable, which
it often would not be. It should be noted that because HCFC-
22 has one of the highest saturation pressures of the high-pressure
refrigerants, evacuating HCFC-22 systems to atmospheric pressure
recovers approximately 98.5 percent of the refrigerant at 75
degrees F (more at higher temperatures). Although temperature
was not considered in the analysis, HCFC-22 equipment (or isolated
components thereof) with charges of 200 pounds or more is generally
found in equipment rooms, where ambient temperatures are low
enough to make a ten-inch vacuum feasible.
Some commenters argued that EPA should not set less stringent
standards for HCFC-22 because the ODP of HCFC-22 is not
significantly
different from that of the CFCs in the short term, when the
most serious ozone depletion is expected to occur. As noted
above, the physical characteristics of HCFC-22 and the conditions
under which repair and disposal of appliances using HCFC-22
are likely to occur (e.g., on hot rooftops) were the primary
considerations in setting less stringent standards for HCFC-
22 than for the CFC refrigerants; however, EPA also considered
the impact on human heath and the environment of the HCFC-22
that would escape under the less stringent standards. In estimating
this impact, EPA accounted for both the short- and long-term
effects of HCFC-22 on stratospheric ozone, examining health
and environmental effects over the next 150 years. As discussed
above, the Agency found that these effects were not severe enough
to warrant setting more stringent standards for HCFC-22 recovery,
which would be difficult (and, in some cases, impossible) to
meet. The method that EPA used to calculate the impact of HCFC-
22 on human health and the environment and the relationship
of this method to the ODP of HCFC-22 is discussed in more detail
in the RIA.
Another significant change from the proposal is the provision
that allows the charge in an isolated component of the system,
rather than the charge of the system as a whole, to be used
to determine appropriate levels of evacuation. Several commenters
stated that large air-conditioning and refrigeration systems
often contain isolation valves that allow individual system
components to be repaired without requiring evacuation of the
entire system. In many cases, the quantity of refrigerant left
in the component is considerably less than 200 (or even 50)
pounds, even if the system as a whole contains several hundred
pounds. In these cases, EPA agrees that drawing a deep vacuum
on the system component is not necessary.
The other significant changes from the proposal are the
alteration
of the maximum evacuation level for high-pressure refrigerants
from 20 inches to 15 inches, and the raising of the cutoff for
"small" high-pressure equipment to 200 pounds. A number of
commenters
criticized the 20-inch evacuation requirement, stating that
achieving this level of evacuation would place a strain on recovery
equipment, recover little additional refrigerant, be
time-consuming,
and in some cases (e.g., with equipment using R-502) be impossible.
In its analysis of evacuation levels, the Agency found that
evacuation levels between approximately 15 and 23 inches of
vacuum (depending upon compressor clearance) were appropriate
for large equipment using R-12 (CFC-12), while evacuation levels
between 5 inches and 17 inches of vacuum (depending upon compressor
clearance) were appropriate for large equipment using R-502.
EPA's analysis confirmed that achievement of a 20-inch vacuum
on equipment utilizing R-502 would be very difficult without
substantial modification of existing recycling and recovery
equipment. (See Section G.1. below.) Rather than set separate
standards for each high-pressure refrigerant, which could lead
to excessive confusion, the Agency has decided to establish
a single standard based on both of the above ranges, 15 inches
of vacuum. (R-12 and R-502 represent the commonly used CFC high-
pressure refrigerants with the lowest and highest saturation
pressures, respectively. Therefore, an evacuation level that
falls into the range of appropriate levels for both refrigerants
should be appropriate for all high-pressure CFC refrigerants.)
Similarly, EPA found that evacuation levels between
approximately
10 and 22 inches of vacuum (again, depending upon compressor
clearance) were appropriate for small equipment using R-12,
while evacuation levels between atmospheric pressure and 14
inches of vacuum were appropriate for small equipment using
R-502. The Agency selected 10 inches as an appropriate evacuation
level for all high-pressure CFC refrigerants.
Supermarkets and chemical manufacturers were concerned that
the proposed levels of evacuation, particularly the 20-inch
requirement for large, high-pressure equipment, would be too
time-consuming, leading to food spoilage or costly shutdowns
of industrial processes. As discussed above, EPA is now requiring
that large, high-pressure systems be evacuated to 15 rather
than 20 inches of vacuum. EPA believes that this change and
the new provision that permits the charge of an isolated component
to be used as the basis for determining evacuation requirements
will address concerns about excessive time spent evacuating
retail food and industrial process refrigeration systems.
One other change from the proposal is the elimination of
the "intermediate-pressure refrigerants" category and the inclusion
of CFC-114 in the "high-pressure refrigerants" category. Several
commenters stated that the physical differences between CFC-
114 and the high-pressure refrigerants did not warrant special
treatment of the former. Other commenters noted that evacuating
CFC-114 to 25 inches of vacuum, as was proposed, would be very
time-consuming. The proposed requirement to evacuate CFC-114
to 25 inches of vacuum was based on information from the Department
of Defense (one of the largest users of CFC-114), which stated
that 25 inches was the maximum depth of vacuum that its pumpout
equipment could achieve. Other users of CFC-114, however, such
as gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plants, have stated
that their current (built-in) recovery equipment cannot evacuate
their 114 systems to this level and that it would be very difficult
and expensive to obtain recovery equipment that could. In
consideration
of these comments, the Agency has decided to classify CFC-114
as a high-pressure refrigerant.
ii. Very high-pressure equipment. Commenters uniformly supported
EPA's proposal to require evacuation of very high-pressure
equipment
(used with refrigerants -13 and -503) to atmospheric pressure.
Several of these commenters noted that passive equipment could
be used to evacuate very high-pressure systems, many of which
contain only a few pounds of vapor easily captured by a 50-lb.
recovery cylinder. (Note that ordinary refrigerant cylinders
are not suited for use with very high-pressure refrigerants,
but higher-pressure cylinders are available.) EPA's own analysis
indicates that chilling a cylinder with dry ice would even permit
the recovery of some of the very high-pressure refrigerant as
a liquid ("Very High Pressure Refrigerant Recovery and
Reclamation,"
September 28, 1992, memorandum from Gene Troy, Bernard Eydt,
and John Wasson to David Lee and Debbie Ottinger). Some commenters
stated that using compressor-bearing equipment to compress and
liquefy very high-pressure refrigerants could pose a safety
risk, because of the very high pressures required. Because of
this concern and because compressor-bearing equipment currently
available for use with very high-pressure refrigerants is extremely
bulky and relatively expensive, EPA is permitting the use of
system-dependent equipment on very high-pressure refrigeration
equipment containing less than 15 pounds of refrigerant.
iii. Low-pressure air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment.
As was proposed, EPA is requiring evacuation of low-pressure
systems to 25 inches of vacuum using grandfathered equipment
and to 29 inches using equipment manufactured after November
15, 1993. A number of commenters supported the 29-inch requirement,
noting that the technology to achieve this level in a timely
fashion (vacuum pumps) is available and is, in fact, now being
used on virtually all low-pressure recovery and recycling
equipment.
One commenter noted that evacuation to 29 inches of vacuum instead
of 25 inches of vacuum would prevent release of 312,000 pounds
of CFC-11 annually.
Some commenters supported evacuation to levels less stringent
than 29 inches. Many of these commenters argued that evacuation
to levels below 25 inches would be excessively time-consuming
and would recover little additional refrigerant.
EPA has examined the feasibility and benefits of evacuating
low-pressure systems to 29 inches of vacuum. As noted in the
proposal and in several comments, the technology to achieve
a 29-inch vacuum is available. The time and labor costs involved
in drawing this vacuum depend upon (among other things) the
recovery rate of the recycling or recovery equipment at low
pressures. If a relatively slow recovery device is used to evacuate
low-pressure equipment from 25 to 29 inches of vacuum, the labor
costs involved in recovering that refrigerant can indeed be
quite high, and may not be justified by the additional refrigerant
recovered. However, EPA believes that use of available,
competitively
priced equipment permits evacuation to 29 inches within a
reasonable
period and is justified by the additional refrigerant recovered
(Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), March 25, 1993).
b. Exceptions to evacuation requirements. EPA is establishing
exceptions to its evacuation requirements for two specific
situations:
non-major repairs that are not followed by an evacuation of
the appliance to the environment and leaks that make the required
evacuation levels impossible to attain. In both cases, commenters
and EPA's research indicate that attempting to achieve the required
vacuums could actually lead to higher emissions than achieving
shallower (or no) vacuums.
i. Non-major repairs that are not followed by evacuation
of the appliance to the environment. A number of commenters,
including technicians, grocery store managers, contractor trade
groups, and environmentalists, stated that EPA should permit
evacuation of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment to
atmospheric pressure under limited circumstances, such as when
only minor repairs were performed or when an evacuation of the
equipment to the environment was not planned subsequent to the
repair. Following a major repair to an air-conditioning or
refrigeration
system, the contents of a system or component are typically
evacuated to the environment with a vacuum pump to remove air
and moisture that may have entered the system during the repair
process. This evacuation to the environment is often known as
a "complete" or "high-level" evacuation. (The contents are expelled
to the environment rather than captured by a recovery device
because recovery device compressors are not able to compress
air, which may make up a significant percentage of the system
contents in many cases.) However, from comments and discussions
with technicians in the field, the Agency understands that many
minor repairs, such as replacement of a filter drier, oil filter,
or safety switch, involve uncovering only a small opening in
the appliance (e.g., a threaded fitting) and take place in only
a few minutes. In these cases, both the quantity of refrigerant
that escapes and the quantity of air and moisture that enter
the system will be limited if the system has been brought to
atmospheric pressure prior to beginning the repair. After such
repairs, the system is generally resealed with no evacuation
to the environment, particularly if the system is a large one.
Commenters argued that release of refrigerant from a system
at atmospheric pressure during a minor repair procedure can
be minimal, and in fact will be smaller in many cases than the
release that would result from drawing the system into a vacuum.
Commenters noted that drawing a vacuum leads to the influx of
either nitrogen or air and moisture, which in turn requires
that a second, deeper vacuum be drawn using a vacuum pump,
expelling
any residual refrigerant to the atmosphere. One commenter estimated
that approximately 6 pounds of refrigerant would be released
from its equipment if that equipment were drawn to atmospheric
pressure before servicing, while 50 pounds would be released
if the equipment were drawn first to a 25-inch vacuum and then
re-evacuated after servicing. (Commenters universally supported
recovery into a vacuum at disposal.)
In response to these comments, EPA has decided to permit
evacuation (or, in the case of low-pressure appliances,
pressurization)
of appliances to 0 psig (atmospheric pressure) when the
maintenance,
service, or repair is not major and when an evacuation of the
appliance to the environment is not performed after the servicing
or repair is completed. As discussed in the definitions section,
EPA is defining as "major" maintenance, service, or repair that
involves removal of the compressor, condenser, evaporator, or
auxiliary heat exchanger coil. These procedures are relatively
time-consuming and/or leave large openings in the system through
which refrigerant can escape (and air and moisture can enter).
After such procedures, evacuation of the system to the environment
is customarily performed. However, EPA recognizes that a second,
"high-level" evacuation may be appropriate for some types of
appliances even after minor repairs. The Agency emphasizes that
if the system is to be re-evacuated to any level, then it must
be drawn to the appropriate vacuum in Table 1 to recover the
refrigerant before the repair begins, even if the repair would
otherwise be considered "non-major." EPA believes that this
approach will most effectively minimize emissions while lowering
the costs of many repairs.
Low-pressure systems, because they operate below atmospheric
pressure, must be pressurized to equalize the pressure of the
system and the pressure of the air outside of it. EPA is requiring
low pressure systems that undergo minor servicing, such as oil
changes, to be pressurized to atmospheric pressure to minimize
the intrusion and subsequent purging of air. Methods that do
not require subsequent system purging, e.g., heat (not nitrogen),
must be used.
Some commenters argued that EPA should never require evacuation
of high-pressure equipment to levels below atmospheric pressure,
or should allow the service technician to decide whether further
evacuation was required. Many of these commenters were concerned
that drawing a vacuum during recovery could result in an influx
of air and moisture that would damage equipment. In the proposal,
EPA requested comment on this problem, noting that technicians
can avoid system contamination by either breaking the vacuum
with nitrogen or by drawing a deep second vacuum on the system
to remove any air and moisture that may have penetrated. (EPA
also proposed special evacuation requirements for leaky systems;
these are discussed below.) The Agency expressed a willingness
to consider allowing small systems utilizing HCFC-22 to be
evacuated
to atmospheric pressure (as it has), but stated that the larger
ODP of other refrigerants appeared to justify requiring that
these be drawn into a vacuum, even if extra measures were required
to prevent system contamination.
A few commenters stated that carrying a cylinder of dry nitrogen
and/or a vacuum pump capable of drawing deep vacuums is not
practical in many situations. These commenters claimed that
space constraints in many equipment installations would often
make it physically impossible to use nitrogen and a vacuum pump.
However, other commenters stated that small, portable nitrogen
cylinders are available and are necessary not only for breaking
the vacuum, but for conducting leak testing after repairs are
complete. Based on its research and review of comments, EPA
believes that breaking vacuums with nitrogen (and, therefore,
drawing vacuums during recovery) will be practical in most
equipment
service and maintenance situations. (At disposal, breaking the
vacuum is not necessary because system contamination is no longer
a concern.)
In addition, EPA continues to believe that establishing clear
evacuation standards will minimize overall refrigerant emissions.
Although the Agency is allowing technicians considerable discretion
in determining whether a repair will require a high-level
evacuation
or whether a system is leaky (see Section b.ii. below), it is
reluctant to leave evacuation requirements entirely to the
discretion
of technicians for a number of reasons. First, the technician's
private incentives to recover refrigerant are not the same as
society's incentives to ensure that it is recovered. Because
they do not bear the full cost of refrigerant release, technicians
would be expected to recover less refrigerant than should be
recovered, from a social perspective. Although a regulatory
requirement to "minimize emissions" might increase the level
of recovery, it is not likely that this level will be the same
as the socially desirable level. Second, clear evacuation
requirements
minimize uncertainty as to whether a given release of refrigerant
is considered "de minimis" or not. Technicians achieving required
vacuums will know that they are complying with section 608 of
the Clean Air Act. A number of commenters agreed with this
reasoning
and supported EPA's approach. Thus, the Agency is requiring
that high-pressure equipment using CFC refrigerants be evacuated
to specific vacuums, except in the specific situations described
in the paragraphs above and in section ii. below.
ii. Evacuation of leaky equipment. The Agency proposed less
stringent evacuation requirements for leaky equipment, proposing
to allow high-pressure equipment to be evacuated to 0 psig
(atmospheric
pressure) if it had a leak large enough to have lowered the
system pressure to two atmospheres. EPA proposed this provision
in response to concerns that it may not be possible to draw
deep vacuums on leaky equipment and that attempting to draw
such vacuums may contaminate the refrigerant, the appliance,
and the recycling or recovery equipment.
EPA received a number of comments supporting less stringent
evacuation standards for equipment with large leaks. Most of
the commenters stated that deep evacuation of leaky appliances
would draw contaminants into the appliance and from there into
the recycling or recovery equipment. The contaminants cited
most often were air and moisture, but chemicals being cooled
by industrial process refrigeration equipment were mentioned
as well. Commenters argued that removal of these contaminants
(particularly air) could result in greater emissions of refrigerant
than would result from release of the refrigerant remaining
in the system at atmospheric pressure.
Several commenters criticized the "two atmospheres" standard
for determining whether a system had a large leak. Some commenters
stated that system pressure was not necessarily an indication
of the size of a leak; even small leaks, given enough time,
could lower system pressure to two atmospheres or less. A number
of commenters believed that EPA needed to develop standards
and requirements for leaky low-pressure equipment as well as
for leaky high-pressure equipment.
In response to these comments, EPA has decided to revise
its evacuation provision for leaky equipment to allow consideration
of factors other than initial system pressure in determining
whether a leak is large enough to prevent evacuation to the
levels in Table 1 above. The Agency is also expanding the provision
to include low-pressure equipment. If the technician determines
that the levels in Table 1 are not attainable, or would
substantially
contaminate the refrigerant being recovered, the technician
must: (1) isolate leaking from non-leaking components wherever
possible, (2) evacuate non-leaking components to be opened to
the levels specified in Table 1, and (3) evacuate leaking
components
to be opened to the lowest level that can be attained without
substantially contaminating the refrigerant. This level cannot
exceed atmospheric pressure.
EPA is aware that both the symptoms of a leak and the lowest
evacuation level that can be attained will vary from situation
to situation. For instance, leaky high-pressure systems may
activate refrigerant sensors in an equipment room or may simply
have low internal pressure. Leaky low-pressure systems may purge
noncondensables frequently or, if they are not operating, may
be at atmospheric pressure. Occasionally, leaks may not become
apparent until during the evacuation process itself, when the
system pressure levels off unexpectedly or when the system fails
to hold a vacuum. Based on review of comments and discussions
with industry representatives, EPA believes that it will generally
be appropriate to evacuate high-pressure systems with large
leaks to atmospheric pressure. Low-pressure systems, depending
upon the size and nature of the leak, can often be evacuated
to lower levels. For example, low-pressure systems with leaking
"O" rings or gaskets can usually be drawn to a 25-inch vacuum.
However, low-pressure systems with leaks in condensers or
evaporators
(where water can enter the system) may be difficult to evacuate
to levels below atmospheric pressure. EPA will incorporate
guidelines
on diagnosing and evacuating leaky systems into both its technician
certification program and its enforcement policy.
c. Removal of entrained refrigerant from oil. In the proposal,
the Agency discussed the issue of CFCs dissolved in the oil
left behind in a system after refrigerant has been evacuated.
The Agency did not propose specific requirements but expressed
the concern that in some cases a large amount of the refrigerant
remains entrained in the oil and, as a result, the percentage
of charge evacuated is significantly decreased. The oil could
then slowly release refrigerant once exposed to the atmosphere.
The Agency requested comment on whether procedures to extract
refrigerant from oil prior to exposing the oil to the atmosphere
or disposing of the oil should be required in this rule.
The majority of comments on this issue recommended that EPA
not establish additional procedures for the removal of refrigerant
entrained in oil. The commenters highlighted the fact that the
amount of refrigerant remaining in oil varies by equipment types,
the refrigerant in question and the recovery equipment used.
Many suggested that the amount of CFC remaining in oil is minute
as compared to the charge. They stated that the servicing practices
require vacuums to be drawn when evacuating refrigerant from
the systems and that the majority of the refrigerant will be
removed at that time. Holding the vacuum for an extended amount
of time or heating the crankcase are acceptable procedures in
some cases, while for other equipment the amount of time required
is not commensurate with the small amount of refrigerant recovered.
Some commenters recognized that the ASHRAE Guideline 3 is helpful
in some cases. Many commenters stated that even by using the
guideline, the oil would maintain a CFC contamination rate above
4000 ppm. (For additional information see RCRA Regulations
Regarding
the Management of CFCs and CFC contaminated wastes-40 CFR part
279.)
Two commenters specifically mentioned that oil sampling,
a procedure that withdraws a small amount of oil from a system
for diagnostic purposes, should not be included in any refrigerant
recovery procedures because the amount of refrigerant contained
in the sample is so small. Several commenters suggested that
guidance was the best way to provide information to technicians
on this issue at this time and that mandatory procedures be
considered if technology is developed to recover the refrigerant
quickly and effectively.
The comments support EPA's proposal that additional procedures
to recover entrained refrigerant from oil are not warranted
at this time. Since the amount of refrigerant entrained in oil
will vary based on the system, the refrigerant used, the
temperature,
the recovery equipment used and the length of time that the
vacuum is applied, the Agency was unable to determine procedures
that would result in an acceptable amount of refrigerant recovered
from the oil in each case. The Agency encourages system and
recovery equipment manufacturers to provide information to owners
in order to assist them to recover as much refrigerant as possible
at service.
d. Evacuation requirements for small appliances. Technicians
opening small appliances for service, maintenance, or repair
may use either equipment certified under Appendix B, ARI 740-
1993, or equipment certified under Appendix C, Method for Testing
Recovery Devices for Use with Small Appliances, to recover the
refrigerant. Because Appendix B and Appendix C measure refrigerant
recovery efficiency differently, different evacuation requirements
are appropriate for technicians using equipment certified under
the two standards.
Appendix C measures the percentage (by mass) of the refrigerant
recovered from the small appliance by the recovery equipment.
This percentage depends upon whether the compressor of the small
appliance is operating or not, and therefore the required recovery
efficiency for technicians using equipment certified under Appendix
C also varies depending upon whether the compressor of the small
appliance is operating or not. Technicians recovering refrigerant
from small appliances with operating compressors are required
to capture 90% of the refrigerant in the appliance, while
technicians
recovering refrigerant from small appliances with non-operating
compressors are required to capture 80% of the refrigerant in
the appliance. Because the percentage of refrigerant mass recovered
is very difficult to measure on any given job, technicians must
adhere to the servicing procedure certified for that recovery
system under Appendix C to ensure that they achieve the required
recovery efficiencies.
Technicians using recovery equipment certified under Appendix
B, on the other hand, can measure the vacuum that has been achieved
in the small appliance to determine whether they have achieved
the required recovery efficiency. (As discussed above, Appendix
B assesses the recovery efficiency of recycling and recovery
equipment by measuring its final recovery vacuum.) EPA is setting
the required evacuation level for equipment certified under
Appendix B for use with small appliances at four inches of mercury
vacuum. Technicians using this equipment must also achieve four
inches of vacuum in the field. This level of evacuation is
consistent
with that required for larger high pressure systems evacuated
using grandfathered recycling or recovery equipment, and EPA
believes that most recycling and recovery equipment can meet
this standard. Certification of recovery devices and procedures
are discussed in more detail in section III.G.2.
2. Disposition of Recovered Refrigerant
EPA anticipates that the combination of the proposed January
1, 1996 phaseout of CFCs, the prohibition on venting that became
effective on July 1, 1992, and this rule will ultimately increase
recovery and/or recycling of ozone-depleting compounds by 60,000
metric tons annually. This large increase in the quantity of
used refrigerant in circulation carries risks, even as it has
the potential to reduce emissions of ozone-depleting compounds
and to ease the transition to alternatives by prolonging the
life of existing equipment. Recovered refrigerant may contain
moisture, acids, oil, particulates, or other contaminants that
can lead to serious damage to the equipment if it is reused
without taking some action to remove these contaminants. In
many cases, technicians will be recovering and reusing refrigerants
for the first time. Thus, neither they nor their customers may
be aware of the potential dangers involved in charging their
air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment with used
refrigerants.
EPA is concerned about damage to air-conditioning and
refrigeration
equipment for three reasons. First, damage to equipment would
obviously increase costs to equipment owners. Second and more
important from an environmental perspective, damaged equipment
would often leak during operation and would require servicing
or replacement more often than undamaged equipment, increasing
refrigerant emissions. Third, damage to equipment would reduce
consumer confidence in the quality of used refrigerant, leading
to erosion of the market for used refrigerants and possibly
to their release. A reduction of consumer confidence could also
result in the premature retirement or retrofit of CFC or HCFC
equipment.
To prevent contaminated refrigerant from entering the market,
EPA proposed to require technicians servicing air-conditioning
equipment to reclaim refrigerant before moving it between equipment
owned by different persons. As discussed above in the Definitions
Section, "reclaimed" means that the refrigerant is cleaned to
the ARI 700-1988 standard of purity (Appendix A) and is chemically
analyzed to verify that it meets this standard. ARI 700 was
specifically developed to ensure that refrigerant removed from
one piece of air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment could
be cleaned, analyzed, and put into any other piece of
air-conditioning
or refrigeration equipment, in any application (excluding household
appliances, which do not fall under the purview of ARI), without
fear of equipment damage. EPA focused on changes in equipment
ownership because such transfers introduce uncertainties into
the marketplace regarding the purity of the refrigerant. Transfers
between equipment owned by the same person, on the other hand,
are of less concern. First, owners are aware of the source and
history of the refrigerant and are therefore better able to
determine whether use of the refrigerant in a given piece of
equipment is likely to damage that equipment. Second, owners
themselves bear the costs of equipment damage when a refrigerant
transfer is inappropriate.
EPA also requested comment on less stringent alternatives
for ensuring refrigerant purity. One alternative would have
permitted air-conditioning and refrigeration contractors to
move refrigerant between similar pieces of equipment owned by
different persons. This approach acknowledged that purity concerns
are diminished when at least one party, the contractor, has
knowledge of both the equipment from which the refrigerant is
recovered and the equipment into which the refrigerant is charged,
and when these pieces of equipment are similar. However, EPA
was reluctant to adopt this approach before industry had an
opportunity to develop a "clean-up" standard for refrigerant
moved between similar pieces of equipment. Such a standard might
be implemented through the certification program for recycling
equipment, ensuring that the equipment could clean up a standard
contaminated refrigerant "cocktail" to a certain level, or it
might be implemented through simplified testing of recycled
refrigerant at the contractor's shop. (The analytical protocol
contained in ARI 700 requires expensive laboratory equipment
and expertise, making it impractical as a methodology for testing
at the contractor's shop.)
EPA received a number of comments both in favor and opposed
to the proposed requirement to reclaim refrigerant moved between
equipment owned by different persons. Those who favored the
requirement reiterated many of the arguments EPA had made in
the proposal. Many stated that a purity standard was necessary
to protect consumers, who lacked the technical knowledge to
enable them to evaluate the risks of using contaminated
refrigerant.
The fact that recycled refrigerant would often be less expensive
than reclaimed refrigerant would exacerbate this problem. Many
of the same commenters were concerned that manufacturers with
equipment warranties would also be adversely affected if the
sale of recycled refrigerant to a new owner were allowed. In
addition to private costs, several commenters cited damage to
the environment that could result from use of recycled,
contaminated
refrigerant as a justification for the reclamation requirement.
These commenters echoed EPA's concerns that the sale of recycled,
contaminated refrigerant could lead to increased refrigerant
emissions and to loss of consumer confidence in the quality
of used refrigerants.
One commenter noted that ARI 700 was the only available
technical
basis for refrigerant purity levels and should therefore be
required to protect equipment. This commenter stated that
technology
existed to permit transportable recycling machines capable of
producing refrigerant that meets ARI Standard 700. A few commenters
stated that since reclamation services would be available to
process recovered refrigerant at reasonable cost, there was
no need to relax EPA's proposed reclamation requirement.
Commenters who opposed the reclamation requirement focused
primarily on two points. First, the application and service
history of the refrigerant determine whether it can be safely
moved to another piece of equipment; and second, responsible,
educated contractors are capable of making this determination.
These commenters favored the less stringent option described
by EPA in the proposed rule, which would allow contractors to
move refrigerant between similar pieces of equipment owned by
different persons. According to the commenters, this restriction
would greatly lessen contamination concerns while enabling
contractors
and consumers to save money. Many commenters noted that both
the U.S. and international HVAC/R industries are making progress
toward developing guidelines for use of recycled refrigerant,
making the less stringent option more attractive.
One commenter suggested that EPA incorporate a "sunset clause"
for the reclamation requirement into the regulation. This commenter
cited a number of advantages to this approach, stating that
it would: (1) Provide immediate protection to equipment
manufacturers,
(2) allow the fledgling refrigerant reclaiming market to develop,
(3) encourage the development of recycling technology, (4) give
the U.S. HVAC/R industry the incentive and the time it needs
to develop its own recycling guideline, and (5) ultimately relieve
the EPA and the taxpayer of the cost of enforcing a purity
standard.
EPA has considered these comments and has performed its own
analysis of the costs and benefits of requiring reclamation
of refrigerant transferred between equipment owned by different
persons. This analysis examined the costs and probabilities
of equipment damage associated with four levels of refrigerant
processing: (1) Recovery only, with no purification, (2) recycling,
(3) recycling with on-site testing of refrigerant, and (4)
reclamation.
The analysis then compared these costs and risks to determine
whether each successive level of processing was worthwhile.
EPA found that reclamation appeared to be clearly worthwhile
for refrigerant used in some types of equipment (small appliances)
but was not as clearly worthwhile for refrigerant used in other
types. For the latter, recycling followed by on-site testing
may be a more cost-effective form of protection.
Together, the comments and the analysis indicate that limited
off-site recycling that is supported by a standard of purity
and testing method for recycled refrigerant may be the most
cost-effective means of carrying out Section 608 while protecting
air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment. As several commenters
noted, both the European Community and the U.S. HVAC/R industry
have taken steps toward developing such a standard. EPA believes
that the contaminant levels and testing methods that would
ultimately
be contained in such a standard would be less stringent than
those in the ARI Standard 700, because the latter was designed
to permit transfers between any two or more types of
air-conditioning
and refrigeration equipment, whereas the former would be designed
only to permit transfers between similar types of equipment.{1}
³{1} The nearly universal applicability of ARI 700
dictates
³a relatively low tolerance for contaminants. For
instance,
³oils used with HCFC-22 in residential air conditioning
³applications have a different viscosity than oils used
³with HCFC-22 in supermarket refrigeration systems. If
³the former are accidentally added to supermarket
systems,
³they tend to form sludge, damaging the system.
Similarly,
³air conditioning systems generally have a higher
tolerance
³for moisture contamination than systems that run at
lower
³temperatures because in the latter, water can freeze
³and expand to damage tubing. Thus, contaminant levels
³in ARI 700 must be set low enough to ensure that the
³systems most sensitive to that contaminant will not be
³damaged, even if many systems would not be harmed by
³higher contaminant levels.
However, as another commenter pointed out, the ARI Standard
700 is the only technical standard of purity and testing method
currently available. Therefore, in order to ensure that air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment is protected while
encouraging the development of a standard for limited off-site
recycling, EPA is requiring that refrigerant transferred between
different owners be reclaimed for two years after publication
of this rule. EPA believes that two years is an appropriate
interim period to allow industry to develop a standard of purity
for recycled refrigerant and to allow EPA to complete a rulemaking
to adopt the standard. Moreover, the expiration of the full
reclamation requirement follows the date by which technicians
must be certified, ensuring that the judgment of technicians
regarding the disposition of refrigerant will be relatively
well-informed. If U.S. industry has not made significant progress
in developing a standard for recycled refrigerant within eight
months, EPA may begin rulemaking to adopt an alternative standard,
for instance, the standard being developed by the European
Community.
The reclamation requirement will become effective 90 days
after this rule is published. EPA had proposed to make this
requirement effective 30 days after publication, but the Agency
became concerned that 30 days may not constitute sufficient
time for technicians to learn the requirements of this rule,
establish contacts with reclaimers, and begin using reclamation
services.
The Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute requested
at the public hearing and in written comments that EPA adopt
the updated version of ARI 700, ARI 700-1993, in this rule.
Among other changes and additions, ARI 700-1993 will establish
purity requirements for HCFCs not covered by ARI 700-1988,
including
HCFC-123 and -124. However, ARI 700-1993 has not yet been finalized
and therefore cannot be included in this rule. When ARI 700-
1993 is finalized, the Agency plans to undertake rulemaking
to adopt it.
3. Leak Repair
In the proposal, the Agency stated that it intended to develop
comprehensive regulations to reduce refrigerant leakage during
equipment use in the next phase of rulemaking under section
608. The Agency requested comment on whether it should include
a provision in this rule requiring the repair of substantial
leaks as an emergency stop-gap measure to ensure that technicians
do not repeatedly "top off" systems with substantial leaks.
The Agency suggested a figure of 35 percent loss of charge per
year as a leak that must be repaired within 30 days after
discovery.
The 35 percent number was chosen because research on emissions
from equipment in different sectors obtained in developing
recycling
regulations indicates that this number is five percentage points
above the annual leak rate in the most leak-prone sectors. The
Agency also discussed establishing different levels for different
sectors. EPA recognized that the 35 percent figure for all sectors
fell short of establishing a lowest achievable level of emissions;
however, it would reduce significant leaks until the additional
analysis is performed.
EPA received a large volume of comments on this issue and
the predominance of these commenters (over 800) requested that
the Agency include a mandatory leak repair requirement. Only
a small percentage of the letters offered any comment on the
suggested 35 percent per year figure or the 30-day time allowance
for repairing these leaks, however. Most of the commenters
suggested
that the recovery of refrigerant at-service requirements simply
did not go far enough in reducing release of ozone-depleting
chemicals. Many of the commenters believed that by not repairing
leaks that had been detected, the technician or the owner of
the equipment was "intentionally venting" refrigerant to the
atmosphere. Several commenters mentioned that advances in leak
detection technology have made these procedures reliable,
inexpensive
and fast, and repair of leaks results in equipment that runs
more efficiently, therefore saving energy.
Regarding the question of the appropriate definition of the
size of substantial leaks that must be repaired, several commenters
agreed that the 35 percent per year level was appropriate.
Questions
about the practicality of such a level were raised, however,
and several commenters mentioned that the technician would need
to remove the entire charge to determine if the percentage had
been exceeded. Suggestions that the percentage be reduced over
time and that different levels be set for each type, or category
of equipment, were made. NRDC and FOE stated that the appropriate
level be determined based not on 5 percent over "average" leak
rate, but by the leak rate of equipment that is maintained the
best (e.g., the 95th percentile lowest leak rate). They believe
this level is feasible since it is derived from existing equipment,
but is a higher standard than an average figure.
Approximately 25 commenters suggested that a mandatory
requirement
was premature, not needed, or inappropriate. These commenters
believed that more analysis is necessary to determine realistic
leak levels and one commenter suggested a voluntary leak repair
program. Two commenters from the commercial refrigeration sector
mentioned that their equipment has a range of leak rates and
therefore the average figure would be an arbitrary designation.
The figure could serve as a disincentive to repair leaks smaller
than the average, while requiring repair within 30 days may
interfere with decisions that may actually reduce overall
emissions.
An example of this would be in the situation where a company
decides to replace a leaking system but the new equipment will
not be delivered for 60 days. Requiring expensive repairs on
the obsolete unit may result in the company deciding not to
replace the equipment as quickly with new, leak-free equipment
using a less ozone-depleting or non-ozone-depleting substitute.
One commenter suggested a case-by-case waiver be granted from
the 30-day time limit for repair of substantial leaks to avoid
the type of situation just described.
EPA believes it should respond to the large number of comments
requesting some action in this rule on repair of substantial
leaks by promulgating a leak repair requirement. The Agency
acknowledges that the 35 percent figure for all equipment is
too general and therefore in today's final rule, two different
levels have been established. The 35 percent figure will continue
to be used for the industrial process and commercial refrigeration
sectors. The second leak rate is the 15 percent of charge per
year figure discussed in the proposal and in today's rule this
rate would be applied to all equipment with more than 50 pounds
of charge, other than the industrial process and commercial
refrigeration sectors. The 50-pound cut-off is intended to exempt
smaller equipment where the cost of repairing the leak is an
order of magnitude higher than the environmental benefit of
repairing the leak (RIA). The 50-pound cut-off is also consistent
with guidance found in the ASHRAE Guideline 3-1990.
The two levels have been derived from information on average
maintained equipment because the Agency believes that to be
a fair level that can reasonably be expected to be achievable
in practice by all equipment. Although best maintained equipment
would have a lower leak rate, the Agency understands that older
equipment and some equipment that is difficult to service because
of its location (e.g., commercial refrigeration, which frequently
has lines running under floors) cannot achieve a stricter standard.
Furthermore, EPA would need to inventory equipment and leak
rates to determine emissions from the best maintained equipment.
The Agency will consider lowering the accepted levels to the
best maintained levels of leaks in future rulemaking.
ARI and Robinair commented that it is not necessary to define
the size of the leaks that must be repaired. They commented
that the standard should simply state that leak detection must
be performed and any identifiable leaks be repaired in a timely
fashion. The Agency considered this type of standard, which
has the benefit of simplicity and clarity. Without any type
of lower bound, however, this standard could result in huge
amounts of money being spent to repair even pinhole leaks in
equipment that may soon be obsolete. To be meaningful, lower
bounds must reflect specific equipment and this requires that
additional analysis be performed. The intent of the leak repair
requirement in this rule is to assure that substantial leaks
are repaired. The Agency maintains that the rising price and
lower availability of the substances will also provide the
incentive
to repair equipment; however, commenters believed the market
incentive alone was not sufficient.
Today's final rule will also require the 30-day time limit
for repairing leaks suggested in the proposal. The Agency maintains
that the 30-day time limit is feasible and a reasonable balance
between commenters suggesting 15 days and those suggesting 60
days. An exception to this requirement has been incorporated
into the rule to address commenters' concerns that the Agency
should preserve flexibility for equipment owners who may be
able to reduce their use of ozone-depleting substances more
effectively by replacing or retrofitting equipment. Leaks do
not need to be repaired in the 30-day time limit if the owner
develops a plan for his equipment within 30 days that details
the activities planned to retire equipment and replace it with
equipment that uses a non-ozone-depleting or a less ozone-depleting
substance or to retrofit existing equipment within one year.
The Agency believes the time limit with the exception provides
the proper incentive to reduce the emission of ozone-depleting
substances and alerts equipment owners to the types of choices
they must make as the phaseout of production approaches. The
plan would not need to be submitted to the Agency. Although
it is the owner's discretion on where to keep the original of
the plan, a copy must be kept at the same site as the leaking
equipment. The original of the plan must be made available to
EPA on request.
One commenter asked how technicians would be able to determine
the size of the leak to be repaired. The Agency believes that
records of the service calls and amounts of refrigerant added
to machines will assist technicians in their determination of
leak rates and would also assist owners of equipment in the
determination of the need for leak repair. The Agency believes
these records, primarily in the form of service invoices, are
already kept by equipment owners and therefore this requirement
is not an additional burden on them. These records must also
include refrigerant purchased and added to equipment each month
in cases where owners add their own refrigerant. The Agency
understands that leak detection technology can also be used
to identify leaks and in some cases technicians will need to
estimate the leak size or refill the system before they can
determine the amount of refrigerant that has leaked out. Many
commenters raised the issue of degree of responsibility for
leak detection. The Agency wishes to clarify that today's
requirement
is that leaks of a certain size be repaired, but it does not
explicitly state that leak detection be performed at specific
intervals. The Agency believes that technicians perform leak
detection as part of the diagnosis for repair of equipment.
At the time of the proposal, the Agency did not have sufficient
information to require specific leak detection technologies,
although it believes this activity to be important. Today's
rule requires that within 30 days the owner of the equipment
either authorize the repair of substantial leaks or develop
the equipment retirement/retrofit plan discussed above. Technicians
should inform owners when leaks exist and when those leaks should
be repaired. The owner has the legal obligation to ensure that
repairs are made to equipment where the leak rate exceeds the
standard. It is, therefore, in the owner's interest to provide
sufficient information to a technician, so that a technician
can make an accurate determination regarding whether the leak
must be repaired. An owner may not intentionally shield himself
from information which would have revealed a leak.
4. Handling Multiple Refrigerants in Recycling and Recovery
Equipment
In the proposal, EPA requested comment on whether it should
require procedures to recover residual refrigerant from recycling
and recovery equipment before that equipment was used with a
different refrigerant. Depending upon the design of the recycling
or recovery equipment, significant quantities of refrigerant
may be left behind in the condenser of the equipment after the
recovery or recycling process is complete. The Agency was concerned
that without a requirement to remove this refrigerant, the residual
refrigerant could mix with the new refrigerant, contaminating
the latter. The proposal listed several possible procedures
for recovering residual refrigerant, including using a second
recovery device, heating the condenser of the recovery or recycling
machine, and/or cooling the container (and/or tubing to it)
to which the recovery or recycling machine was evacuated. The
proposal also noted that the design of equipment (e.g., use
of different condensers with each refrigerant) could help to
avoid refrigerant mixture.
EPA received comments both favoring and opposing an evacuation
requirement for recycling and recovery equipment switched between
different refrigerants. Those favoring an evacuation requirement
stated that without such a requirement, refrigerants could either
be mixed or vented to the atmosphere to avoid such mixture.
These commenters observed that the quantity of refrigerant
remaining
in the condenser of a recovery or recycling device may represent
a significant percentage of the total charge of the appliance
being serviced or disposed of (e.g., one pound out of five).
Several commenters noted the importance of equipment design
in minimizing the mixture or emission of residual refrigerant;
while some models of equipment possess separate condensers for
each refrigerant, many other models possess the ability to evacuate
their condensers into either the appliance being serviced or
a recovery cylinder at the conclusion of service. Thus, a number
of commenters believed that an evacuation requirement would
be most effectively implemented through the certification program
for recycling and recovery equipment. Under this approach, the
equipment certification program would require that equipment
either possess instructions for equipment evacuation or be designed
to ensure that residual refrigerant was neither mixed with new
refrigerant nor released to the atmosphere.
Commenters who opposed an evacuation requirement for recycling
and recovery equipment focused more on procedures than equipment
design. Commenters argued that there were sufficient private
incentives to ensure that technicians would take steps to avoid
mixing refrigerants and that it would be difficult to specify
appropriate procedures for all situations and types of equipment.
Commenters also stated that the evacuation methods suggested
in the proposal were either too unwieldy or too expensive to
implement. One commenter observed that the reclamation requirement
for refrigerant moved between appliances owned by different
persons would provide sufficient protection against refrigerant
mixture. Another commenter believed that it would be difficult
to enforce an evacuation requirement for recycling and recovery
equipment.
EPA agrees with the commenters who oppose the evacuation
requirement that it would be difficult to specify procedures
appropriate for all types of equipment and that private incentives
and the reclamation requirement will help to prevent mixture
of refrigerants. However, EPA is concerned that without some
regulation by EPA, considerable quantities of residual refrigerant
could be vented to the atmosphere in order to avoid refrigerant
mixture. This risk is particularly large with recycling and
recovery equipment that does not possess either multiple condensers
or the ability to evacuate the (probably liquid) contents of
its condenser into either the appliance being serviced or a
recovery cylinder at the conclusion of service or disposal.
Therefore, although the Agency is not prescribing specific
procedures
to recover residual refrigerant from recycling and recovery
equipment, the Agency will consider emissions of residual
refrigerant
to be violations of the prohibition on venting unless technicians
take steps to minimize emissions of such refrigerants.
Probably the easiest way to minimize emissions of residual
refrigerant is to use recycling and recovery equipment that
possesses the ability to evacuate the contents of its condenser
into either the appliance being serviced or a recovery cylinder
at the conclusion of service. As noted by a number of commenters,
several currently available models of recycling and recovery
equipment possess this simple design feature. (Another feature
of recycling and recovery equipment that would minimize both
emissions and mixture of refrigerants is possession of multiple
condensers; however, this feature appears to be less common
than the self-evacuation feature.) Other steps to minimize
emissions
of residual refrigerant include those cited in the proposal,
such as heating the condenser of the recovery or recycling machine
and/or cooling the container (and/or tubing to it) to which
the recovery or recycling machine is evacuated.
Because relatively simple design changes can be made (and,
as pointed out by many commenters, have been made) to minimize
the quantity of residual refrigerant that remains in the recycling
or recovery equipment after recycling or recovery is complete,
the most effective way of avoiding mixture or release of residual
refrigerants may be to include a requirement that equipment
be designed to avoid them in the certification program for
recycling
and recovery equipment. It was not possible to consider fully
or to implement such a requirement before this rule was
promulgated.
However, the Agency will investigate this possibility in the
future.
G. Certification of Recycling and Recovery Equipment
In order to ensure that recycling and recovery equipment
on the market is capable of limiting emissions of CFCs and HCFCs,
EPA is requiring that recovery and recycling equipment manufactured
or imported on or after November 15, 1993, be tested and certified
by an EPA-approved laboratory or organization. The Agency requires
verification of performance in two areas that affect total recovery
efficiency: (1) Vapor recovery efficiency and (2) efficiency
of noncondensable purge devices on recycling machines. In addition,
EPA is requiring that equipment and hoses be fitted with low-
loss fittings.
In addition to the initial testing, manufacturers must have
their equipment models tested or inspected at least once every
three years to ensure that the equipment is still capable of
meeting EPA requirements. Such "follow-up" programs are standard
in equipment testing programs throughout industry. Manufacturers
and importers also have to place a label on each piece of certified
equipment indicating that it is certified and showing which
organization tested and certified it. This label is intended
to inform both consumers (technicians) and EPA enforcement
personnel
that the equipment meets EPA standards.
1. Standards for Recovery and Recycling Machines Intended for
Use With Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment Except
Small Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like Appliances
a. Recovery Efficiency. In developing its evacuation
requirements,
EPA has considered the technical capabilities, ease of use,
and costs of recycling and recovery equipment, the servicing
times that would be necessary to achieve different vacuums,
and the amounts of refrigerant that would be released under
different evacuation requirements and their predicted impact
on the ozone layer (and therefore, on human health and the
environment).
The Agency has attempted to evaluate these factors in both the
short and the long-term, considering the capabilities of both
existing and possible future equipment.
In particular, the Agency has focused on the recovery rates
and maximum recovery efficiencies (vacuums) of equipment. Although
EPA is not setting minimum standards for recovery rates, the
recovery rate of equipment affects both the speed with which
it can achieve a certain vacuum and its portability. This in
turn affects the depth of vacuum that can be practically achieved
with air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment in the field.
For instance, if the air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment
is located in a space that is small or difficult to approach,
it may not be possible to connect it to recovery equipment with
a high recovery rate, which tends to be relatively large. In
such cases, smaller recovery equipment must be used, making
the achievement of deep vacuums excessively time-consuming and
impractical. In the proposal, EPA attempted to allow for
portability
concerns by setting less stringent standards for equipment
containing
less than 50 pounds of high-pressure refrigerants. However,
the Agency received a number of comments indicating that the
50-pound limit was too low; the commenters stated that equipment
with more than 50 pounds is frequently located in areas that
make the use of large recovery equipment impossible. Some of
these commenters recommended that EPA adopt a 200-pound limit
instead because equipment containing more than 200 pounds of
refrigerant is likely to be located in relatively large and
accessible equipment rooms. Based on its research and review
of comments, EPA believes that a 200-pound limit is appropriate,
and the Agency is adopting this limit in the rule.
The maximum recovery efficiency of recovery and recycling
equipment is the percentage of refrigerant that the equipment
is capable of recovering from an appliance and is directly related
to the depth of vacuum that the equipment can achieve. Since
the proposed rule was developed, ARI has published the results
of its third-party testing program for recycling and recovery
equipment, providing objective information on the range of
performance
of available equipment in the various pressure categories. ARI's
results show that the brands and models tested that are intended
for use with low-pressure refrigerants are capable of achieving
a 29-inch vacuum in most instances. Most of the brands and models
intended for use with high-pressure refrigerants are capable
of achieving a vacuum deeper than 10 inches in the laboratory,
and a number are capable of achieving a vacuum deeper than 15
inches. However, contrary to preliminary information received
by EPA from some equipment manufacturers, no recovery device
intended for use with high-pressure refrigerants was capable
of reaching the 29-inch level.
According to comments and to EPA's own research, two limitations
on existing recycling and recovery equipment make achievement
of a 29-inch vacuum with high-pressure refrigerants unlikely:
The compression ratio limit of the equipment's compressor, and
the dependency of much of the equipment on the flow of refrigerant
for cooling its motor. Of these two hurdles, the dependency
of equipment on the flow of refrigerant for cooling appears
to be the more easily overcome. Many of the small, portable
recovery devices intended for use with small high-pressure
equipment
possess hermetic compressors, which rely upon the flow of
refrigerant
through the compressor to carry heat away from the motor. When
such recovery devices operate in a vacuum, the flow of refrigerant
is decreased and the motor is subject to overheating. Recovery
devices with open compressors, which are not subject to this
problem, have historically weighed more than equipment with
hermetic compressors, making them less attractive in applications
where portability is a major concern. However, at least one
manufacturer of recovery equipment has developed a model that
incorporates a light-weight open compressor. This recovery device
neither weighs nor costs more than models possessing hermetic
compressors, and is capable of achieving deeper vacuums than
many of its competitors, according to the results of ARI's testing.
(It should be noted, however, that even this equipment was not
capable of achieving a 20-inch vacuum with all high-pressure
refrigerants.) EPA recommends that purchasers of recycling and
recovery equipment consider compressor configuration when they
buy their equipment, particularly if they plan to use the equipment
in heavy-duty applications where overheating could be a problem
(e.g., with large charge sizes or in high temperatures).
The compression ratio limit of recovery and recycling equipment
has proved a somewhat more challenging technical hurdle than
motor cooling. A number of commenters noted that compressors
used in recycling and recovery equipment typically have a
compression
ratio limit of between 15 and 30 to 1. For R-22, this physically
limits the depth of vacuum that can be attained to between 10
and 20 inches of vacuum at 75 degrees F (the temperature at
which laboratory testing of recovery equipment occurs), and
to between 2 and 16 inches of vacuum at 100 degrees F (a
temperature
at which recovery often occurs in the field). For R-12, the
limits range between 17 and 23 inches of vacuum at 75 degrees
F, and between 12 and 21 inches of vacuum at 100 degrees F.
Before these physical limits are reached, however, the pumping
efficiency of the compressor drops significantly, greatly slowing
the recovery process. For instance, on a 100-degree day, a recovery
machine with a compression ratio limit of 30 to 1, which is
a good limit, is pumping R-22 at less than five percent of its
initial rate by the time the system pressure reaches atmospheric
pressure. By the time the system pressure reaches ten inches
of vacuum, the recovery machine is pumping at approximately
one percent of its original rate. In practical terms, therefore,
the vacuums achievable by currently available recovery equipment
are not as deep as the numbers in the previous paragraph would
indicate.
The compression ratio limit of recovery and recycling and
equipment can be increased by adding another compressor to the
recovery device in series with the first, by building a multi-
stage compressor, or by switching to a different technology
altogether, the vacuum pump. Because the compressor is one of
the heavier components of recovery equipment, the first option
is not practical for recovery equipment for which portability
is a major concern. However, a manufacturer of recovery devices
submitted comments indicating that a multi-stage compressor
for high-pressure recycling and recovery equipment could be
available within the next year, and a manufacturer of vacuum
pumps stated that a modified vacuum pump for high-pressure
recycling
and recovery equipment could be available within the same period.
According to the commenters, recovery or recycling equipment
built with either technology would be able to pull a 29-inch
vacuum on high-pressure refrigerants. The second commenter
estimated
that recovery equipment incorporating the vacuum pump would
weigh little more than current equipment and would cost
approximately
as much as current recovery equipment plus a vacuum pump for
dehydrating the air-conditioning and refrigeration system. EPA
plans to monitor development of this recovery equipment and
will evaluate the possibility of setting stricter recovery
efficiency
standards for high-pressure recovery equipment in the future.
In the meantime, the Agency has decided to adopt the same
evacuation standards for recycling and recovery equipment as
it has for service and disposal practices. These standards appear
in table 2 below:
Table 2.-Levels of Evacuation Which Must be Achieved by
Recovery or Recycling
Machines Intended for Use With Air-Conditioning or
Refrigeration Equipment
[Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like
equipment-manufactured on or
after November 15, 1993]
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Type of air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment with ³
Inches of Hg vacuum
which recovery or recycling machine is intended to be used ³
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³
HCFC-22 equipment, or isolated component of such equipment, ³
0.
normally containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant. ³
HCFC-22 equipment, or isolated component of such equipment, ³
10.
normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant. ³
Very high-pressure equipment ............................... ³
0.
Other high-pressure equipment, or isolated component of such ³
10.
equipment, normally containing less than 200 pounds of ³
refrigerant. ³
Other high-pressure equipment, or isolated component of such ³
15.
equipment, normally containing 200 pounds or more of ³
refrigerant. ³
Low-pressure equipment ..................................... ³
25 mm Hg absolute.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Some commenters stated that EPA should establish more stringent
evacuation standards for equipment in the laboratory (certification
requirements) than for equipment in the field (service practice
requirements). EPA recognizes that equipment in the field may
not always perform as well as equipment in the laboratory, due
to poor maintenance, wear, or extremes of temperature. However,
this does not imply that laboratory standards must be more
stringent
than field standards, because much recovery and recycling equipment
will be well-maintained and will not have to function at extreme
high or low temperatures. Moreover, regardless of its laboratory
performance, excessively worn or poorly maintained equipment
will not perform well in the field. Rather than raise laboratory
standards or lower field standards, therefore, EPA has decided
to allow technicians and contractors to decide whether the
particular
application of their recovery equipment requires better than
the minimum laboratory performance. Technicians and contractors
are responsible for ensuring that required vacuums are achieved
in the field. Thus, for instance, persons repairing equipment
utilizing R-502 in high ambient temperatures would be wise to
purchase recovery equipment that can draw a 15-inch vacuum on
this refrigerant in the laboratory. In addition, any user of
recycling and recovery equipment would be well-advised to maintain
it properly and to replace it when it has worn out.
b. Passive or system-dependent recovery equipment. In the
proposed rule, EPA requested comment on whether it should permit
the use of system-dependent recovery devices, which lack an
on-board compressor, to recover refrigerant from high-pressure
equipment besides small appliances. System-dependent recovery
devices use the compressor of the air-conditioning or refrigeration
system being evacuated to perform the evacuation. The proposal
would have allowed the use of the system compressor to evacuate
refrigerant from one component of the system to another (e.g.,
the receiver or pump-out unit), so long as evacuation requirements
were met, but would not have allowed use of the system compressor
to move the charge out of the system. The Agency also requested
comment on what type of testing would be appropriate to ensure
that system-dependent recovery devices minimized refrigerant
emissions. ARI 740-91, the industry protocol for testing recycling
and recovery equipment that was current when the proposed rule
was published, did not address system-dependent recovery devices.
EPA has received comments both favoring and opposing the
use of system-dependent recovery devices. Those favoring system-
dependent recovery devices argued that they would not compromise
overall recovery efficiency because: (1) System compressors
are frequently in better condition than the compressors used
in recycling and recovery equipment, which are frequently pressed
beyond their design limits, and (2) when system compressors
are not operating (in approximately one out of ten cases),
technicians
must travel back to the shop to pick up a new system compressor
anyway, and can pick up a compressor-bearing recovery device
at the same time to recover the refrigerant. In addition, these
commenters stated that system-dependent equipment costs less
than comparable compressor-bearing equipment and can recover
refrigerant more quickly, because system compressors are generally
larger and more powerful than those used in recovery equipment.
Finally, commenters noted that the revision to ARI 740-1991,
ARI 740-1993, had incorporated a test for passive equipment
that demonstrated that this equipment was as effective as self-
contained equipment, when used with an appliance with a fully
functioning compressor.
Commenters who opposed system-dependent recovery devices
argued that they were likely to result in greater emissions
than compressor-bearing equipment, because they rely on a system
compressor that may not always be operational and because they
tend to leave refrigerant on the "high side" of the system.
These commenters also expressed concern that some system
compressors,
such as scroll designs, could be damaged by operating in a vacuum,
particularly if oil migrated out of the compressor (which it
tends to do as system pressure is lowered).
EPA has considered these comments and has analyzed the likely
effectiveness of system-dependent recovery devices. The Agency
has specifically investigated the possibilities that system-
dependent equipment may leave refrigerant on the "high side"
of the system and that the performance of the equipment may
be hampered by worn or defective system compressors. After
reviewing
the test procedure for system-dependent equipment in ARI 740-
1993, EPA believes that this procedure ensures that
system-dependent
equipment certified under 740-1993 will not leave refrigerant
on the "high side" of the system. At the same time, EPA understands
that technicians typically return to their shops for a new
compressor
when the system compressor is not operable, at which time they
can pick up a self-contained recovery device to recover the
refrigerant before beginning the compressor changeout. When
system compressors are operable but are not capable of achieving
the required vacuums with a single recovery receptacle (a situation
that EPA believes will be relatively rare), the required vacuums
can be achieved by using a second, evacuated cylinder. Thus,
EPA is permitting use of system-dependent equipment that has
been certified under ARI 740-1993 with appliances containing
up to 15 pounds of refrigerant (a quantity suggested in comments
from manufacturers of system-dependent equipment). However,
because system-dependent equipment will not be able to achieve
the required vacuums if the system compressor is not operating,
EPA is requiring technicians who repair or dispose of appliances
besides small appliances to have at least one self-contained
recovery device available at the shop to recover the refrigerant
from systems with non operating compressors.
c. Refrigerant recovery rates. EPA did not propose to require
minimum refrigerant recovery rates for recycling and recovery
equipment, believing that contractors and technicians had
sufficient
incentives to purchase equipment with rates adequate to their
needs. However, EPA did request comment on the option of
establishing
minimum rates, because some members of the STOPAC Subcommittee
for Recycling expressed concern that some contractors might
purchase slower equipment (which is often less expensive than
faster equipment) and might subsequently interrupt the recovery
process before it was complete.
Most commenters agreed with EPA that minimum recovery rates
need not be included in the Agency's equipment certification
program because contractors and technicians wish to maximize
the quantity of refrigerant recovered while minimizing labor
costs. (In general, labor costs make up a much larger share
of the costs of refrigerant recovery than equipment costs.)
EPA performed an analysis that compares the recovery rate that
maximizes private benefits (and that would therefore presumably
be selected by a technician buying recovery or recycling equipment)
to the recovery rate that maximizes public benefits (and that
should be selected from society's perspective) for a number
of different sizes of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment.
In general, there was little difference between the two. Thus,
EPA is not requiring minimum recovery rates for recycling or
recovery equipment in today's rule. However, because technicians
need objective information on recovery rates to purchase equipment
adequate to their needs, EPA is including measurement of vapor
and liquid recovery rates under the ARI 740-1993 procedure as
a requirement for EPA certification of equipment. As discussed
below, EPA is also working with ARI to add a measurement of
the average vapor recovery rate to the current measurement of
the maximum vapor recovery rate.
d. Low-loss fittings. Low-loss fittings prevent refrigerant
from escaping from hoses and equipment during connection and
disconnection of recovery and recycling machines. EPA proposed
to require that hoses on recovery and recycling equipment be
equipped with low-loss fittings, noting that they appeared to
be cost-effective on both high and low-pressure equipment. Most
commenters supported a requirement for low-loss fittings. However,
as discussed above in the Definitions section, the Agency received
a number of comments stating that automatic shutoff devices
had a number of drawbacks, and that the definition of low-loss
fitting should be expanded to include manual shut-off valves.
Thus, in the final rule, EPA is requiring that recycling and
recovery equipment be fitted with either automatic or manual
shutoff valves.
A few commenters opposed the requirement for low-loss fittings.
One commenter argued that low-loss fittings should not be required
on equipment with the capability to empty the hoses of refrigerant
before their disconnection. A few commenters stated that if
refrigerant is sealed into hoses by low-loss fittings on a hot
day, the hose can explode.
EPA understands that most recycling and recovery equipment
has the ability to empty hoses of liquid refrigerant before
their disconnection, minimizing potential emissions. However,
low-loss fittings are intended to prevent not only the release
of refrigerant, but the influx of air that would later have
to be purged. Thus, EPA is requiring them on equipment that
can "deinventory" hoses. EPA believes that if hoses are properly
emptied of liquid refrigerant before their disconnection, any
risk of subsequent explosion is eliminated.
e. Purge loss. Most recycling machines (but not recovery
machines) are equipped with air purge devices, which vent air
and other noncondensable contaminants from refrigerant. Because
some refrigerant tends to vaporize and mix with the air, some
refrigerant also escapes during the purging process. EPA proposed
to limit the quantity of refrigerant that could be allowed to
escape during purging to 5% of the quantity being recycled (under
the conditions of the ARI 740 test for recovery and recycling
machines). EPA's analysis indicated that this was probably the
most demanding standard that most existing recycling machines
could meet (RIA). However, some industry representatives stated
that competitively-priced machines were capable of meeting a
higher standard, perhaps 3%. Because even 2% of a large charge
can be a significant amount (2% of a thousand-pound charge is
20 pounds), EPA requested comment on setting a limit of 3% (or
still lower) or on lowering the limit from 5% to lower levels
over time.
Most commenters supported an initial purge loss limit of
5%. A number of commenters also supported establishing lower
purge loss limits as technology developed, but differed in their
willingness to establish a fixed schedule for lowering the limits.
Some supported lowering the purge loss limit by one percent
per year.
In view of the expectation of many commenters that a purge
loss limit of 3% would be feasible within the next few years,
EPA has decided to establish a 5% limit initially that will
be lowered to 3% in two years. The Agency believes that this
will encourage technological innovation without placing an undue
burden on manufacturers of recycling and recovery equipment.
f. Volume-sensitive shutoff. In the proposal, EPA requested
comment on including a requirement that storage cylinders on
recycling and recovery equipment be equipped with a switch that
would automatically stop the recovery operation when 80% of
the available volume in the storage section contains liquid
refrigerant at 70 degrees F. This would be a safety feature
that would prevent overfilling of storage vessels; filling beyond
the recommended maximum level of 80% can lead to explosion of
the cylinder when its temperature rises to levels common in
storage areas during the summer.
EPA received comments both favoring and opposing a requirement
for a volume-sensitive shutoff switch. A number of commenters
stated that they did not consider volume-sensitive switches
necessary because technicians can weigh cylinders to ensure
that they are not overfilled, and in fact, some recovery and
recycling machines include built-in scales. Other commenters
were concerned that volume-sensitive switches would often be
ineffective. These commenters noted that the various volume-
sensitive devices currently included in cylinders are not
compatible
with all types and brands of recycling and recovery equipment.
If the cylinder and recovery device are not compatible, the
volume-sensitive switch will not function. Volume-sensitive
switches can also be bypassed either deliberately by the technician
or unintentionally through the use of certain recovery methods,
according to commenters. For instance, one commenter noted that
the "push-pull" recovery method could result in the overfilling
of a cylinder while the recovery equipment itself was already
turned off. Some of the commenters opposing a requirement for
volume-sensitive switches believed that concerns about overfilling
cylinders were better addressed through technician training.
In consideration of the technical problems involved in
establishing
a requirement for a volume-sensitive shutoff switch, the Agency
has decided not to include this requirement in the rule. Instead,
EPA will include knowledge of proper cylinder filling in its
requirements for technician certification.
2. Standards for Recovery Machines Intended for Use With Small
Appliances
In the proposal, the Agency required somewhat less stringent
recovery efficiency standards for household refrigerators,
household
freezers, and other small appliances, as defined in section
III.E. The Agency proposed that technicians servicing small
appliances could use either active or passive equipment. The
efficiency level required was 90 percent, except for the use
of passive equipment on an appliance with a non-operating
compressor
where an 80 percent efficiency level was allowed. The Agency
requested comment on the proposed levels and on the specific
technologies analyzed.
As discussed in section III.E., in today's final rule, the
Agency will use the terms "self-contained recovery equipment"
and "system-dependent equipment" when referring to the active
and passive equipment, respectively. Several commenters supported
the Agency's proposal that both types of equipment be allowed
for use in the small appliance servicing sector. The Association
of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) stated that the efficiency
of both types of equipment is tied closely to the functioning
of the compressor. It also stated that the efficiency levels
are very close for the two types of equipment when the manufacturer
operating procedures for the equipment are properly followed
(i.e. heating and tapping a system when using the Whirlpool
bag). As a result, the technicians should be allowed the
flexibility
to choose the method most appropriate for them. Many commenters
stated that the simple-to-use passive systems made compliance
with the rules more likely.
Several commenters opposed the use of system-dependent recovery
equipment. Many stated that the highest-efficiency equipment
should be required for all air-conditioning and refrigeration
units and that use of the passive equipment was impractical
because of the longer time needed to wait for the refrigerant
to move from the appliance into the device. The Agency had
discussed
in the proposal an option of allowing technicians who performed
less than 20 jobs per year to use the system-dependent system.
Commenters against the use of the equipment were also against
a special exception for small servicers because of the difficulty
in enforcing this provision.
The Agency believes that the small quantity of refrigerant
involved in this sector and the goal of allowing flexibility
of compliance methods for technicians justifies allowing the
use of either system-dependent or self-contained recovery equipment
for the servicing of small appliances. The Agency has modified
the proposed requirements, however, to specify that it is the
operability of the compressor in the equipment containing the
refrigerant that determines the efficiency level for evacuation.
Comments submitted by AHAM illustrated that both self-contained
and system-dependent systems can achieve a 90 percent efficiency
of evacuation if manufacturer procedures are followed. Both
types of equipment, however, may have more difficulty reaching
this standard when the compressor is not functioning and, as
a result, an 80 percent efficiency standard will be required
in those cases. EPA would like to clarify that equipment must
be tested to meet these requirements and that the test situation
must reflect conditions that can be realistically implemented
in the field. As a result, equipment that has passed the equipment
certification requirements will meet the efficiency standards
required in this rule when used properly in the field. For more
information on the test methodology used to evaluate equipment,
see section III.G.5.
The Agency specifically requested comment of the carbon
adsorption
technology used for recovering CFCs. The feasibility of recovering
CFCs from the carbon was the Agency's primary concern. Information
submitted by two commenters, Appliance Recycling Centers of
America (ARCA) and Dow, indicates that the refrigerant can be
removed from the carbon with high efficiency. The technology
may be practical for use when servicing small appliances, although
it must meet the same efficiency standard as all other equipment
used on small appliances-90 percent efficiency with working
compressors and 80 percent efficiency with non-operational
compressors.
3. Standards for Recycling and Recovery Machines Used with
Equipment
Identical to MVACs
Today's final rule covers all air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment (except equipment designed and used exclusively for
a military application) not covered by the requirements of the
section 609 final rule (57 FR 31241, July 14, 1992; 40 CFR part
82, subpart B) for servicing motor vehicle air-conditioning
equipment. This includes equipment that is identical in operation
to motor vehicle air-conditioning equipment except that it is
found in vehicles outside the section 609 definition of "on-
road motor vehicles". Examples include agricultural and
construction
vehicles that do not operate "on-road" but contain CFC-12 open
compressor mechanical vapor compression refrigeration equipment
used to cool the driver's or passengers compartment. For the
purposes of today's rule, this equipment is identified as "MVAC-
like appliances." In the proposal, the Agency discussed the
option of using the equipment requirements established under
the section 609 regulation for these MVAC-like appliances because
the equipment is identical in operation to the equipment covered
by the section 609 regulation except that it is contained in
non-road vehicles. The Agency believes that the section 609
regulations satisfy the statutory standards of section 608
regarding
the maximization of recycling and reduction of emissions. As
stated in the proposal, adopting the section 609 standards would
allow equipment manufacturers to avoid double certification
of equipment because recycling units certified for use under
section 609 would not need to be certified under ARI Standard
740 (as long as they are used with MVAC-like equipment).
Three commenters agreed that the MVAC-like appliances should
be covered by the requirements of the section 609 regulation
because those requirements are specifically designed for this
type of equipment. The section 609 requirements contain specific
procedures for the proper use of recycling equipment that reflect
the needs of MVAC-like appliances more precisely than the required
practices for small high-pressure equipment. The equipment
certification
procedure for section 609 equipment requires that machines meet
the recycling standard of purity developed by the manufacturers
of the air-conditioning systems, a standard for which ARI Standard
740 does not specifically test. One commenter stated that the
MVAC-like appliances should not be covered by the section 608
requirements, but instead should be covered under section 609
because the air-conditioning systems are not appliances. The
Agency disagrees with the commenter's reasoning because, as
stated in the proposal, MVAC systems are clearly covered by
the definition of appliance. The MVAC systems in on-road motor
vehicles are not covered by this rule's servicing provision
because of their inclusion in the 40 CFR part 82, subpart B
regulations.
As a result, the Agency has decided to require that MVAC-
like appliances follow the equipment requirements of the section
609 regulations, found in 57 FR 31241, July 14, 1992 (40 CFR
part 82, subpart B) and incorporated in today's rule.
4. Testing of Recovery and Recycling Equipment Intended for
Use With Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment Except
Small Appliances
a. Third-party certification. As was proposed, EPA is requiring
testing of recovery and recycling equipment for the above
performance
characteristics by a third party approved by EPA. In the proposal,
EPA described two major equipment testing programs underway:
The ARI certification program under ARI Standard 740 (Appendix
B to these regulations) and the Underwriters Laboratories (UL)
program under ARI Standard 740 and UL 1963 (not to be confused
with UL's program for testing recycling and recovery equipment
intended for use with MVACs under UL 1963). EPA proposed that
approved recovery and recycling equipment testing organizations
use a modified version of these programs. The ARI and UL programs
use a laboratory test protocol to measure the performance of
equipment in a number of different areas, including vapor recovery
efficiency, purge loss, liquid recovery rate, vapor recovery
rate, and ability to clean refrigerant (in recycling machines).
Except in the area of purge loss, where refrigerant emissions
are limited to 5% of the total charge, no maximum or minimum
performance requirements need to be met for equipment to be
certified under ARI's current program. Under the modified program
proposed by EPA, equipment would have been certified only if
it could achieve the vacuums specified, limited purge losses
to 5%, and was equipped with low-loss fittings.
ARI and UL test one unit of each make and model to verify
performance initially. Both programs also take measures to verify
that equipment manufactured over the long-term continues to
perform as rated. Each year, ARI tests one unit each of one
third of the models certified under its program. This means
that over a three-year period, ARI tests a sample of each make
and model that it certifies. UL conducts periodic inspections
of equipment at manufacturing facilities to ensure that models
have not undergone design changes that may affect their
performance.
Following these industry precedents, EPA proposed to require
manufacturers to have equipment testing organizations test one
unit of each make and model initially and then conduct periodic
retests or inspections (at least once every three years) to
ensure the continued performance of each model line. (Equipment
certified under the ARI or UL programs prior to promulgation
of the final rule would not have to be retested in order to
be initially certified under the rule if the first set of tests
demonstrated that the equipment met EPA requirements.)
EPA received a number of comments regarding the need for
third party certification and the scope and methodology of the
certification program proposed. Several comments supported
requiring
third-party certification of recycling and recovery equipment
as the only reliable way to guarantee quality and consistency
of performance in the equipment. Commenters argued that third-
party certification was necessary because it would limit the
number of ineffective or unsafe recycling and recovery machines
in use, prevent misleading advertising and thereby protect
purchasers
of recycling and recovery equipment, and minimize emissions.
Commenters who opposed third-party certification argued that
it was too expensive, that it precluded the use of home-built
and custom-built equipment that can perform as well as manufactured
equipment, and that it was not necessary because faulty recycling
and recovery equipment would not be a source of emissions.
EPA has decided to require third-party certification of
recycling
and recovery equipment because it continues to believe that
third-party certification is the most reliable method of obtaining
an accurate and objective evaluation of equipment performance.
While equipment certification alone does not guarantee that
emissions are minimized, it does prevent leaky or ineffective
equipment from entering the market. EPA believes that emissions
from such equipment could be significant. Although EPA recognizes
that some home-built recovery equipment may perform quite well,
other home-built equipment may not. Several commenters favoring
third-party certification noted that home-built equipment can
be leaky and can lack critical components. Thus, although home-
built equipment is eligible for grandfathering until November
15, 1993, after that date, its manufacture will not be allowed
unless it is certified in the same way as equipment manufactured
for sale.
b. The ARI 740 test protocol. The Agency received comments
both supporting and criticizing the ARI 740 test procedure for
recycling and recovery equipment. Criticism was focussed on
four major areas. First, commenters charged that the ARI 740
method measures the vapor recovery efficiency of (or vacuum
achievable by) equipment incorrectly, yielding results that
are higher than could be theoretically achieved by the compressors
used in most recycling and recovery equipment. Second, commenters
stated that the ARI 740 method for measuring vapor recovery
rates yields a maximum, rather than an average, recovery rate.
Third, commenters noted that although the performance of recycling
and recovery equipment varies significantly depending upon ambient
temperature, the ARI 740 test procedure gages performance only
at one temperature, 75 degrees, which will yield optimum
performance
measurements. Fourth, commenters stated that the ARI 740 test
procedure should include a test for equipment durability.
The Agency has investigated each of these criticisms and
believes that in some cases, alterations or additions to the
740 test procedure may be warranted in the future, although
it was not possible to consider them fully or implement them
before this rule was promulgated. (Some of the possible alterations
were not proposed and therefore cannot be incorporated into
these regulations until EPA undertakes another rulemaking.)
Responding to the criticisms one at a time, EPA believes that
the method for measuring vapor recovery efficiency in the ARI
740 test protocol is sound, based on engineering judgement.
In addition, most of the published results of this test fall
within expected ranges. In some cases, the published vapor recovery
efficiency does exceed that which would be expected given the
compression ratio limits of typical refrigeration compressors;
however, in the cases that EPA has investigated to date, EPA
has found that an innovative technology (such as a built-in
subcooling feature) is responsible for the unusually good
performance.
EPA will continue to work with ARI (and other testing organizations
using the ARI 740 standard) to ensure that vapor recovery
efficiency
measurements are methodologically sound and are in accord with
the known limits of recovery technologies. If the Agency discovers
a flaw in the ARI 740 method for measuring vapor recovery
efficiency,
the Agency will take steps to correct it and revise its regulations
if necessary.
Several commenters, including a state environmental protection
agency, an environmental group, and two manufacturers of recycling
and recovery equipment, believed that the ARI 740 test protocol
should be modified to include a test of the equipment's average
vapor recovery rate in addition to its maximum vapor recovery
rate. In general, as vapor recovery progresses, the density
of the vapor in the appliance, and therefore the vapor recovery
rate, declines. Toward the end of the recovery process, this
rate may be only a small fraction (usually less than five percent)
of the original rate. Currently, the ARI 740 test procedure
measures the vapor recovery rate of equipment only at the beginning
of the recovery process, when liquid refrigerant is still present
in the test apparatus. At that time, the vapor density in the
test apparatus is at its maximum (the saturation density) and
so is the vapor recovery rate. Although the maximum vapor recovery
rate of a piece of recycling or recovery equipment is related
to its average recovery rate in the field, other factors, such
as compressor clearance (which is related to the depth of vacuum
that recovery equipment can achieve), are also important in
determining the average recovery rate. Thus, two pieces of
equipment
with identical maximum recovery rates can have very different
recovery rates at the end of the recovery process.
While EPA is not regulating equipment recovery rates for
the reasons discussed in section G.1.c, the Agency believes
that the best possible information on these rates should be
available to technicians to ensure that they purchase recycling
and recovery equipment adequate to their needs. EPA is concerned
that technicians who must rely solely on the maximum recovery
rate as a measure of average recovery rate in the field may
inadvertently purchase equipment that performs relatively poorly
as recovery progresses. This will prove costly not only to the
technician but also to the environment if the technician decides
to cut recovery short. According to one of the commenters, who
has been involved in ARI's testing program, modifying the current
test to measure the average, rather than the maximum, vapor
recovery rate would simply require timing the recovery procedure
that is already included in the 740 protocol. EPA has discussed
this possibility with ARI, and ARI has expressed interest in
making the modification in the near future. Equipment entering
the certification program after the modification was made would
have its average recovery rate measured, and equipment that
had been through the certification program already would have
its average recovery rate measured when it came up for
recertification
on the three-year schedule.
One commenter argued that the ARI 740 method for measuring
the maximum vapor recovery rate was itself flawed because the
measurement takes place quickly in "transient" conditions. However,
the ARI 740-93 procedure specifies that the measurement take
place "after the equipment reaches stabilized conditions of
condensing temperature and/or storage tank pressure" and the
ARI 740-91 procedure, the predecessor to 740-93, required
measurement
"after the equipment reaches stabilized conditions." ARI
representatives
stated that, in practice, the recovery rate is measured after
the system has been running for several minutes, and that three
separate measurements are taken for two-minute periods. EPA
believes that this methodology should yield an accurate measurement
of the maximum recovery rate.
The other methodological concern raised by commenters was
that the ARI 740 test takes place at only one temperature, 75
degrees, but the performance of equipment varies significantly
at lower and higher temperatures. At low temperatures, the
saturation
pressure of refrigerant can be very low, slowing recovery
considerably
if equipment is capable only of vapor recovery. (Even the push-
pull method, which relies upon the vapor pressure in the recovery
tank, is less effective at low temperatures.) At high temperatures,
on the other hand, the saturation pressure of the refrigerant
in the recovery tank is relatively high, raising the compression
ratio against which the compressor in the recovery device must
work to evacuate the appliance. Consequently, it is often
impossible
to achieve vacuums in high temperatures that can be achieved
at 75 degrees.
EPA has discussed the possible need for equipment testing
at multiple temperatures with ARI, with equipment manufacturers,
and with technicians in the field. The Agency is concerned that
some equipment has evidently occasionally failed to function
altogether in the past at high temperatures, although manufacturers
have apparently corrected many early problems. The current version
of the ARI 740 standard requires equipment to function at
temperatures
up to 104 degrees F. However, ARI states that performing full
performance testing at high and/or low temperatures would double
or triple the cost of the certification test. Moreover, according
to ARI, equipment manufacturers often provide "application ratings"
that contain information about expected equipment performance
under conditions other than those of the 740 test. EPA will
work with both ARI and contractor organizations to further examine
the possible need for equipment testing at more than one
temperature.
Given that the 740 test currently costs approximately $3,300
for each make and model,{2} a price similar to that of individual
pieces of recycling and recovery equipment, doubling or tripling
this cost may be justified if significant new information would
be made available to purchasers of the equipment.
³{2} Price based on testing of recycling equipment with
³four refrigerants.
Finally, a number of commenters believed that the ARI 740
test procedure should include a test of equipment durability.
Durability is a concern because recycling and recovery equipment
is constructed using components very similar to those in
refrigeration
and air-conditioning equipment, but recycling and recovery
equipment
is regularly subject to much more stressful conditions than
most air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment. For instance,
compressors in recycling and recovery equipment must repeatedly
pull vacuums. This has two implications. First, the compressor
in a piece of recycling and recovery equipment will operate
at a higher compression ratio than most other compressors, raising
the temperature of the discharge gas. Second, as the vacuum
is drawn, the motor of a hermetic compressor will be starved
of its cooling fluid, the refrigerant. Together, these
considerations
imply that recycling and recovery equipment will often operate
at higher than ideal temperatures. In addition, recycling and
recovery equipment will frequently be exposed to contaminated
refrigerant, increasing opportunities for corrosion.
One of the commenters submitted a suggested durability test
that he recommended be included in EPA's required testing regimen.
This durability test has been placed in the docket for this
rulemaking. The durability test involves continuous operation
of the equipment for several hours. ARI representatives, however,
have stated that a test lasting only for such a period would
probably not constitute an adequate test of equipment durability.
According to ARI, equipment manufacturers themselves usually
perform durability tests lasting for much longer periods (months
or years). ARI believes that it was not the role of a third-
party performance certification program to test equipment for
durability, and that such testing would greatly increase the
cost of testing.
As it is investigating the need for performance testing at
high and low temperatures, EPA will also investigate the need
and proper procedure for durability testing. If EPA concludes
that such testing is necessary, it may pursue voluntary programs
with industry or further rulemaking as appropriate. Given the
potential value of durability testing, such testing may be
worthwhile
even if it is relatively expensive. The Agency may also work
with contractor groups to gather and disseminate information
about equipment performance in the field.
EPA emphasizes that although it may be possible (and even
necessary) to enhance the ARI 740-93 testing procedure, the
procedure currently yields valuable, objective information
regarding
important performance characteristics of recycling and recovery
equipment. The Agency believes that thoughtful consideration
of this information by well-trained technicians is likely to
ensure that the recycling and recovery equipment purchased is
adequate to their needs. EPA urges purchasers of recycling and
recovery equipment to use good judgment in selecting and using
this equipment. Purchasers should be aware that equipment using
hermetic compressors may fail when used in high temperatures
or with large charge sizes. They should also be aware of two
rules of thumb regarding recovery rates: (1) The average recovery
rate that they achieve in the field will probably range between
1/3 and 1/2 the maximum rate currently being published by ARI
and UL, and (2) the maximum depth of vacuum achievable by a
piece of equipment is likely to be a good indicator of its recovery
rate in the field. (That is, if two pieces of equipment have
the same maximum recovery rate, but one piece can draw a deeper
vacuum than the other, the piece that can draw the deeper vacuum
probably recovers more quickly in the field than the other piece.)
Finally, recovery techniques in the field can either greatly
expedite or greatly slow the recovery process. Users of recycling
and recovery equipment should obtain training to learn as much
as possible about techniques to make refrigerant recovery and
recycling as effective, safe, fast, and simple as possible.
Since the proposed rule was developed, ARI has expanded and
altered the 740 test protocol to include a test for
system-dependent
equipment, to recognize the push/pull method of recovery, and
to specify the final recovery vacuum instead of the vapor recovery
efficiency of recycling and recovery equipment. ARI described
these changes at the public hearing for the proposed rule and
requested that EPA adopt the latest version of the 740 test
protocol (ARI 740P-93) in the final rule. For the reasons described
below, EPA is doing so. First, EPA believes that the changes
will enhance the usefulness of the 740 test procedure. A test
to measure the recovery vacuum of system-dependent equipment
is needed, and EPA believes that the test procedure developed
by ARI will yield an accurate measure of the performance of
that equipment when used on appliances with fully functioning
compressors. In addition, by publishing the final recovery vacuum
rather than vapor recovery efficiency of equipment, the new
procedure will make it easier for equipment purchasers to compare
equipment performance to EPA's requirements. Second, the changes
to ARI 740 have been adopted through a process that involves
participation not only of ARI's wide industry membership, but
of the general public, indicating that they are widely supported.
All the comments that EPA received concerning the new test
methodology
favored the changes. Third, the methods for measuring the
performance
of self-contained equipment in the areas being regulated by
EPA, the ability of equipment to capture refrigerant and the
quantity of refrigerant released during purging, have not been
changed, nor have the minimum requirements for ARI certification.
(By publishing the final recovery vacuum rather than the vapor
recovery efficiency, ARI is simply substituting a raw pressure
measurement for a percentage that was calculated from this
measurement
and the saturation pressure of each refrigerant.)
A few commenters stated that EPA should build enough flexibility
into its regulations to permit changes to be made to the ARI
740 procedure without requiring EPA to undertake further
rulemaking.
Commenters were particularly concerned that the Agency might
inadvertently prevent or delay the use of recovery technologies
whose ability to recover refrigerant could not be tested by
the current version of ARI 740. In the proposal EPA requested
comment on this issue, noting that two recovery technologies
that had come to its attention could not be tested by the then-
current version of ARI 740, ARI 740-1991. These recovery
technologies
were the system-dependent equipment discussed in section G.1.b.
and a nitrogen-forcing technology. As noted above, ARI 740-1993
includes a test for the former. Although the designer of the
nitrogen-forcing technology believes that only minor modifications
to ARI 740-1993 would permit testing of this technology, these
modifications were not presented in time to be adopted before
this rule was promulgated.
To permit certification of the nitrogen-forcing and other
possible technologies without undertaking further rulemaking,
EPA has included a provision to the rule that would allow new
technologies to be certified if an approved third-party testing
organization adopted and performed a test that showed that the
new technology achieved the same recovery efficiency as comparable
certified equipment. This test would have to be approved by
EPA. This provision is very similar to a provision in EPA's
motor vehicle emissions testing program that allows motor vehicle
manufacturers to request that EPA accept a new test procedure
if existing procedures are not applicable to a certain vehicle
(40 CFR 86.090-27).
EPA notes that if ARI 740-1993 is altered in a way that relates
to the minimum requirements for ARI certification (Section 4
of 740-1993, which EPA is requiring as part of this rule) or
the measurement of the final recovery vacuum, purge efficiency,
or maximum recovery rate of existing recovery technologies,
those changes will not alter the requirements of this rule (and,
therefore, EPA will not recognize certification under the new
version) unless EPA undertakes a notice and comment rulemaking
to adopt the changes. However, approved equipment testing
organizations
may add or change their own certification requirements and still
have their certification recognized by EPA so long as they also
continue to test in accordance with EPA's rule's requirements.
c. Revocation of certification. If previously certified
equipment
fails a follow-up test or inspection, the approved equipment
testing organization is required to inform EPA of this fact,
and the certification for that equipment will be revoked or
suspended after allowing the manufacturer an opportunity to
respond. In general, EPA has the authority to revoke or suspend
any certification granted under the provisions of section 608.
If the Agency determines that a person or entity has violated
the regulations, or if the Agency has knowledge that a person
or entity is incapable of fulfilling the requirements of the
regulation, the Agency would revoke or suspend any certification
previously granted. In the case of minor violations, the Agency
may act to suspend certification for a given period of time.
However, in the case of serious or repeat violations, the Agency
may determine that revocation of certification is warranted.
In the event of a revocation of equipment certification, the
affected model of recycling or recovery equipment could no longer
be manufactured. Similarly, in the event of revocation of
technician,
equipment-owner, or reclaimer certification, the affected
technician,
owner of recycling or recovery equipment, or reclaimer could
no longer do business.
d. Approval of equipment testing organizations. In addition
to ARI and UL, other testing organizations have indicated an
interest in setting up their own programs to certify performance
to EPA's specifications. EPA will approve any equipment
certification
program that can demonstrate that it: (1) Possesses thorough
knowledge of the standards as they appear in 82.158 and ARI
740-1993 (appendix B), (2) possesses the equipment described
in ARI 740-1993 to test performance in the areas of concern,
(3) possesses expertise in equipment testing, (4) has developed
a program to verify the performance of certified recycling or
recovery equipment manufactured over the long-term, including
either retests of equipment or inspections of equipment at
manufacturing
facilities, and (5) is not financially or otherwise interested
in the outcome of the testing. Organizations seeking approval
to be equipment certifiers should contact EPA.
In addition to the requirements above, equipment testing
organizations are required to submit lists of approved equipment
to EPA annually. They are also required to inform EPA within
30 days of the certification of a new model of equipment or
of the failure of a previously certified model of equipment.
5. Testing of Recovery Machines Intended for Use With Small
Appliances
In the proposal, the Agency required that recycling and recovery
equipment intended for use with small appliances be tested
according
to the testing procedures published as appendix C. This was
proposed because, at that time, the ARI 740 test method used
for other recovery and recycling equipment could not accommodate
the technologies specifically designed for recovering CFCs from
small appliances. These technologies include both self-contained
recovery equipment (active) and system-dependent (passive)
machines.
The test procedure in appendix C was developed by General Electric
and could be used for both self-contained and system-dependent
devices used on equipment with operating or nonoperating
compressors.
Three commenters specifically agreed that the proposed appendix
C was appropriate for testing recovery and recycling equipment
for small appliances. Three commenters stated that the appendix
was inappropriate and cited as their justification that system-
dependent machines should not be used at all with small appliances,
an issue discussed in section III.G.2. AHAM submitted comments
that included changes to the proposed appendix C. They stated
that after submitting the procedure to the Agency, General Electric
worked with the member companies of AHAM to refine and improve
the test procedure. The revisions address several concerns.
First, the procedure was revised to more precisely measure the
refrigerant trapped in shipping containers. Second, calculation
of recovery efficiency for each recovery event was included.
Third, the test to track compressor oil that might be removed
from the test stand was deleted while steps were revised to
account for any oil added to the stand or the recovery system
to properly maintain the equipment. Finally, the number of
recoveries
performed as part of the test was reduced to provide for more
cost-effective testing. All other changes were characterized
as editorial. The Agency believes these changes are improvements
to the procedure and has incorporated them into today's final
rule.
In response to the concern that the ARI 740 testing procedure
could not accommodate the types of technology used to service
small appliances, ARI submitted changes to the 740 test procedure
contained in appendix B. These changes are discussed in section
G.4 above. The Agency agrees that these changes make it possible
to test the technologies and has incorporated the language into
appendix B. The rule language has been changed to allow recovery
or recycling equipment intended for use on small appliances
to be tested to either appendix B or appendix C.
As part of their comments, UL submitted an alternative test
procedure to the procedure proposed in appendix C discussed
above. Although their "Subject 2090, Outline of Investigation
for Passive Refrigerant Recovery Systems" offers adequate testing
of the safety of a passive device, it does not contain the same
level of specificity in test procedure as the proposed GE changes
with the AHAM changes discussed above. The Agency believes
appendices
B and C are adequate procedures for both the system-dependent
and self-contained devices for small equipment and therefore,
UL's method will not be added at this time.
6. Effective Dates and Grandfathering Provisions
EPA proposed to give manufacturers of recycling and recovery
equipment six months after publication of the final rule to
certify all of their equipment to the new standards. Based on
EPA's analysis of the manufacturer's capabilities to produce
such equipment, EPA believed that this lead time was sufficient.
Commenters expressed a range of opinions regarding the
appropriate
effective date for third-party certification of equipment. Several
agreed with the proposed date, six months after publication
of the final rule. Some, however, believed that six months was
not sufficient time to permit equipment testing organizations
to become approved and complete their testing. Two commenters
stated that because the promulgation date of this rule is known
and equipment testing has already begun, EPA should allow only
three months for manufacturers to have their equipment certified.
As was proposed, EPA is requiring that recycling and recovery
equipment manufactured more than 6 months after publication
of this rule be certified by an approved testing organization.
The Agency believes that 6 months is adequate time for
manufacturers
to complete having their equipment tested by an approved testing
organization. As one commenter noted, both manufacturers and
testing organizations have had a great deal of notice regarding
the probable requirements and effective dates of this rule,
and testing of equipment has been in progress at more than one
laboratory for over a year. As EPA stated in the proposal,
equipment
that was tested by a testing organization prior to promulgation
of this rule (and, therefore, prior to official approval of
the testing organization) will be considered certified if the
testing showed that the equipment met EPA requirements and if
the testing organization is approved. However, testing of equipment
for use with some types of appliances (e.g., large low-pressure
systems) has only recently begun, and the Agency does not therefore
believe that it can require third-party certification of all
recycling and recovery equipment manufactured in less than six
months.
EPA proposed to "grandfather" recycling and recovery equipment
manufactured until 6 months after publication of the final rule,
if it met certain minimum requirements. Equipment intended for
use with high-pressure refrigerants (except for refrigerants
in small appliances) would have to have been able to evacuate
systems to four inches of vacuum; equipment intended for use
with low-pressure refrigerants would have to have been able
to evacuate systems to 25 inches. Equipment intended for use
with small appliances would have had to be able to recover 80%
of the refrigerant in the small appliance, whether or not the
compressor of the appliance was operating. (Equipment intended
for use with very high-pressure refrigerants would have to have
been able to evacuate systems to 0 inches of vacuum, or atmospheric
pressure, as in the proposed requirements effective after 6
months after publication of the final rule.) In addition, EPA
requested comment on whether it should require grandfathered
recycling and recovery equipment to be retrofitted with low-
loss fittings.
The grandfathering proposal was intended (1) to avoid penalizing
individuals who had purchased such equipment before it was legally
required and (2) to encourage individuals who had not acquired
such equipment to purchase it as soon as possible, rather than
wait for certified equipment to become available. Although the
standards for grandfathered recycling and recovery equipment
were not as strict as those for certified recycling and recovery
equipment, the Agency concluded that the benefits of beginning
recovery sooner outweighed the small loss in recovery efficiency.
However, because this advantage would disappear if less efficient
equipment were used for too long, EPA requested comment on the
option of requiring grandfathered recycling and recovery equipment
to be retired in five years.
Commenters universally supported the grandfathering of recycling
and recovery equipment, citing the reasons above. Only a small
percentage of the commenters expressed an opinion regarding
the proposed evacuation standards and retrofit requirements
for grandfathered equipment. Of these, two argued for less
stringent
evacuation standards, and one argued for more stringent evacuation
standards, particularly for very large (1000 lbs.) high-pressure
equipment. The two commenters who expressed an opinion regarding
low-loss fittings were split, with one favoring them and one
opposing them. A few commenters believed that EPA should require
some type of testing of grandfathered equipment to ensure its
performance to EPA's standards.
Some commenters supported mandatory retirement of grandfathered
equipment after five years, noting that most regularly used
recycling and recovery equipment would wear out in that time.
A few commenters argued for retirement after shorter periods
ranging from six months to three years. However, a number of
commenters opposed mandatory retirement of grandfathered equipment.
Many of these commenters stated that recycling and recovery
equipment purchased for in-house use would not be used as
frequently
as equipment purchased by service contractors, and would therefore
be expected to have a much longer useful life than five years.
Some of these commenters argued that use of grandfathered equipment
should be permitted indefinitely, so long as the equipment could
meet the stricter standards required of fully certified equipment.
EPA has decided to retain its proposed grandfathering
requirements
and, therefore, is grandfathering recycling and recovery equipment
that meets the minimum evacuation requirements that were proposed.
These requirements are shown in Table 3 below. (As proposed,
grandfathered recovery equipment used with small appliances
must achieve a recovery efficiency of 80%.) The Agency is not
requiring that this equipment be retrofitted with low-loss fittings
or retired after five years.
Table 3.-Levels of Evacuation Which Must Be Achieved by
Recovery or
Recycling Machines Intended for Use With Appliances {1}
[Manufactured before November 15, 1993]
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Type of air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment with which
³ Inches
recovery or recycling machine is intended to be used
³ of
³ vacuum
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³
HCFC-22 equipment, or isolated component of such equipment,
³ 0
normally containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant.
³
HCFC-22 equipment, or isolated component of such equipment,
³ 4
normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant.
³
Very High-Pressure Equipment ....................................
³ 0
Other high-pressure equipment, or isolated component of such
³ 4
equipment, normally containing less than 200 pounds of
³
refrigerant.
³
Other high-pressure equipment, or isolated component of such
³ 4
equipment, normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant
³
Low-pressure Equipment ..........................................
³ 25
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
{1} Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances.
EPA is grandfathering recycling and recovery equipment for
the reasons cited in the proposal and by numerous commenters.
The Agency is retaining its proposed evacuation requirements
for this equipment because it continues to believe that most
recycling and recovery equipment manufactured over the past
two years can meet these requirements. Although third-party
testing would help to ensure the performance of grandfathered
equipment, EPA does not believe that such testing would be
practical,
given that a number of models currently in the field may no
longer be produced and may in fact be "home-made" equipment.
Thus, technicians are responsible for testing their own
grandfathered
equipment to ensure that it can meet EPA's requirements.
EPA is not requiring retirement of grandfathered equipment
for two reasons. First, comments and EPA research both indicate
that the expected lifetime of this equipment varies widely
depending
upon its application and frequency of use. Thus, a five-year
retirement provision would tend to punish persons who have
purchased
recycling equipment only for in-house use and who may otherwise
expect to be able to use their equipment for another five to
ten years. Second and more important, a five-year retirement
date would fall in late 1998, nearly three years after the phaseout
of production of CFCs. By this time, EPA expects that the expense
of CFCs will constitute a powerful private incentive to replace
grandfathered equipment that is not as efficient as new equipment.
However, EPA intends to monitor use of grandfathered equipment
to ensure that it does not result in excessive emissions, and
EPA will consider mandating retirement of less efficient equipment
if such emissions become a problem despite the rising costs
of CFCs.
H. Certification of Technicians
1. Description of Proposed Voluntary Technician Training and
Certification
EPA did not propose a mandatory training or certification
requirement as its lead option. The proposal agreed that private
incentives were sufficient to ensure that technicians were properly
trained in refrigerant recycling and recovery. In addition,
such a program could create an administrative burden for EPA.
However, the Agency did request comments on the mandatory
certification
option. In the absence of a mandatory program, the Agency stated
that it could play an important role through a voluntary program
by recognizing those who provide and participate in training
programs which meet certain minimum standards. EPA proposed
establishing a voluntary certification program whereby private
sector certification programs could request EPA review and approval
based on a set of defined qualifications. Core elements of such
a program were reviewed in the proposal. In addition to requesting
comment on the need and feasibility of a voluntary program,
the Agency requested comment on whether a mandatory certification
program is necessary or desirable. The proposal stated that
a mandatory certification program could be very similar in form
to the voluntary program.
2. Decision to Establish a Mandatory Program
With this Notice, the Agency today is promulgating a mandatory
technician certification program. Although the Agency had not
proposed a mandatory program as its lead option, EPA now believes
that such previously stated obstacles as administrative burden
to both the Agency and to technicians can be overcome, and that
the benefits of a mandatory program warrant its adoption. In
addition, the Agency received over 18,000 comments in support
of a mandatory program. Although 142 commenters opposed such
a program, the overwhelming support indicates that technicians
themselves believe that such a program is necessary.
a. Overwhelming Technician Response. The Agency received
comments from over 18,000 technicians voicing their support
for a mandatory technician certification program. Although there
were dissenting opinions, these technicians as well as the major
trade organizations representing these sectors endorse such
a program. In addition, the manufacturers of recovery and recycling
equipment supported mandatory certification, as did environmental
organizations, arguing that it would increase compliance.
Commenters
had many reasons for their support for a mandatory technicians
certification program. These reasons included the following:
Guaranteeing that technicians who handle refrigerants
understand
and practice proper safe refrigerant recovery and recycling
techniques;
Promoting awareness of problems related to the venting,
recovery, and recycling of refrigerants;
Ensuring environmentally safe service practices;
Receiving more liability protection;
Gaining consumer trust;
Improving leak detection;
Ensuring that equipment is properly maintained and used;
Improving productivity and cost savings through proper
maintenance and usage practices;
Educating technicians on how to contain and conserve
refrigerant
effectively, curtailing illegal venting into the atmosphere;
and
Creating uniform and enforceable laws.
In response to questions regarding the likely effectiveness
of the proposed voluntary program, commenters stated that mandatory
certification would foster fairer competition in the regulated
community. Specifically, commenters were concerned that untrained
technicians could undercut costs of trained technicians by not
following procedures necessary for effective recovery of
refrigerant.
These untrained technicians might not invest in proper recovery
or recycling equipment, and might continue to vent refrigerant.
One hundred and forty-two commenters expressed disapproval
for mandatory technician certification. Some commenters stated
that it would place an undeserved burden upon the stationary
refrigeration and air conditioning industry because of the amount
of time technicians and employers would have to expend to become
certified. In response to these comments, the Agency has reviewed
the results of requiring MVAC technicians to receive both mandatory
training and mandatory certification under section 609. Typically,
training and certification for MVAC technicians require less
than two or three hours, with fees ranging between twelve and
twenty dollars. The diverse equipment covered by section 608
may require longer training sessions. The Agency has reviewed
the cost and length of various training programs providing
voluntary
certification for technicians. The Agency believes adequate
training and certification will require four to eight hours
with fees ranging between thirty and seventy-five dollars. EPA
does not view these fees or time needs as burdensome requirements.
The Agency realizes that if certification promulgated under
today's rule was designed with organizations developing training
and certification materials, followed by extensive Agency review
of all training materials, certification exams and administrative
procedures, the wider variety of equipment covered by today's
rule could lead to long training sessions and costly programs.
Therefore, today's rulemaking employs a more streamlined, less
time-consuming approach. EPA has created three separate
certification
categories, based on industry divisions, allowing technicians
to focus only on the kinds of equipment they service. Additionally,
the Agency will provide a validated bank of questions, simplifying
test development by certifying programs, and decreasing costs.
This streamlined approach will also shorten the Agency's review
process.
Some commenters suggested that technicians have sufficient
incentives to obtain proper training, thereby eliminating the
need for mandatory certification. Private incentives include
the value of recovered refrigerants, avoidance of injury, avoidance
of equipment damage, negative publicity, and the technician's
desire to avoid fines. In a "perfect market" such private
incentives
would encourage recovery and recycling; however, even within
a "perfect market" incentives do not always reflect environmental
costs. The escalating cost of refrigerant can be outweighed
by labor costs to recover refrigerants, thus minimizing recycling
procedures. Furthermore, training encourages proper techniques,
without which contaminated refrigerant could be introduced into
equipment. If equipment were to fail immediately due to
contaminated
refrigerant, then the technician could be held accountable.
However, such failures can occur long after the technician
introduced
contaminated refrigerant, thus making it unlikely that the
technician
who introduced the contaminated refrigerant could be held
responsible.
The RIA describes four benefits from requiring mandatory
technician certification. First, certification decreases the
costs for obtaining information for the technicians. Second,
a technician certification program increases the probability
that technicians receive adequate training concerning the
requirements
of today's rule and the proper operation of recycling equipment,
leading to reduced emissions through increased compliance. Third,
mandatory certification enhances EPA's ability to enforce today's
rule, by providing another tool for use against intentional
noncompliance: The ability to revoke the technician's
certification.
Finally, mandatory certification increases fairness by ensuring
that all technicians are complying with today's rule.
The Agency believes that without a mandatory certification
requirement, participation in voluntary programs will be limited,
especially in the short-run. In anticipation of a mandatory
certification requirement, several organizations designed and
implemented voluntary certification programs. After the Agency
proposed a voluntary approach, the Refrigeration Service Engineers
Society reported a significant decrease in enrollment for its
program. The Agency believes a mandatory program will significantly
increase technician participation.
b. Lessened Burden to EPA and Technicians. The Agency believes
it has developed a technician certification program that will
not be burdensome to either the Agency or technicians. The Agency
will authorize qualifying organizations to give an examination
that tests knowledge of recovery and recycling procedures, as
well as the environmental effects of refrigerant release. The
Agency believes this will allow the largest number of technicians
to become certified in a reasonable amount of time. The Agency
will develop and validate a test bank of questions from which
testing organizations will draw their questions. This will simplify
test development by organizations and ensure a national uniform
standard for the test.
EPA will not approve individual training and test review
programs. Although training programs may be beneficial, technicians
need only pass the test to become certified. The Agency believes
that the market will determine which programs are needed to
educate technicians sufficiently.
c. Better Environmental Protection. EPA reviewed the literature
concerning effective training programs. The Agency anticipates
that many technicians will participate in training programs
before taking the certification test. The Agency believes an
effective educational program aimed at preparing technicians
for the certification test, will increase compliance with today's
rulemaking, leading to better environmental protection. In
particular,
the Agency reviewed the University of Michigan's interim report
"Evaluation of the Ford Motor Company/United Automobile Workers
Hazard Communications Program," which focused on how effective
training can alter the participants' knowledge and attitudes,
work practices and working conditions. The study found that
this type of training has a number of positive impacts, including
the ability to communicate useful information, foster safer
work practices and improve health and safety control measures.
The study concluded that 42 percent of the workers surveyed
changed their work practices as a result of the training program.
The Agency believes that as technicians become more
knowledgeable
about recovery and recycling techniques, they will become aware
of the environmental implications of their actions. EPA believes
that information gained through certification will increase
the technician's sense of social responsibility towards refrigerant
recovery, and will therefore increase compliance with today's
rule. Anecdotal evidence gathered from recent journal articles
demonstrates that as individuals recognize their environmental
responsibilities, they are more likely to comply with environmental
regulations.
EPA's research and information supplied by trade associations
indicates that the majority of technicians serving air-conditioning
and refrigeration equipment today have little if any experience
working with recovery and recycling equipment. Although recycling
is common for equipment with large charge sizes, such as chillers
and industrial process refrigeration, most technicians in the
household refrigeration and household air conditioning sectors
have not recycled CFCs or HCFCs in the past or have done so
in a manner not aimed at minimizing emissions. In addition,
although recycling may occur for commercial refrigeration, fear
of incurring costs from the potential spoilage of food during
repair of the system has limited recycling. Technicians who
service equipment in these three sectors perform the largest
number of service jobs per year. Thus, for a significant number
of service technicians, it is extremely important to ensure
that they understand the recycling requirements of section 608.
Industry representatives also believe that technician
certification
will significantly increase compliance with EPA's regulations.
In one analysis submitted to EPA, representatives from the Trane
Company reviewed probable compliance rates across service companies
of different sizes. Trane Company estimated that a certification
requirement will increase compliance by approximately 20 percent,
reducing potential CFC emissions significantly and reducing
the costs of the CFC phaseout by reducing the need for expensive
retrofits.
d. Improved Productivity. The Agency believes that technician
certification and education will improve the productivity of
technicians. The Program Director for the CFC recovery and
recycling
education program for Ferris State University, a leading national
vocational technical university, estimates that a recycling
program similar to the one described here would dramatically
improve worker proficiency. Specifically, the Ferris State
University
program director estimated that this training will:
Save 30%-50% of the time needed for each job over initial
jobs by familiarizing technicians with appropriate procedures
for use and maintenance of equipment in one structured course;
Improve productivity by one hour per service job over the
long term;
Improve leak detection work, by choosing the appropriate
method (halogen, halide, etc.), eliminating waste and saving
two to three hours per job;
Avoid improper piping/soldering techniques (certified
technicians
would be less likely to create hazardous conditions resulting
in a loss of refrigerant and saving the time required to remedy
the problem);
Preserve HVAC/R and recovery/recycling operating capacity
by training technicians in the proper procedures for avoiding
mixing refrigerants (in a typical system containing three pounds
of refrigerant, mixing would result in one hour of lost labor,
refrigerant loss, and costs of distillation and/or destruction
of a trial mixture @$3.00/lb (current estimated price, leading
to costs of at least $70-$80 each time refrigerants were
erroneously
mixed); and
Preserve equipment by training in proper oil application
(using inappropriate oils would require that technicians flush
out the system, requiring 8 to 10 hours of work and costing
$460 to $560).
These estimates are based on the observation that technicians
working on equipment in the most populous sectors (residential
and household refrigeration) today are often not familiar with
the procedures and practices required for effective recovery
and recycling even within their own sector of the industry.
Proper technician education in recycling and recovery has
a number of private benefits for technicians, contractors and
equipment owners. It encourages the conservation of refrigerant,
a valuable and increasingly scarce material, and it also helps
to protect the air conditioning and refrigeration equipment
by reducing improper servicing techniques and refrigerant
contamination.
Contaminated refrigerant can cause equipment failure or greatly
reduce the equipment lifetime, incurring costs for needless
repairs. Training in the safe handling of refrigerant may reduce
on-the-job injuries.
3. Program Elements
Vol. 58 No. 92 Friday, May 14, 1993 p 28660 (Rule)
a. A Mandatory Program. In consideration of the need for
effective refrigerant recycling programs, EPA is today establishing
a mandatory certification program. All technicians must pass
an exam administered by an approved EPA testing organization.
Although training programs are beneficial, participation in
a training program is not required by today's rule. All technicians
must be certified within 18 months of the publication of this
rule. EPA believes that this is an important component of the
recycling and recovery program buttressed by receipt of over
18,000 letters expressing support for mandatory technician
certification.
Many commenters supported a certification program required
by EPA, but administered by the private sector. Commenters stated
that this type of program would ensure compliance with the Clean
Air Act's goals of minimizing stratospheric ozone depletion
in a cost-effective, market-based fashion. The mandatory technician
certification program could be managed by industry along the
lines of the voluntary program proposed. The Agency agrees and
is therefore today establishing a testing program approved by
EPA and administered by the private sector. All training programs
will be operated by the private sector responding to the needs
of the technicians. The Agency believes that this will create
price-competitive training programs. EPA is concerned that costs
to technicians be minimized and believes that price competition
will lower costs in an economically efficient manner. It is
the Agency's intention to publish the certification costs for
training programs and certifying organizations and to make this
information available from the Agency's Stratospheric Ozone
Protection Hotline.
b. A National Program. Some commenters proposed approving
as certifying programs only those organizations that meet national
certification standards and have the proper infrastructure in
place to administer testing. EPA believes that national
organizations
have an advantage in reaching a greater number of technicians
in a reasonable amount of time. However, the Agency is concerned
about limiting the competitive ability of many smaller creditable
organizations that possess the ability to provide testing. Again,
it is the intention of the Agency only to approve the testing
program, not the training program.
Many commenters who favored mandatory technician certification
provided examples of existing state and local regulations. The
South Coast Air Quality Management District and the State of
Wisconsin's mandatory certification programs were offered as
examples. A few commenters believed that these types of localized
programs are sufficient. Others theorized that without a federal
program, differences between the requirements of various
municipalities
will lead to a great deal of confusion in the industry. A few
commenters stated that creating one standardized certification
test with national acceptance would eliminate issues concerning
reciprocity between state licensing programs and portability
of certification. EPA applauds the efforts of state and local
governments. The Agency believes creating a national program
will decrease the need for a myriad of differing regulations.
However, this regulation does not preempt state and local authority
in any way.
Technician training and certification can be integrated into
an extensive industry training infrastructure. The Air-Conditioning
& Refrigeration Institute (ARI) estimates that there are
approximately
1,200 training programs for air conditioning and refrigeration
technicians in the U.S. A large number of these programs have
begun to train their students in proper methods for refrigeration
conservation, including recovery and recycling, and ARI itself
has incorporated a unit on environmental safety principles into
its curriculum guide for HVAC/R instructors.
Many national educational and trade organizations such as
Refrigeration Service Engineers Society, and Air Conditioning
Contractors of America have developed training and testing programs
specifically intended to help technicians comply with the July
1, 1992 prohibition on venting. Many of these programs, which
have already begun, can easily be modified to meet the needs
of a mandatory program.
c. Personnel To Be Certified. Many commenters supported
certification
for all individuals who perform installation, service, maintenance,
or repair functions that might reasonably be expected to release
CFCs or HCFCs to the atmosphere. EPA believes that to reduce
emissions to the "lowest achievable level" technician certification
for individuals performing the functions noted above, is essential.
Some commenters suggested that all persons coming into contact
with or handling CFC refrigerants should be certified. Such
a requirement would encompass not only those who service equipment
but those who charge equipment during manufacture, transfer
refrigerant from large to small containers for sale (e.g.
wholesaler
employees), and transfer refrigerant from small to large containers
for shipment to reclaimers. However, five commenters expressed
their strong opposition to the mandatory certification of factory,
delivery, wholesale, or reclaimer personnel because sufficient
incentives already exist to minimize venting in these sectors.
EPA is not requiring certification of these individuals because
these transfer processes tend to be simpler than recovery from
air conditioning and refrigeration equipment, and for the last
two groups in particular, EPA agrees that there is a clear
financial
incentive to avoid venting. Nonetheless, EPA strongly encourages
appropriate training of all individuals whose job responsibilities
have any impact on the release of refrigerant to the atmosphere
and who work in situations where technicians may reduce labor
costs by venting rather than recovering.
EPA is requiring certification of all individuals who service
air conditioning and refrigeration equipment besides MVACs.
This group includes installers, contractor employees, in-house
service personnel, and anyone else who performs installation,
maintenance, or repair that might reasonably have the opportunity
to release CFCs or HCFCs into the atmosphere. In addition,
individuals
disposing of equipment other than small appliances and MVACs
must be certified. EPA believes technicians working in these
sectors have the greatest opportunity to release CFCs and HCFCs
to the atmosphere.
Technicians servicing MVAC-like appliances, as defined in
82.152(l) of the regulations, including agriculture and
construction
vehicles, are already required to become certified by an EPA-
approved certification program. EPA recognizes that there are
similarities between MVACs and MVAC-like appliances, including
the use of an open-drive compressor and the amount of refrigerant
the systems require. EPA believes that the training and
certification
provided by section 609 technician certification programs will
more readily address issues concerning service practices used
for servicing MVAC-like appliances. Therefore, technicians
servicing
MVAC-like appliances may choose to become certified by an EPA-
approved section 609 technician certification program instead
of by a section 608 technician certification program, and will
then be considered certified according to the requirements of
today's final rule. The Agency wishes to clarify that while
technicians servicing MVAC-like appliances may choose a section
609 technician certification program, the effective date for
certification and all other requirements for these technicians
are those promulgated today under section 608.
Technicians must be certified by November 14, 1994. Unless
the law, EPA regulations, or recycling technology changes
significantly,
there is no need to recertify. EPA will formally notify all
testing organizations and trade groups of the need to recertify
through letters or Federal Register announcements.
Nine commenters urged EPA to include a phase-in period to
allow time for adequate training and certification. The length
of time varied from 12 months to 5 years. Commenters agreed
that the deadline for technician certification should be long
enough for EPA to approve multiple certifying programs and for
technicians to have ample time to become properly trained and
certified. Based on the time required for section 609 technician
training and certification programs to apply and receive approval
by the Agency, and to establish training classes, the Agency
has concluded that an effective date of 18 months from the date
of publication is reasonable. This will enable many private
organizations adequate time to develop administrative testing
procedures and to receive EPA approval in accordance with today's
rule.
d. Types of certification. EPA proposed creating four separate
technician certification categories. The equipment covered by
section 608 varies widely in form, size, and purpose, ranging
from industrial process refrigeration systems containing thousands
of pounds of CFC-11 to home refrigerators containing 6 ounces
of CFC-12. Recycling and servicing techniques that are appropriate
to one may not be applicable to another. Creating four divisions
would allow technicians to be tested on information concerning
the types of and service practices for the equipment the
technicians
primarily service and maintain. Categories were intended for
technicians servicing and maintaining the following types of
equipment:
(1) Small appliances,
(2) High-pressure equipment with a charge of less than 50
pounds,
(3) High-pressure equipment with a charge of more than 50
pounds, and
(4) Low-pressure equipment.
Many commenters supported having certification divided into
several categories. Various suggestions of additional categories
(such as one for small low-pressure equipment) were suggested
by the commenters. Many commenters asserted that fewer categories
were needed. To simplify the program, EPA decided to combine
all of the high-pressure equipment into one category. EPA believes
that issues affecting all high-pressure equipment are similar.
Furthermore, combining the high-pressure equipment will minimize
duplication and will ease the administrative burden associated
with the development of the test bank.
Some commenters requested the inclusion of a category which
encompasses those workers whose jobs entail work associated
with each of the proposed categories. Technicians applying for
this type of certification would need to pass a test with sections
covering each of the sector-specific categories established
by the Agency. EPA believes creating a comprehensive category
for technicians passing exams in the three sector-specific areas
is beneficial. This would ease administrative burdens for the
certifying programs. EPA is therefore establishing a comprehensive
category known as Universal Certification.
Based on the proposed voluntary certification scheme, and
the comments received by the Agency, EPA is today establishing
three different types of technician certification, and one
comprehensive
category. EPA has determined that three types of technician
certification will accommodate the important differences between
the various types of air conditioning and refrigeration equipment.
Type I certification is intended primarily for technicians
servicing household appliances, and will test for knowledge
of the recovery devices unique to this sector, including system-
dependent recovery technologies.
Type II certification is intended for technicians servicing
high-pressure equipment, such as unitary house air conditioners,
and will include questions on the vacuum that must be drawn
on this equipment and on technical points such as the proper
valving for liquid and vapor recovery. In addition, Type II
certification will encompass issues that are important for larger
high-pressure equipment. These issues will include recovery
using system receivers and safety concerns such as the proper
use of refrigerant sensors in equipment rooms.
MVAC-like appliances are high-pressure equipment; therefore,
technicians servicing MVAC-like appliances are considered Type
II technicians. As noted earlier, technicians servicing MVAC-
like appliances may choose to become certified by an EPA-approved
program under section 609, and will be considered certified
according to the requirements of today's final rule.
Type III certification will cover issues unique to low-pressure
equipment, such as evaporator heating for leak detection and
the proper procedures for deep evacuation.
Because intermediate and very high-pressure equipment make
up a very small percentage of air conditioning and refrigeration
equipment, EPA is not planning to establish special certification
requirements for technicians who work on these types of equipment.
Instead, EPA is integrating general information on these equipment
types into Type II and Type III certification, as appropriate.
e. Test content. Like technician certification under the
section 609 Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning program, EPA proposed
that technician certification under section 608 should test
technicians on their understanding of the legal and environmental
reasons for recycling and on the techniques for minimizing
refrigerant
emissions during the recycling process. Commenters suggested
that a national standardized test include at least the following
subjects: The importance of stratospheric ozone, the theory
of ozone loss, basic air-conditioning and refrigeration operation,
and good service practices such as leak detection, regulatory
requirements and safety. EPA is requiring that these subjects
be covered by the certification test. The Agency believes that
this will ensure knowledge about the environmental impact of
CFC emissions, new regulations, and new equipment procedures,
and will facilitate compliance with the law. These issues are
incorporated in the set of test categories described in appendix
D.
Eight commenters recommended that the certification tests
include both a hands-on section and a written multiple choice
section. Although a hands-on test might better ensure competency,
EPA believes requiring a hands-on section would place an undue
burden on both the certifying programs and the technicians.
A program including hands-on testing would be more time-consuming
and would create an additional cost for the technicians.
For all three types of sector-specific certification and
comprehensive certification, today's rule requires a core of
knowledge about environmental impacts of CFCs and HCFCs and
about legal requirements regarding their use and disposal,
including
these regulations. In addition, each type of certification will
require demonstrated knowledge of the recycling and recovery
techniques appropriate to the equipment encompassed by that
type of certification. General safety guidelines regarding the
handling of refrigerants and pressurized cylinders will also
be tested.
EPA also is requiring technician certification tests to cover
safety issues and other federal regulations of which individuals
performing refrigerant recycling and recovery should be aware.
Safety issues include proper methods for filling and handling
pressurized cylinders (which can explode if overfilled) and,
for large equipment in closed spaces, appropriate measures for
avoiding excessive exposure to refrigerant (which, in extreme
cases, can lead to oxygen deprivation). The Department of
Transportation
has promulgated regulations in 49 CFR part 173 (primarily based
on safety concerns) covering the transport of pressurized
cylinders.
f. Test bank. EPA will provide a bank of test questions to
cover these areas. Industry groups, including the Refrigeration
Service Engineers Society, Mechanical Service Contractors of
America, United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, and
Air Conditioning Contractors of America have been working together
and with EPA to develop a set of questions that they have stated
could serve as the core for a central test bank. Other groups
that have expressed an interest in becoming approved certifying
programs have indicated that they would be willing to help develop
and administer such questions. EPA will develop its questions
from this bank. The Agency will meet with members of trade groups
to develop additional questions. Additional organizations may
meet with EPA at that time to submit questions. This group will
meet every six months.
To ensure accuracy and fairness, test questions will be
validated
by EPA before any programs are approved to administer the
certification
test. Questions will be updated on a semi-annual basis, with
those judged invalid or obsolete removed from the test bank.
EPA will make the questions available to organizations that
have been certified by the Agency.
The primary advantage of a single bank of test questions
is that such a bank reduces the costs of developing a program,
minimizes the review process, and will ensure consistency across
certification programs. In addition, organizations interested
in becoming certifying programs will be able to pool their efforts
and will not have to develop (frequently identical) questions
independently. A bank of test questions will ensure a uniform
certification standard for all technicians.
EPA will conduct periodic reviews of test subject material
and update the bank of test questions based upon analyses of
their validity and the latest technological and legal developments
in appliance maintenance, service, repair and disposal. EPA
will then provide updated questions for use by approved technician
certifying programs.
The passing score for Type I certification tests using the
mail-in format, is 84 percent. The Agency based this requirement
on the scores used for the mail-in tests provided by section
609 certifying programs. This score is identical to the score
used by the Mobile Air Conditioning Society. The passing score
for the closed-book certification test is 70 percent. Again,
EPA based this requirement on the MVACs certification tests
that use a similar format.
g. Test conditions. Commenters argued both for and against
closed-book testing. One commenter suggested that an open-book
test could facilitate learning of information that can be applied
in the workplace. Two commenters stated that a more stringent,
closed-book approach was justified due to the variety of equipment
covered by section 608. While EPA agrees that open-book testing
facilitates learning, the Agency recognizes that reviewing
information
for a closed-book test also facilitates the learning process.
Furthermore, closed-book testing can better ensure the retention
of information by the technicians. Accurate information retention
ensures that the technicians have a basic understanding about
the essential components of the recovery and recycling program.
Moreover, the Agency does not believe that the questions on
the certification tests should be so complicated or difficult
that technicians are forced to refer constantly to their training
materials. Technicians will be able to access more detailed
information from equipment manuals during service procedures.
EPA is therefore requiring closed-book testing for Type II,
Type III and Universal technicians. EPA believes that this also
will decrease the burden for the certifying programs. If EPA
were to allow open-book testing, the proctors would be required
to check all materials used by the technicians in order to ensure
that technicians were not using answer keys, or sample questions
directly mimicking the certification test. This would require
the proctors to be familiar with a variety of acceptable and
unacceptable materials provided by various training organizations,
increasing the training requirements for the proctoring.
Alternatively,
the certifying program would need to supply technicians with
EPA-approved materials, which would increase the technicians'
costs and prolong the approval process for certifying programs,
leading to technician certification delays.
Commenters supported both proctored and unproctored
certification
tests. Three commenters stated proctoring was unnecessary. Seven
commenters favored a proctored exam. The Air Conditioning
Contractors
of America strongly advocated proctors to ensure the integrity
of the test. EPA agrees that proctoring will protect the test's
integrity and decrease opportunities for cheating. Therefore,
the Agency is requiring proctored tests for Type II, Type III
and Universal technicians.
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, the Air-
Conditioning & Refrigeration Institute, and several other
comments
supported an open-book, unproctored exam for technicians primarily
servicing and maintaining small appliances. One commenter remarked
that since these technicians are handling very small charge
sizes, this less stringent approach is justified. Other comments
stated that since technicians servicing and maintaining small
appliances are often employed by small, decentralized businesses,
bringing these technicians together, in order to participate
in a proctored test, would not be cost-effective. Typically
these appliances use sealed refrigerant systems. The Agency
realizes that technicians servicing small appliances are less
frequently required to make repairs that involve entering the
sealed system, which could potentially lead to the release of
refrigerant. Additionally, the Agency is aware that often small
appliances contain only a few ounces of refrigerant, unlike
industrial process refrigeration systems, which may contain
thousands of pounds of refrigerant. While the Agency believes
a closed-book, proctored exam would provide a better means for
testing the technicians's knowledge, EPA did not want to place
an unwarranted burden on these technicians. Therefore, the Agency
is not requiring closed-book, proctored testing for Type I
technicians.
EPA believes a mail-in program, similar to those used for MVAC
technician certification will provide a sufficient educational
vehicle for technicians who seldom come in contact with
refrigerant.
h. Proof of certification. Certifying programs must issue
a standard wallet-sized identification card no later than 30
days from the date of the test. Type I certifying programs using
mail-in formats must issue cards to certified technicians no
later than 30 days from the date the certifying program receives
the completed test and any required documentation. Certifying
programs may mail or hand deliver the cards.
Each wallet-sized identification card must include, at a
minimum, the name of the certifying programs including the date
the certifying programs received EPA approval, the name of the
person certified, the type of certification, a unique number
for the certified person and the following text:
[name of person] has been certified as [Type I, Type II, Type
III and/or Universal-as appropriate] technician as required
by 40 CFR part 82, subpart F.
EPA believes the use of standardized language will decrease
administrative costs and will aid in enforcement. Standardized
language will also ease the burden on refrigerant wholesalers,
who will verify the certification of technicians purchasing
any class I or class II substance, by inspecting identification
cards.
i. Additional requirements. EPA will periodically inspect
testing sites to ensure compliance with EPA regulations. If
testing center discrepancies are found, they must be corrected
within a specified time period. If discrepancies are not corrected,
EPA may revoke the certifying program's approval. The inspections
may include, but would not be limited to, reviewing provisions
for test security, the availability of space and facilities
to conduct the administrative requirements and ensure the security
of the tests, the availability of adequate testing facilities
and spacing of the applicants during testing, and the proper
procedures regarding accountability, and ensuring that there
is no evidence of misconduct on the part of the certifying
programs,
their representatives and proctors, or the applicants for
certification.
EPA may also require technicians to demonstrate their ability
to perform proper procedures for recovering and/or recycling
refrigerant. Failure to demonstrate or failure to properly use
the equipment may result in revocation of the technician's
certificate.
If a technician refuses to demonstrate his ability to properly
use approved equipment or if a technician fails to properly
use approved equipment, the Agency's likely response is the
issuance of an administrative order pursuant to section 113(a),
ordering the technician to demonstrate compliance with the statute
and the regulations. Failing such demonstration, EPA would order
revocation of the technician's certificate. The Agency may also
order the technician who fails to properly use approved equipment
to obtain additional training. Before a section 113(a) order
may take effect, the technician to whom it is issued must be
given an opportunity to confer with the Administrator or his
or her representative concerning the alleged violation.
Certifying programs are encouraged to make provisions for
non-English speaking technicians by providing tests in other
languages or allowing the use of a translator when taking the
test.
j. Approval process. Based on commenters' statements, EPA
anticipates receiving a large number of applications from
organizations
seeking to become certifying programs. Therefore the Agency
believes it is appropriate to establish priorities for the review
of these programs. In order to certify as many technicians as
possible in a reasonable amount of time, EPA will give priority
to programs with national or broad geographic scope. Below are
the guidelines EPA will use:
First: Certifying programs providing at least 25 testing
centers with a minimum of one site in at least 8 different states
will be considered.
Second: Certifying programs forming regional networks with
a minimum of 10 testing centers will be considered.
Third: Certifying programs providing testing centers in
geographically
isolated areas not sufficiently covered by the national or regional
programs will be considered.
Fourth: All other programs applying for EPA approval will
be considered.
Sample application forms may be obtained by contacting the
Stratospheric Ozone Hotline at 1-800-296-1996.
k. Grandfathering. Some organizations have already begun
to train, test, and unofficially "certify" technicians in
preparation
for compliance with these regulations and with the prohibition
on venting of CFCs and HCFCs. Some of these organizations have
approached EPA to see whether their programs can be approved
and their trainees grandfathered. EPA received comments from
participants in these programs, some of which included copies
of proof of "certification" or "certification" numbers.
EPA will grandfather technicians whose programs seek and
receive EPA approval as a certifying program. As part of this
process, these certifying programs may be required to send
supplemental
information or provide additional testing to ensure the level
of the technicians' knowledge. The certifying programs will
also have to issue new identification cards meeting the
requirements
specified above.
Persons who are currently technicians must be certified by
(eighteen months from the date of publication). Technicians
that participated in certification programs which do not become
EPA certifying programs must either receive EPA-approved
supplemental
information from the original testing organization or be certified
by taking a test given by an EPA-approved certification
organization
by (eighteen months from the date of publication).
I. Restriction on Sales of Refrigerants to Certified Technicians
1. Description of Proposal And Final Requirement
EPA did not propose a sales restriction on refrigerant as
its lead option because the Agency had not proposed mandatory
technician certification as its lead option. As part of the
discussion on mandatory certification of technicians, however,
the Agency suggested that it could restrict the sale of refrigerant
to certified technicians in order to encourage full participation
in training and certification programs and to ensure that only
qualified individuals handle refrigerant. Based on comments
supporting a sales restriction, the Agency believes restricting
sales of refrigerant to only certified technicians is necessary
to ensure that all technicians are properly trained and in
compliance
with this regulation.
In order to ensure that only qualified individuals handle
refrigerant, the Agency is establishing a sales restriction
on refrigerant until similar to that required under section
609. The Act made it unlawful, effective November 15, 1992,
for any person to sell or distribute, or offer for sale or
distribution,
any class I or class II substance suitable for use as refrigerant
in a motor vehicle air conditioning system and that is in a
container with less than 20 pounds of refrigerant except to
certified technicians. EPA has reviewed the success of this
sales restriction and believes that the dangers associated with
the release of CFCs and HCFCs into the atmosphere warrants
extending
the sales restriction to include all containers (regardless
of size) of any class I or II refrigerant. Restricting the sale
of refrigerants will ensure compliance with the regulations
and aid in enforcement.
Some transactions involving refrigerant will be exempt from
this restriction, because there is very little risk of refrigerant
venting associated with these transactions. These transactions
include refrigerant sold only for eventual resale to certified
technicians (e.g., sales from a manufacturer to a wholesaler)
and refrigerant contained in pre-charged air conditioning or
refrigeration equipment.
The American Supply Association (ASA) stated at the December
23, 1992 Public Hearing at EPA's Headquarters in Washington,
DC, that wholesalers are willing to comply with a reasonable
restriction on sales. ASA further asserted that requirements
akin to state sales tax exemptions could provide a reasonable
means for enforcing the restriction of refrigerant sales. EPA
reviewed ASA's comments carefully and incorporated some of their
recordkeeping suggestions into this rule.
Under the regulations promulgated today, only technicians
certified by an approved section 608 or section 609 certification
program and in possession of a valid certification identification
card will be able to purchase refrigerant for use as of November
14, 1994. The Agency realizes that clerks and runners, rather
than trained technicians, frequently make refrigerant purchases.
Since the nature of this business means that the certified
technician
will not always be the person to whom the wholesaler physically
transfers the refrigerant, EPA will allow the technician to
provide evidence of certification to the wholesaler prior to
the first sale. The wholesaler may then keep a copy of the
technician's
certification identification card on file, much the same way
as the wholesaler keeps evidence that a customer is exempt from
state sales tax. A photocopy of the identification card may
remain on the wholesalers' premises. Large purchasers and
contractors
may provide evidence to the wholesaler of individual certifications
for their group of employees. Copies of these employees'
identification
cards may remain on the wholesalers' premises. It is the
responsibility
of the larger purchaser or contractor to notify the wholesaler
regarding changes in the status of certified employees.
Individual purchasers, large purchasers, or contractors may
authorize other employees to purchase or accept delivery of
refrigerant. Under the regulations, a list of authorized personnel
must be filed with the wholesaler and the certified technician
or contractor is responsible for updating the list as necessary.
The wholesaler is restricted to selling refrigerants only to
the accounts with evidence of certification on file with the
wholesaler prior to the sale or to technicians with valid section
608 or section 609 certification identification cards.
2. Response to Major Comments
Over twelve thousand commenters requested that the sale of
refrigerant be limited to certified technicians or organizations
employing certified technicians. Forty-three commenters
additionally
stated that limiting the sale of refrigerants to certified
technicians
provides a practical method for keeping refrigerant out of the
hands of irresponsible operators. Thirty-three commenters added
that a sales limitation will secure compliance with the regulations
and aid in enforcement. Two hundred and eighty-five commenters
declared that a sales restriction would reduce easy access to
refrigerant by untrained or undertrained individuals.
Thirteen commenters opposed restricting refrigerant sales
to certified technicians. One commenter remarked that a sales
restriction does not ensure compliance. Another commenter stated
that sufficient safeguards existed in the proposal to prevent
the sale of refrigerants to unauthorized persons.
The lead option in the proposed rule was based on voluntary
certification, and EPA did not believe it was appropriate to
propose limiting sales to persons who participated in a voluntary
program. EPA is today requiring the certification of all
technicians,
therefore it is possible and practical for the Agency to require
a more stringent approach. A sales restriction will limit the
refrigerant sales only to qualified technicians. The Agency
believes that unrestricted sales will enable untrained or
undertrained
technicians to obtain access to refrigerants that are likely
to be used improperly in connection with servicing activities
that will result in the venting of refrigerants.
Two commenters suggested that a sales restriction will lead
to higher service prices and the creation of a black market
for CFC refrigerants. EPA believes a sales restriction will
not lead to an increase in service prices or the development
of a black market because the cost of certification will not
be burdensome. EPA anticipates the cost of certification to
be slightly higher than the cost for certification under section
609, and will require slightly longer training sessions. Fees
for section 609 technician training and certification vary,
but are in the range of twelve to twenty dollars, and usually
require approximately three hours. The Agency believes adequate
training and section 608 certification will require four to
eight hours with fees ranging between thirty and seventy-five
dollars. The Agency believes it will be far more financially
prudent for technicians to become certified in accordance with
the requirements promulgated under section 608, than to participate
in any black market for refrigerants.
Several commenters stated that wholesalers should be required
to register refrigerant sales by certification number to enable
authorities to track refrigerant use. By recording refrigerant
sales, groups who purchase large quantities of refrigerant could
be easily identified and monitored. However, while this could
aid enforcement authorities, EPA considers this recordkeeping
and monitoring a sizable burden on the wholesalers. In addition,
the Agency does not believe it is necessary or desirable to
track the amount of refrigerant purchased by individual entities
because today's rule does not establish quantity restrictions
on refrigerant purchases. Moreover, this burden could lead to
an increase in overhead costs which would be passed on to the
technician.
Several commenters argued for the transfer of refrigerant
to uncertified delivery personnel. Three commenters stated that
drivers or delivery personnel should not have to provide proof
of certification if they are merely transporting the refrigerant
for a certified technician who will actually perform the service.
Two commenters wrote that often the purchasing activities are
separate from the servicing activities. One commenter declared
that requiring the certified technician to be present at the
time of purchase would be a logistical nightmare. The Agency
understands that often the certified technician will not actually
be present at the time the refrigerant is physically transferred.
The Agency will allow the transfer of refrigerant to delivery
personnel according to the guidelines detailed above.
Nine commenters requested that refrigerant purchasers be
required to present proof of equipment certification before
the sale. EPA views this requirement as unnecessary due to the
requirements concerning the proof of technician certification.
Wholesalers can easily conduct visual checks of technicians'
certification cards, and the use of standardized language will
make these cards easily identifiable.
J. Certification by Owners of Recycling or Recovery Equipment
1. Description of Proposal and Final Rule
EPA proposed and is today requiring owners of recycling or
recovery equipment, including contractors and other business
entities responsible for air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment servicing (such as building owners with in-house service
personnel), to submit a signed statement to the appropriate
EPA Regional office by [Insert date 90 days after publication
of the final rule], stating that they possess sufficient certified
recovery and recycling equipment, or equipment grandfathered
under today's rule, to perform on-site recycling or recovery.
EPA believes this requirement is an important element of an
effective recovery and recycling program. Equipment certification
demonstrates the availability of appropriate equipment for use
by certified technicians.
In addition to the name and address of the contractor, the
statement must include the name of the manufacturer, date the
equipment was manufactured, date of purchase, and if applicable,
the model number and the serial number of the equipment. If
the contractor repairs appliances besides small appliances,
the form must indicate that at least one of the pieces of equipment
listed in the statement is self-contained equipment. The statement
must also include the number of service trucks (or other vehicles)
used to transport technicians and equipment between the
establishment
and job sites in the field. (EPA received comments supporting
the inclusion of both of these information requirements in the
certification statement.) Sample forms may be obtained by
contacting
the Stratospheric Ozone Hotline at 1-800-296-1996.
In addition to the self-certification outlined above, EPA
proposed several options for administering equipment owner
certification.
One option was direct certification by EPA, which required the
equipment owner to submit substantiating documentation of equipment
certification. EPA would then mail a certificate to the equipment
owner. While this option could result in somewhat greater assurance
of compliance with the regulations, the Agency is not requiring
this option because it would be impractical given the large
number of equipment owners and other business entities that
would need to be reviewed and sent certificates. (Estimates
of the number of contractors in the U.S. range from 22,000 to
45,000.) Another similar option was to require the equipment
owner to submit such documentation to approved third-party
certifying
programs; however, EPA is not aware of any potentially interested
organizations. EPA recognizes that third-party certification
may be a more reliable method for ensuring equipment owner
compliance
with these regulations, and the Agency may consider replacing
the self-certification program with third-party certification
at a later date.
2. Response to Major Comments
Twenty-eight commenters supported owner self-certification
as a way to maximize compliance without imposing undue cost
and paperwork burdens on the owners.
Two commenters opposing self-certification remarked how the
lack of a requirement in the proposal for technician certification
would negate the need for owner certification. Without technician
certification, there is less assurance that a recovery/recycling
machine will be used properly, regardless of whether or not
the equipment was certified by the owner. However, through this
rulemaking, EPA is today requiring the certification of all
technicians.
One commenter suggested that equipment certification should
be required within 180 days instead of 90 days, because provisions
permitting the grandfathering of equipment will no longer be
in effect. However, the grandfathering provision does not affect
the self-certification of equipment by owners. Owners must certify
all equipment, including grandfathered equipment. Therefore,
the Agency does not believe extending the deadline would benefit
equipment owners.
One commenter asked EPA to include the phrase "if applicable"
when requesting the model and serial numbers of equipment.
Additionally,
the commenter asked that the phrase "or the last substantial
revision" follow the request for the date of manufacture. EPA
recognizes that some equipment may not have a model or serial
number; therefore the phrase "if applicable" has been added.
However, the Agency does not believe it is necessary to add
"the last substantial revision" to this requirement. The Agency
is interested in the date of manufacture to ensure that equipment
either meets the required standards or is eligible to be
grandfathered,
which is based on the date of manufacture.
K. Certification of Reclaimers
1. Description of Proposed and Final Requirement
In order to ensure the quality of reclaimed refrigerant on
the market, EPA proposed and is today requiring the certification
of reclaimers. Consistent with the proposed rule, reclaimer
certification will involve sending a signed statement from the
reclaimer stating that it: (1) Returns refrigerant to at least
the ARI Standard 700, (2) verifies this purity using the methods
set forth in ARI Standard 700, and (3) disposes of wastes from
the reclamation process in accordance with applicable laws and
regulations. The requirement to dispose of wastes properly is
important since the reclamation process can generate hazardous
wastes. ARI Standard 700 is a purity standard set by the Air-
Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute to ensure that refrigerant
is free of contaminants that can damage air conditioning and
refrigeration equipment.
As proposed, the regulation provides that reclaimers cannot
release more than 1.5 percent of the refrigerant during the
reclamation process. Reclaimers on the STOPAC Subcommittee for
recycling estimated that releases during a well-controlled
reclamation
process range between one and two percent of the quantity. One
reclaimer on the STOPAC committee measured these losses and
found them to be 1.2 percent of the original quantity. The Agency
recognizes that fugitive emissions occur during the production
of ozone-depleting chemicals and that the reclaimers should
not be held to a more stringent requirement. According to
reclaimers
on the STOPAC committee, most releases take place during transfers
of refrigerant between shipping containers and reclamation devices.
Typically, reclamation itself takes place in a closed loop;
refrigerant is not exposed to the atmosphere. Emissions that
occur during this process result from sampling of refrigerant
for purposes of analysis and from purging of noncondensables
(air and other gases with a boiling point lower than that of
refrigerant). Both types of releases are likely to be small;
typically, samples consist of 50 grams of refrigerant, and purging
of noncondensables takes place through a cold trap that recondenses
and traps most of the refrigerant mixed with the air. Although
emissions from reclamation devices have not been quantified
precisely, two reclaimers on the STOPAC subcommittee stated
that emissions fall well under two percent of the quantity of
refrigerant that enters the reclamation process. Based on this
information EPA proposed and is today requiring to limit emissions
from reclaiming facilities to 1.5 percent of the refrigerant
received by them. The Agency estimates that approximately one
percent of the refrigerant will be released during transfers
of refrigerant to and from reclamation devices, and approximately
one half of one percent will be released during the reclamation
process itself.
In addition to the signed statement, the reclaimer must submit
the name and address of all reclamation facilities and a list
of all equipment it employs to analyze the refrigerant. EPA
will periodically publish a list of certified reclaimers, including
the name and address of all reclamation facilities. This list
will be available through the Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Hotline. Reclaimers must also maintain records of the names
and addresses of persons sending material for reclamation and
the quantity of the material (combined mass of refrigerant and
contaminants) sent to them. On an annual basis, reclaimers are
required to keep records of the mass of material sent to them,
the mass of refrigerant reclaimed, and the mass of waste products.
These records are required to ensure that refrigerant releases
are minimized during the reclamation process and to satisfy
reporting requirements under the Montreal Protocol. A copy of
these records must be kept at the reclamation facilities. Based
on discussions with reclaimers, EPA believes that most reclaimers
already keep such records. Reclaimers must report to EPA within
45 days after the end of the calendar year the volume of
refrigerant
received and reclaimed, as well as names of companies or
technicians
that supplied the refrigerant.
EPA will periodically inspect reclaimer facilities to ensure
compliance with EPA regulations. If discrepancies are found,
they must be corrected within a specified time period. If
discrepancies
are not corrected, EPA may suspend or revoke the reclaimer's
certification. The inspections may include, but are not limited
to, an examination of the reclaimer's records, a review of
equipment
employed by the reclaimer measuring the levels of refrigerant
released to the atmosphere and a certification that refrigerant
is purified to the standard set in the regulation.
EPA considered a second option for reclamation in the proposed
rule. The Agency suggested that EPA-approved parties could
administer
reclaimer certification site inspections and/or sampling of
refrigerant. Third-party certification would be more reliable
than self-certification. Inspections and sampling would provide
independent evidence that the ARI-700 standards were being achieved
at the reclamation facility. However, at the time the proposal
was being developed, no potential third-party certifying programs
had established a reclaimer certification program. ARI was
developing
a program, but this program was not yet operational. Today ARI's
Certification Program For Reclaimed Refrigerant is operating.
A directory of all ARI-certified reclaimers, including the phone
number and address of all reclaimer facilities, and a list of
refrigerants reclaimed at these facilities is published twice
a year. EPA encourages these efforts, and believes that such
efforts provide more certainty to the purity of the refrigerant,
and a wider acceptance for the reclaimed refrigerant in the
industry. In the future the Agency may replace its reclaimer
self-certification program with a requirement that reclaimers
be certified by an approved third party.
2. Response to Major Commenters
One commenter stated that it is unnecessary for EPA to require
certification of certain information, including the percent
release limitation and compliance with waste disposal laws.
The commenter believed that it is inappropriate to require
individuals
to certify that they will obey legal requirements. EPA, however,
views self-certification as necessary to ensure that reclaimers
acknowledge the requirements of these regulations. Without this
acknowledgement, reclaimers may be ignorant of the method of
reclaiming and may not take the proper precautions and steps
to ensure purity. The Agency believes that requiring the reclaimer
to certify compliance with the above requirements ensures that
the reclaimer is fully aware of the regulations regarding reclaimed
refrigerant, and provides greater assurance that the reclaimer
will abide by those regulations.
Eighteen commenters supported a requirement for third-party
certification of reclaimers. Several commenters stated that
the need to assure the quality of reclaimed refrigerant on the
market is a strong reason for having third-party certification
and sampling. One commenter declared that third-party certification
is necessary to reduce the risk of contaminated refrigerant
from entering the marketplace and causing potentially costly
damage to air conditioning equipment. As stated above, when
the Agency was developing the proposal, there were no operational
third-party certification programs. EPA believes that the self-
certification program promulgated today provides adequate
assurances
of quality but, as indicated above, the Agency may evaluate
the potential use of third-party certification in the future.
Moreover, the Agency believes that third-party certification
that is accepted by the industry will lend additional credibility
to the purity of the refrigerant and provides a "good housekeeping
seal of approval."
One commenter supported third-party certification to ensure
reclaimers' products meet ARI-700 standards. The commenter believes
there are financial incentives to "cheat" with mixed refrigerants
that exceed the ARI-700 allowable limits. The Agency does not
believe incentives to "cheat" exist. The risk of damaging expensive
air conditioning and refrigeration equipment from refrigerant
contamination, creates a significant incentive to ensure reclaimers
meet ARI-700 standards. EPA reclaimer certification requires
reclaimers to submit a list of all equipment employed by the
reclaimer to analyze the refrigerant, and to certify that the
equipment is properly used. This requirement assures EPA that
reclaimers own and use appropriate equipment for achieving ARI-
700.
Five commenters supported the proposed recordkeeping
requirements
for reclaimers. One commenter remarked that records should be
maintained at the facility available for EPA review. The Agency
does require through this rulemaking that records must be readily
available for review and that a copy of the records be maintained
at the reclamation centers.
One commenter supported a more stringent maximum limit of
1 percent emissions by reclaimer facilities. Reclaimers on the
STOPAC Subcommittee for recycling estimated that releases during
a well-controlled reclamation process range between one and
two percent of the quantity. Based on this information, as well
as additional information provided by actual measurements at
one reclaimer's facilities, the Agency is maintaining its proposed
requirement that reclaimers not emit more than 1.5 percent of
the refrigerant during the reclamation process. EPA is concerned
that requirements which are too stringent may impose unnecessary
financial burdens on the reclaimer.
One commenter stated that reclaimed refrigerant should be
labeled and sold as "reclaimed" rather than as "new" refrigerant.
EPA believes that if the refrigerant is reclaimed to ARI-700
standards, it is not necessary to label the refrigerant as
reclaimed.
Often new refrigerant is mixed with reclaimed refrigerant meeting
the ARI-700 standards. After the phaseout becomes effective,
many of these refrigerants will only be available as reclaimed
products.
One commenter stated that general education efforts on
reclamation
are needed, especially related to issues such as awareness,
operational and maintenance options, equipment safety, and
transportation
packaging requirements. EPA agrees that education about reclamation
is necessary. The Agency encourages organizations involved with
reclamation to create and distribute informational brochures.
The Agency regularly releases various fact sheets and informational
brochures about topics related to refrigerant use. Information
on reclamation is included. The Agency may consider creating
or participating in a more extensive informational campaign
at a later date. In addition, the Agency believes that third-
party certification will serve the role of educating reclaimers
on the necessary requirements.
Two commenters stated that the final rule should provide
for reclaimer decertification in the case of enforcement actions
for violations of the reclaimer requirements. Decertified
reclaimers
should be removed from the list of certified reclaimers, with
reinstatement possible after actions are undertaken that would
render their products acceptable for sale. The proposal and
today's rule includes a provision for decertification. If
discrepancies
are found, reclaimers may be asked to correct the discrepancies
within a specified time period. Failure to rectify the situation
may result in revocation or suspension of the certification
of the reclaimer.
L. Recordkeeping Requirements
EPA has established the following recordkeeping requirements:
1. Equipment Certification Programs.
EPA is requiring equipment certification programs to maintain
records of equipment testing and performance in addition to
a list of equipment that meets EPA requirements.
2. Wholesalers.
Wholesalers are required to maintain the usual business records
of their refrigerant transactions, including the name of the
buyer and the quantity sold.
3. Reclaimers.
As discussed in section III.K, reclaimers are required to
maintain records of the names and addresses of persons sending
them material for reclamation and the quantity of the material
(the combined mass of refrigerant and contaminants) sent to
them. On an annual basis, reclaimers are required to keep records
of the mass of material sent to them, the mass of refrigerant
reclaimed, and the mass of waste products. These records are
required to ensure that refrigerant releases are minimized during
the reclamation process. Based on discussions with reclaimers,
EPA believes that most reclaimers already keep such records.
4. Recovery and Recycling Equipment Owners.
Section 82.162 requires that persons maintaining, servicing,
or repairing appliances (except for MVACs), and persons disposing
of appliances (except small appliances, MVACs and MVAC-like
equipment) must certify that such person has acquired and is
properly using certified recovery or recycling equipment. By
providing the Agency with information on equipment obtained
and properly used, this certification will facilitate adequate
enforcement of this regulation.
5. Disposers.
Persons disposing of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like
appliances must maintain copies of signed statements obtained
in accordance with 82.156(f)(ii). Such statements verify that
the refrigerant has been evacuated from the appliance or shipment
of appliances previously. Persons who knowingly provide false
statements will be subject to criminal penalties. By maintaining
these signed statements, the disposer is able to show that proper
evacuation occurred at a point in the disposal stream before
reaching the disposer, thus shielding the latter from liability.
6. Technician Certification Programs.
Appendix D of this rulemaking outlines recordkeeping
requirements
for those programs certifying technicians, which include but
are not limited to the names and addresses of all individuals
taking the tests, the scores of all certification tests
administered,
and the dates and locations of all tests administered.
Certifying programs must send EPA an activity report every
six months. This report will include the pass/fail rate and
testing schedules. This will allow the agency to determine the
relative progress and success of these programs. If the certifying
program believes a test bank question needs to be modified,
information about that question should also be included.
Approved certifying programs will receive a letter of approval
from EPA. The Agency is requiring that each testing center display
a copy of that letter.
7. Owners/Operators of Air-conditioning and Refrigeration
Equipment.
The Agency is requiring owners/operators to maintain records
of servicing. The Agency believes that records of the service
calls and amounts of refrigerant added to machines will assist
technicians in their determination of leak rate and would also
assist owners of equipment in the determination of the need
for leak repair. The Agency believes these records, primarily
in the form of service invoices, are already kept by equipment
owners and therefore this requirement is not an additional burden
on them. These records must also include refrigerant purchased
and added to equipment each month in cases where owners add
their own refrigerant.
M. The Safe Disposal Program
In the December 10, 1992 proposal, EPA proposed requirements
for the safe disposal of class I and class II substances as
required in section 608 (b)(1) and (b)(3). EPA proposed a flexible
regulatory approach to capture the refrigerant contained in
equipment that enters the waste stream with the charge intact
(household refrigerators and freezers, MVACs, room air
conditioners,
dehumidifiers, water coolers) to reflect the diversity of the
disposal sector across the country. The Agency proposed that
the final link in the disposal chain be responsible for assuring
that refrigerant has been removed from equipment, although the
final processor could require that refrigerant be removed before
they accept equipment. One-time reporting to the Agency by
establishments
performing refrigerant removal was proposed. EPA did not propose
mandatory certification of technicians removing refrigerant
from equipment destined for disposal, although the development
of guidance documents to assist technicians was discussed. The
proposal also required that equipment used to recover refrigerant
at disposal must meet a performance standard.
Many of the public comments received supported the flexible
regulatory approach taken by the Agency in this section. Specific
comments were received on the recovery of CFC-11 from foam
insulation,
the registration of entities performing refrigerant removal
and technician training. Commenters also discussed the performance
standard for recovery equipment, recordkeeping and labeling
of equipment that has been properly evacuated.
This section will address the major issues raised by commenters
regarding safe disposal of equipment containing class I and
class II substances. Comments not addressed here are answered
in a comment response document available in the public docket
for this rule.
1. Scope
In the proposal, the Agency stated that the specific
requirements
in the safe disposal section of the rule focused on equipment
that enters the waste stream with the refrigerant charge intact,
i.e., equipment containing class I and class II refrigerant
"in bulk." The Agency stated that the equipment that enters
the waste stream with the charge of class I or class II refrigerant
intact includes household refrigerators and freezers, MVACs,
room air conditioners, dehumidifiers, water coolers, and some
other relatively portable equipment. For all other refrigeration
and air-conditioning equipment, the refrigerant must be removed
before dismantling of the equipment in accordance with the
requirements
concerning servicing discussed earlier. Dismantling on-site
of equipment of this type is an accepted industry practice.
Two commenters supported this distinction made in the proposal
while one commenter, the Institute of Scrap Metal Recycling
(ISRI), maintained that this distinction was artificial and
not contemplated by Congress.
EPA made the distinction between equipment that is dismantled
on-site and equipment that enters the waste stream with the
charge intact because of the differences between the two types
of equipment once they reach the end of their useful lives.
Large equipment dismantled on-site must have refrigerant removed
as part of the dismantling process because there is no other
option that will result in successful recovery of refrigerant.
The equipment is not moved off the site in one piece and
dismantling
results in release of the refrigerant. This equipment cannot
enter the waste stream with the charge intact, while appliances
and MVACs can and frequently do enter the waste stream with
the charge intact. By making the distinction, EPA did not intend
to prohibit the removal of refrigerant from equipment such as
household appliances and MVACS in the home or the place of
operation.
The intent was that this equipment could be evacuated at any
one of several stages, either before it entered the waste stream
or once in the waste stream. In general, the safest and most
cost-effective stage for refrigerant removal is an intermediate
processor within the waste stream; EPA's flexible regulations
are designed to allow that to happen. The distinction discussed
above is maintained in today's final rule.
The proposal did not include requirements to recover CFC-
11 from foam insulation used in buildings or appliances. With
respect to foam that is an inherent element in buildings, EPA
determined that such regulations are not required by section
608 of the Act at this time. The Safe Disposal requirements
that appear in section 608(b) of the Act are simply part of
the section 608(a) regulations (the servicing requirements
discussed
previously in this final rule) and therefore are subject to
the deadlines contained in section 608(a). As section 608(a)
requires only that regulations concerning appliances and industrial
process refrigeration be promulgated at this time, it does not
require regulations concerning the disposal of foam insulation
that is an inherent element of buildings (which are neither
appliances nor industrial process refrigeration). Furthermore,
removing building insulation during the process of demolition
is difficult and exceptionally resource intensive. The long
average lifetime of buildings and the slow release of the CFCs
throughout the lifetime of the insulation results in possible
retrieval of only residual amounts of CFC. The Agency is not
aware of any existing or developmental technology to remove
CFCs from building insulation even if the insulation could
effectively
be removed. Only three commenters specifically addressed recovery
of CFC-11 from building insulation and all three agreed with
EPA's determination.
With respect to foam insulation used in appliances, which
is covered by section 608(a), the Agency received several comments
that concurred with the statement in the proposal that it was
premature to require recovery of CFC-11 at this time. NRDC and
FOE, however, commented that EPA had neglected to make a finding
as to whether recovering the CFCs trapped within such foam would
produce "insignificant environmental benefits". Section 608(b)(3)
states "that any product in which a class I or class II substance
is incorporated so as to constitute an inherent element of such
product shall be disposed of in a manner that reduces, to the
maximum extent practicable, the release of such substances to
the environment. If the Administrator determines that the
application
of this paragraph to any product would result in producing only
insignificant environmental benefits, the Administrator shall
include in such regulations an exception for such product."
NRDC and FOE maintain that the emission of CFC-11 from foam
insulation in appliances cannot be dismissed as insignificant.
The Agency believes that there are significant technical
and practicable uncertainties and problems in attempting to
retrieve CFC-11 from foam. First, uncertainties exist regarding
the amount of CFC-11 remaining in foam insulation once the
appliance
reaches the end of its useful life. The rate of dissipation
out of the foam varies based on construction and the CFC-11
also can migrate from the enclosed cells into the foam matrix.
Concern over this uncertainty was raised in the November, 1992
meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Copenhagen.
Second, although the Agency is aware of the development and
limited use of CFC-11 foam retrieval technology for appliances
in Germany, a great deal of uncertainty remains concerning the
practicality of this technology for widespread use in this country
at this time. Initial equipment cost is approximately $1-1.5
million per retrieval machine and operating expenses are expected
to be at least equal to that figure on an annual basis because
the activity, including removal of foam panels by hand, is labor
intensive and the processing is energy intensive. Uncertainty
also exists concerning the capacity of the equipment and the
number of facilities that would need to be established around
the country to process the 10 million appliances discarded
annually.
One commenter, Appliance Recycling Centers of America (ARCA),
stated that they recently began a demonstration project with
a utility to use the German technology in the United States.
ARCA commented that it believes the decision to require this
type of fully integrated appliance recycling system nationwide
is premature at this time and the Agency is convinced by their
statements because of their experience with the technology.
They commented that the decision to establish a fully integrated
appliance recycling program (including refrigerant removal,
retrieval of CFC-11 from foam, capacitor removal and other
activities
such as mercury switch removal) should be left to State and
local governments at this time because of the uncertainties
regarding cost, capacity, recovery rate of CFC-11 and the
difficulty
in designing nationwide requirements that are viable within
the variety of state and local waste disposal programs.
An additional element of uncertainty regarding the establishment
of a nationwide requirement to recover CFC-11 from foam is the
progress towards a practical technology for direct destruction
of foam insulation and the CFC-11 it contains. The Agency is
aware of potential demonstration projects involving foam insulation
destruction in the United States which may prove to offer cost
efficiencies and increased environmental benefit as compared
to recovery of CFC-11 from insulation. These demonstration projects
are still in the planning stages. The Agency is interested in
any information concerning the practicality of foam destruction
technology in this country and will consider regulation once
more information is collected.
Considering the uncertainty about the amounts retrievable,
the viability of widespread use of CFC-11 removal technology
in this country and the potential role for destruction technology
in the future, the Agency believes requirements to remove CFC-
11 from foam are not practicable at this time and as a consequence,
the Agency has not included such requirements in the final rule
published today.
2. Regulatory Approach
As discussed in the proposed rule, state and municipal
authorities
have traditionally designed and implemented waste management
programs, including disposal and recycling systems for used
appliances and motor vehicles. EPA's proposed regulatory approach
was designed to ensure that the maximum amount of ozone-depleting
substances are recovered before recycling or disposal of the
used equipment by building on the waste disposal networks that
currently exist. Regulatory flexibility in this area is essential
for the success of the Safe Disposal Program. The proposal,
therefore, established a general requirement that refrigerant
be recovered before the final step in the disposal of equipment,
but did not place a requirement solely on one specific entity
in the disposal chain. The proposed rule did highlight, however,
that ultimately it was the responsibility of the final link
in the disposal chain to assure that the refrigerant has been
removed.
Although most of the comments that the Agency received supported
the concept of a flexible regulatory approach for the safe disposal
program, commenters were approximately evenly divided concerning
the issue of what party should be ultimately responsible for
removal of refrigerant. Several commenters believe that the
responsibility to remove refrigerant should lie with the generator
of the equipment. Commenters did not specify who the generator
was other than to indicate it could be anyone who owned the
equipment or delivered equipment to the landfill or scrap recycler.
ISRI and other commenters contend that section 608(b)(1) requires
that EPA's regulations mandate the recovery of ozone-depleting
refrigerants from appliances prior to their delivery for recycling.
This contention is based on the language of section 608(b)(1),
which states that class I and class II substances contained
in bulk "shall be removed from each such appliance, machine
or other good prior to the disposal of such items or their delivery
for recycling." According to ISRI, this language also distinguishes
recycling of appliances from their disposal, and means that
goods containing ozone-depleting substances must be evacuated
prior to their delivery to the recycler. EPA believes, however,
that recycling can be considered as one form of disposal and
proposed that as part of the definition of recycling found in
82.152. EPA notes that if recycling were totally distinct
from disposal, recyclers would not be covered by the venting
prohibition in section 608(c), which applies to the release
of ozone-depleting refrigerants in "the course of maintaining,
servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance." Based on
this interpretation, the venting prohibition would refer only
to disposal, but not recycling. ISRI itself, however, states
that recyclers are covered by the venting prohibition, implicitly
indicating that recycling is a form of disposal. EPA also notes
that the Act provides that the regulations under section 608(a),
of which 608(b) regulations are but one part, are to concern
the use and disposal of class I and class II substances "during
the service, repair or disposal" of air-conditioning and
refrigeration
equipment. (Emphasis added.) Moreover, section 608(b)(2) provides
that the section 608(a) regulations are to require that appliances
or other equipment containing class I or II substances in bulk
be "equipped with a servicing aperture or equally effective
design feature which will facilitate the recapture of such
substance
during the service and repair or disposal of" the equipment.
(Emphasis added.) This statutory language clearly indicates
that Congress contemplated that EPA's regulations would deal
with the removal of refrigerant during the disposal process
and that EPA's approach-requiring that the refrigerant be removed
prior to the last step in the disposal process-is consistent
with the statutory language. As a consequence, EPA believes
that although the language in section 608(b) clearly authorizes
EPA to mandate the removal of CFCs and other ozone-depleting
substances from appliances prior to their delivery for recycling,
it does not require EPA to do so.
The Agency wishes to clarify that the prohibition on venting
refrigerant includes individuals who are preparing to dispose
of a used appliance. This does not mean that EPA encourages
individual owners of single appliances to remove refrigerant;
in fact, the Agency discourages this activity. Nevertheless,
however, individuals may not knowingly release refrigerant from
their used appliance. If the individual chooses to recover the
refrigerant, he or she must conform to the equipment requirements
in 82.158 and the required practices in 82.156. The Agency
has also further clarified 82.156(f) to highlight that it
is the ultimate disposer, the last entity in the disposal chain,
that must either remove the refrigerant or obtain verification
that refrigerant has been removed previously. As a result of
these clarifying changes, the Agency is deleting from the proposal
section 82.154(l), which required refrigerant removal before
disposal, because it is now redundant.
ISRI and Universal Appliance Recycling suggest that the Agency
consider the regulations developed in the state of Wisconsin
as a model program. The Wisconsin program specifies that any
person who delivers equipment to a scrap metal recycler must
first remove the refrigerant or accept a written statement from
the recycler that the recycler will remove the refrigerant.
The program also requires approved equipment and certification
requirements for individuals who use the equipment.
The Agency is aware of the Wisconsin program and applauds
its development as an effective method to recover refrigerant
from salvaged items. The proposed EPA regulations do not in
any way prohibit the type of program developed in Wisconsin
and the Agency encourages states and localities to consider
the Wisconsin model as a complement to their existing waste
disposal programs. As for adopting this state program across
the country, however, EPA believes this would be counter to
its stated goals of flexibility and interest in allowing local
and state governments to establish programs compatible with
their solid waste recycling laws, ordinances and available
technologies.
One commenter, the Appliance Recycling Centers of America,
suggested
that "over the next several years, the Agency should work with
the states to determine which types of approaches work best
for specific municipal solid waste management systems" and that
is exactly the Agency's intention.
An example of the benefits of the Agency maintaining a flexible
approach regarding specific components to the safe disposal
program is found in the comments that suggest a mandatory label
be affixed to equipment that has had refrigerant properly
evacuated.
The Agency received several comments requesting a mandatory
brightly colored label be attached to equipment. Some types
of labeling are already being implemented in parts of the country.
Other commenters suggest that mandatory labels would be difficult
to locate on equipment that has been crushed. They maintain
that verifying labels would add costs to the already fragile
economics of the scrap recycling industry and therefore result
in a cessation of recycling of appliances and automobiles. The
Wisconsin program does not require labels, although it does
require documentation that refrigerant removal has occurred.
EPA believes the correct approach for the Federal program continues
to be flexibility that allows localities to use labels or
certification
where appropriate; but, nationwide labeling or certification
is not required under this regulation.
EPA maintains that the flexible regulatory approach is
consistent
with Congressional intent in sections 608 (b) and (c). EPA would
like to clarify that it does not specifically require the last
link in the disposal chain to remove refrigerant and, in fact,
the Agency believes that the most cost-effective stage to remove
refrigerant is typically not the scrap metal processor or the
landfill operator, but an intermediate processor. The goal of
the program is to provide the flexibility needed to permit the
removal of refrigerant by the entity in the disposal chain that
can accomplish the removal most efficiently. This goal must
be combined with the venting prohibition, which does not allow
the knowing release of class I or class II substances to the
environment. In its comments, ISRI details realistic and specific
steps a facility operator could take to ensure the proper recovery
of CFCs and to avoid venting CFCs from inbound scrap materials.
The procedures outlined include sending a letter to suppliers
stating that refrigerant must be removed before equipment is
accepted, posting signs at intake locations stating the facility's
requirements regarding proper CFC removal, and requiring
certification
that CFCs have been removed. These steps constitute good faith
efforts to fulfill the requirements of the venting prohibition
and are exactly the type of procedures the Agency envisioned
would be taken by processors not interested in removing refrigerant
themselves. The Agency has incorporated more specificity in
the Required Practice rule language ( 82.156(f)) regarding
the steps a person must take if not recovering the refrigerant
themselves.
In the proposal, the Agency suggested, but did not require,
that periodic inspections be used as a method for the processor
to determine that the claims being made by certifiers are true.
Commercial Metal Company's comments included a scenario where
the scrap processor would be held liable if a certifier stated
that they removed 90 percent of the refrigerant while only actually
removing 85 percent. The Agency wishes to clarify that if the
processor did not know and had no reason to know that the
certification
was false, then he or she would not be liable for violating
the regulations.
ISRI asked that the Agency specify that a presumption exists
that refrigerant is no longer present in equipment that arrives
at the scrap facility already crushed. The Agency understands
that crushed automobiles commonly arrive at scrap facilities
and that such automobiles no longer contain refrigerant.
Consequently,
it may be safely presumed that refrigerant is no longer present
in equipment that is received in such condition. This clarification
does not alter the responsibility to obtain certification when
receiving equipment from suppliers.
The procedures mentioned by a few commenters that scrap
recyclers
or landfill operators tell suppliers to simply "cut the refrigerant
lines" before delivering equipment to them are clearly unacceptable
because they direct the supplier to violate the statute and
the regulations. The knowing release of refrigerant to the
atmosphere
is a violation of the venting prohibition and accepting
certification
that equipment has been properly evacuated knowing that the
certification is false is a violation of the regulation.
3. Registration of Entities
EPA proposed a one-time certification or registration
requirement
for those entities that recover refrigerant before disposal
or recycling of equipment. This proposal was similar to the
reporting requirement for the servicing sector, requiring name
and address of the establishment, manufacturer name, model number,
date of manufacture, the serial number of the equipment, and
a statement that the equipment would be used properly. The
registration
was to be sent to the appropriate Regional office.
Five commenters supported one-time registration and one
commenter
did not support the requirement. ARCA stated that it believed
more frequent reporting would be helpful, although they suggested
that the information would be the most useful at the state level.
The Agency agrees that the reporting of basic information regarding
disposal is important for enforcement purposes and maintains
the registration requirement in today's final rule. Although
use of a specific form is not required, the Agency has modified
the example form provided in the proposal to include a check
box for those individuals performing disposal only. The Agency
understands that the requested data concerning serial numbers
is not necessary for self-built equipment.
4. Certification to Final Processors
The proposal discussed the situation where the establishment
that performs the disposal or recycling of the appliance or
MVAC equipment chooses not to remove refrigerant or is unable
to remove it (for example, the scrap recyclers who receive crushed
cars). The Agency proposed the option of a certification procedure
between the final processor and the suppliers of the goods or
machines stating that the ozone-depleting chemicals have been
properly removed. The proposed elements of the certification
could vary based on the individual establishments involved;
however, the Agency proposed that the final processors require
suppliers to give the name and address of the person who recovered
the refrigerant and the date refrigerant was recovered.
EPA discussed the option of combining the certification with
a symbol or mark made on each piece of equipment that has had
the refrigerant removed by the supplier. The Agency stated that
this certification allows the final processors to continue to
accept goods and machines for scrap recycling while being assured
that their suppliers have removed refrigerant. The certification
would not be sent to the Agency.
Commenters in general were in favor of some type of
certification
between the final processor and the recoverer of the refrigerant
in the cases where the final processor does not remove the
refrigerant
itself. They agreed that there was no need to send the
certification
to the Agency, although many commenters suggested more flexibility
in the elements of the certification. Several commenters suggested
that certification be allowed for shipments of equipment instead
of for each individual piece, especially in cases where the
equipment is received already crushed. The Automotive Dismantlers'
and Recyclers Association (ADRA) requested that vehicle recyclers
be exempted from any recordkeeping or reporting to final processors
because of the burden the requirements place on these small,
family-run businesses. Finally, AHAM suggested that the Agency
specifically limit the elements to name, address and date of
refrigerant removal in order to restrict localities or individual
final processors from requiring more information.
The intent of the Agency in specifying the elements of the
certification between parties was to give guidance on the types
of elements that the Agency believed necessary for an individual
to be assured that refrigerant had been properly evacuated from
equipment. As stated above, the Agency believes flexibility
is important in this program to allow for the variability of
local circumstances. As a result, the Agency has modified the
requirements of a certification between two parties to allow
for a single certification for a shipment of equipment or other
similar provisions, such as a contract between two parties stating
that one party has the responsibility to remove refrigerant
from equipment before delivery. The Agency believes that the
contract option is appropriate for businesses such as the
automotive
dismantlers to streamline transactions in cases where they maintain
long-standing business relationships with the scrap dealers.
The change also reflects the fact that the stated requirements
are a minimum and individuals, localities or states may ask
for additional information if they wish.
The Agency received several comments on the proposed suggestion
that labels or marks be placed on equipment once it had been
evacuated. As stated in section 2 above, commenters were divided
on the need and utility of marking individual pieces of equipment.
Although the Agency understands that marking appliances can
be a useful method to identify evacuated equipment and that
some localities have already incorporated this idea, it may
not be useful in all cases. As a result, the Agency will continue
to offer marking or labeling appliances as a program suggestion,
but will not require it.
Two commenters felt that the last sentence of 82.156(f)(2),
which states that the signed statement between the entities
"does not relieve the disposer of responsibility for recovering
any refrigerant that remains in the appliance", is unfair and
exceeds the requirements of the venting prohibition. They maintain
that the scrap facility expects the requirements of the written
agreement would be performed and should not be held liable for
knowingly releasing ozone-depleting substances. The Agency believes
that certification should reflect that refrigerant was properly
removed (i.e. according to the standards set out in this
regulation).
If the certification is accepted in good faith, then the Agency
agrees with the commenters that the entity receiving the
certification
is relieved of their liability. If the entity accepting the
certification knows or should know that refrigerant remains
in the appliance, they would still be held liable, however.
As stated in the proposal, the Agency wishes to clarify that,
as in the case of the final processor that chooses not to remove
refrigerant, the supplier to the final processor does not have
to remove the refrigerant but then must assure, through an
accompanying
certification, that refrigerant has been removed earlier in
the disposal chain. Any copies of the certificate of removal
provided to the supplier could be passed on to the final processor.
5. Technician Training
In the proposal, the Agency discussed the information needed
by technicians to perform refrigerant removal from appliances
including MVACs and concluded that the level of expertise required
for recycling and recovery in the disposal sector may not be
as high as that required in the servicing sector. The salvaging
sector differs from servicing in that the technicians do not
reintroduce refrigerant to equipment, they simply remove it.
Other factors considered were the lack of trade associations
or groups that may represent the wide variety of technicians
that may perform the refrigerant removal activity and that the
technicians involved in the removal of refrigerant may only
perform this activity occasionally. As a result, the Agency
did not propose technician certification requirements and instead
stated it would develop guidance documents regarding refrigerant
removal with the assistance of industry.
Seven commenters stated that they believed mandatory technician
certification should be required in the disposal sector, as
well as the servicing sector. Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling
Service Company, Inc. described several technical situations
to illustrate the need for technician training for the proper
removal of refrigerant. One commenter noted that technician
certification should be required precisely because the individuals
who will perform the removal only do so occasionally and therefore
do not have as much knowledge as the servicing technicians.
Consistency with the servicing requirements of both section
608 and section 609, the amount of refrigerant available in
the disposal sector, and the difficulty in distributing guidance
material were also given as reasons for mandatory technician
certification requirements.
The Agency believes that refrigerant recovery from any sector
requires knowledge of both the equipment used to recover
refrigerant
and the appliance that is to be evacuated. Refrigerants are
pressurized gases that could pose safety risks if not handled
properly, the substances must be kept separate to be of value,
and evacuation equipment must be used correctly to be effective.
By not requiring technician certification, the Agency did not
intend to imply that anyone could perform these activities without
training. Instead, the proposal reflected the fact that recovery
of refrigerant is a simpler task than the combination of recovering
refrigerant and returning refrigerant (at the appropriate purity
level) to equipment. The disposal sector is distinct from the
servicing sectors of both section 608 and 609 in that refrigerant
is not returned to equipment. A large amount of emphasis is
placed on avoiding equipment contamination in the technician
certification programs and this is not an issue at disposal.
Purchasing refrigerant is also not necessary in the disposal
sector, but technician certification is linked to the ability
to continue to purchase new refrigerant needed for servicing
equipment.
The Agency has developed a guidance document alerting state
and local government officials of the environmental consequences
of releasing refrigerant, refrigerant salvage techniques, the
importance of not mixing different refrigerants, and the importance
of selling the recovered substance to reclamation facilities
for purification before reuse. The document discusses successful
refrigerant removal programs that already exist and the Agency
believes it is a useful first step in developing simple, readily
available training material. EPA intends to develop additional
documents to assist the disposal sector in implementing the
requirements of the final rule.
Appliance Recycling Centers of America commented that "the
Agency would be most effective in a coordinating role and in
assisting states as they develop local training programs". The
Agency agrees with the commenter and welcomes any additional
comments or suggestions regarding appropriate projects, guidance,
or assistance needed.
6. Performance Standards for Recovery Equipment
In the proposal, the Agency required that the equipment used
to recover refrigerant from appliances and motor vehicles meet
the same performance standards as equipment required for servicing,
except that passive systems would not be permitted for use with
appliances at disposal. EPA did not propose to require
certification
of that equipment but instead proposed allowing individuals
to develop their own equipment while setting performance
requirements
for the efficiency the Agency expects the equipment to meet.
The efficiency standards proposed were 102 mm of mercury vacuum
for MVACs and 90 percent evacuation of refrigerant for other
small appliances. Any equipment intended for sale for use in
salvaging operations must meet the efficiency standards and
the Agency recommended independent laboratory tests to assure
that the equipment complies with industry safety standards.
These tests would be the same as those for equipment intended
for servicing.
Several commenters agreed that performance standards were
an appropriate method for regulating the efficiency of the
equipment
used in the disposal sector. ARI, however, stated that all
equipment
should be certified in order to assure that equipment can reach
efficiency levels before it is used. Although EPA agrees that
the efficiency levels are important, the Agency remains unconvinced
as to the benefit of extending the recovery equipment certification
program for the servicing sector to the disposal sector. The
Agency encourages the salvaging sector to use certified equipment
when possible; however, the Agency is aware that some operations
in the disposal sector frequently involve the evacuation of
several pieces of equipment simultaneously. Some entities that
are already evacuating equipment at disposal have built their
own equipment suitable for their specific circumstances and
are able to perform their salvage operations quickly and
efficiently.
The Agency would like to continue to encourage these activities
and keep the burden of compliance low for the disposal sector.
The Agency believes that there is a powerful incentive to recover
as much refrigerant as possible once recovery is attempted because
the refrigerant is a valuable product. Therefore, the Agency
maintains the proposed performance standard concept in today's
rule.
Several comments were received regarding the proposal to
allow only active equipment to be used in the disposal sector.
The small appliance disposal sector was distinguished from the
small appliance servicing sector, where both active and passive
systems were proposed as acceptable, because EPA was concerned
that passive recovery would generally be less efficient and
would require increased time for operation. On the other hand,
the Agency also stated that a requirement to use only active
equipment for small appliance disposal may make compliance more
difficult and therefore less likely in some instances. Five
commenters, including NRDC/FOE, suggested that the requirement
remain as proposed, two commenters requested a deeper vacuum
be required at disposal, and seven commenters, including AHAM,
suggested that system-dependent (passive) equipment should not
be excluded from the disposal sector.
Although EPA believes that system-dependent equipment will
not play a large role in the disposal sector, especially in
situations where several appliances are being evacuated at once,
it has changed the performance requirements for the disposal
sector to match those of the servicing sector. The primary reason
for the change is because of the comment from AHAM that highlighted
the potential overlap between the sectors and the possible scenario
where a technician legally using a system-dependent device to
service the appliance would not be allowed to recover the
refrigerant
from the same appliance if it were targeted for disposal. The
Agency is aware of localities where the only option for refrigerant
recovery from appliances is removal by service technicians and
the Agency does not want to eliminate this compliance option.
Obtaining compliance from as many technicians as possible and
facilitating removal of refrigerant is a primary goal of the
safe disposal program. Therefore, the equipment efficiency
requirements
have been modified to mirror the equipment efficiency requirements
for the servicing sector (see 82.158(l/m)).
The proposal discussed the difficulties of refrigerant recovery
from systems using CFC-12 when the ambient temperature falls
below 60 degrees F. One commenter stated that many larger recovery
operations actually occur indoors, although the Agency understands
that smaller operations may indeed occur outside. Methods, such
as heating, to raise recovery efficiency were described by
commenters.
EPA believes market incentives exist, once recovery is attempted,
to maximize the amount of refrigerant technicians try to recover
for sale and, therefore, prescribed procedures are not necessary.
The Agency intends to incorporate solutions into guidance documents
to this, and other problems, as they are raised.
Finally, the Agency wishes to remind individuals gathering
refrigerant at disposal that the refrigerant must be sold to
reclamation facilities for purification before it is reintroduced
into the servicing sector.
In summary, the safe disposal requirements in today's final
rule maintain the flexibility proposed on December 10, 1992.
EPA has further specified the procedures that final processors
may require from their suppliers who remove refrigerant and
the performance capability of equipment used is now consistent
with the servicing sector. Technicians are not required to be
certified but individuals who perform refrigerant recovery must
provide basic information to the EPA Regional Offices. For a
section by section summary of changes made to the proposed rule,
see section IV.
N. Servicing Apertures
Section 608 (b)(2) of the Act directs EPA to promulgate
regulations
requiring that any "appliance, machine, or other good containing
a class I or class II substance in bulk shall not be manufactured,
sold, or distributed in interstate commerce or offered for sale
or distribution in interstate commerce unless it is equipped
with a servicing aperture or an equally effective design feature"
to facilitate removal of refrigerant at servicing and disposal.
In today's notice, EPA is finalizing the requirement that all
air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment manufactured after
November 15, 1993 be equipped with a servicing aperture or an
equally effective design feature.
In the proposed rule the Agency differentiated between
appliances
that contained less than one pound of refrigerant and appliances
that contained more. EPA made this distinction to separate
appliances
that would require servicing apertures and those that would
require process stubs or "pigtails". However, in light of comments
received with the publication of the proposed rule, the Agency
intends to distinguish equipment based on the definition of
small appliances found in section III. E. of this rule for the
purposes of this requirement. Based on this distinction, the
Agency requires that all small appliances be manufactured with
a process stub or "pigtail" within six months after publication
of this final rule. The Agency altered this requirement in order
to include other appliances that could contain more than one
pound of charge but that normally have a process stub rather
than a servicing aperture. These appliances include water coolers,
window air conditioners, packaged terminal air conditioners,
heat pumps, package terminal heat pumps, freezers and
refrigerators,
as well as any other equipment included in the definition of
small appliance. The Agency recognizes that such equipment rarely
requires entry into the refrigerant system, and that by requiring
a servicing aperture could significantly increase possible leak
rates. Since these systems rarely lose refrigerant during their
current operation, the Agency did not want to incur emissions
by requiring a servicing aperture for this equipment.
As proposed, the Agency is not dictating where the servicing
aperture or the process stub should be placed for this equipment
in today's rule. Several commenters believed that the Agency
should specify the placement of the process stub and servicing
aperture for different types of equipment, and that the common
design does not allow for isolation of components to enable
removal of liquid refrigerants. Given the varying types of air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment in the market, however,
the Agency could not accurately determine the appropriate placement
of these valves in all equipment. The Agency believes that
manufacturers
themselves are best suited to decide the placement of these
valves. Manufacturers can decide the appropriate placement of
these valves, balancing potential leak rates, due to poor
placement,
with the need to easily recover the refrigerant.
Several commenters believed that the use of schraeder valves,
flared or compression fittings and clamp-on piercing access
valves should be prohibited. Valve cores restrict flow of liquid
refrigerant and provide easy access for vandals. Adapters for
charging hoses are not 100 percent leak-free as some adapters
trap the refrigerant in the hose which allows for possible cross
contamination into other clean systems.
However, several commenters stated that schraeder valves
should not be prohibited, and that it is the technician and
not the valve that is the problem. If the isolated portion of
the system has been pumped down to atmospheric pressure, then
there is little or no loss when there is a need to remove the
valve stem. Other commenters stated that the schraeder valves
are effective devices that actually minimize leaks, and although
they tend to slow the process of recovering refrigerant, there
are devices that will remove the valve core to speed up the
process.
In today's final rule, the Agency is not prohibiting the
use of schraeder valves on small appliances. EPA believes that
such valves assist in the recovery of refrigerant, and that
concerns for their release of refrigerant can be minimized through
proper use. All schraeder valves should be capped while not
in use.
O. Exemption from Regulatory Requirements for Refrigerant Uses
for Which No High-Efficiency Recovery Technology Exists
In the proposal, EPA requested comment on whether it should
set up a procedure to grant exemptions from this rule's
requirements
for refrigerant uses for which no suitable, high-efficiency
recovery technology existed. The Agency noted that it had been
contacted by a technician servicing very high-pressure
refrigeration
equipment that could neither be evacuated on site using self-
contained (active) recovery equipment nor transported to a shop
where self-contained recovery equipment was located. Based on
this example, EPA was concerned that it might not be possible
to comply with the rule's requirements while servicing or disposing
of some types of appliances in some types of applications. The
Agency emphasized that exemptions would only be granted under
very limited circumstances, and that the burden of proof of
the need for an exemption would lie on the person seeking it.
EPA received several comments favoring the establishment
of a procedure whereby the Agency could review requests for
exemption on a case-by-case basis. One commenter agreed with
the need for an exemption process, but believed that exemptions
should only be granted until applicable recovery technologies
were developed. Other commenters favored the up-front exemption
of certain sectors, such as airplanes and small appliances,
from the rule. Two commenters stated that there should be no
exemptions from the rule.
As discussed in section III. F, the Agency is allowing use
of system-dependent (passive) equipment with less than 15 pounds
of very high-pressure refrigerants (as well as other refrigerants),
which will allow individuals recovering less than 15 pounds
of very high-pressure refrigerants with system-dependent equipment
to continue doing so without seeking an exemption. EPA has,
therefore, decided that an exemption procedure is unnecessary.
The Agency believes that permitting system-dependent recovery
equipment adequately addresses the concerns raised with regard
to very high-pressure refrigerant.
EPA is not exempting any particular industry sector from
this rule's requirements because the Agency is required by section
608(a) to maximize recycling of class I and class II substances
during the service, repair, and disposal of appliances, and
recovery technologies exist for all of the applications of
appliances
of which the Agency is aware. EPA believes that it has tailored
its requirements to ensure that they are practicable in all
industry sectors, including small appliances and airplanes.
IV. Summary of Changes to Proposed Rule
This section briefly describes the provisions of today's
final rule. Any changes made to the rule language as a result
of public comments are described. Various changes to the final
rule that have been made for purposes of clarification are not
described herein.
A. Authority, Purpose and Scope
There have been additions to the scope section to clarify
that the rule covers refrigerant reclaimers, appliance owners,
and manufacturers of appliances and recycling and recovery
equipment
in addition to persons servicing, repairing, maintaining, and
disposing of appliances.
B. Definitions ( 82.152)
The following terms and definitions have been added or changed
since the rule was proposed:
The term "active recovery equipment" has been changed to
"self-contained recovery equipment," and the definition (now
(u)) has been broadened to include equipment that may use means
other than an on-board compressor to transfer refrigerant.
For the purposes of the leak repair requirements ( 82.156(i)),
definitions were added for commercial refrigeration (d) and
industrial process refrigeration (g). The disposal definition
(e) remained essentially as proposed with additional clarification
that it includes the entire disposal process.
The definition of "high-pressure appliance" (f) has been
changed to include appliances using R-114. The term "intermediate-
pressure appliance" has been eliminated.
The definition of "low-loss fitting" (h) has been expanded
to include fittings that can be closed manually.
A definition of "major maintenance, service, or repair" (j)
was added.
A definition of MVAC-like appliance (l) was added to specify
equipment used to cool driver or passenger compartments of non-
road vehicles.
A definition of "normally containing" (m) a quantity of
refrigerant
was added.
The term "passive recovery equipment" has been changed to
"system-dependent recovery equipment," and the definition (now
(w) has been changed slightly for clarity.
A definition of "recovery efficiency" (s) was added.
The definition of "small appliance" (v) has been changed
to include specific products that are fully manufactured, charged,
and hermetically sealed in a factory with five pounds or less
of refrigerant.
C. Prohibitions ( 82.154)
In general, the prohibitions prevent persons from performing
appliance maintenance, service, repair, and disposal without
adhering to the requirements of section 608 and this rule.
Prohibition (a) reiterates the statutory prohibition on the
knowing release of refrigerant during appliance maintenance,
service, repair, and disposal. This prohibition also states
that refrigerant released when the requirements of this rule
or the MVACs rule (Subpart B) are followed will be considered
"de minimis," and will therefore not be subject to the prohibition.
Prohibition (b) prohibits persons from opening appliances without
observing the required practices and using certified equipment.
Prohibitions (c) and (d) prohibit manufacturers of recycling
and recovery equipment from manufacturing uncertified equipment
and from altering certified equipment without having it
recertified.
Prohibitions (e) and (f) prohibit persons who have not certified
to the Administrator that they have acquired recycling and recovery
equipment from performing appliance maintenance, service, repair,
or disposal.
Prohibitions (g) and (h) ban the sale of unreclaimed
refrigerants
and sales of refrigerants by uncertified reclaimers. Prohibition
(i) bans the release by reclaimers of more than 1.5 percent
of the refrigerant received by them.
Prohibition (j) prohibits the sale of appliances (except
small appliances) that are not equipped with servicing apertures
six months after the final rule is published. Prohibition (k)
prohibits the sale of small appliances that are not equipped
with a process stub to facilitate the removal of refrigerant
at servicing and disposal.
The prohibition that appeared as (l) in the NPRM was eliminated
because of redundancy.
A new prohibition (l) has been added which prohibits anyone
but certified technicians from opening appliances (except MVACs)
or disposing of appliances (except small appliances, MVACs,
and MVAC-like appliances).
Prohibition (m) prevents technician training or testing programs
from issuing certificates pursuant to 82.161 unless the program
has been approved.
Prohibition (n) bans the sale of any class I or class II
substance after November 14, 1993 unless the sale is to certified
technicians, manufacturers, sold for eventual resale to certified
technicians, or charged into equipment by certified technicians.
D. Required Practices ( 82.156)
This section establishes requirements for refrigerant recovery
and disposition during the maintenance, service, repair, and
disposal of appliances.
The evacuation requirements in 82.156(a)(1) (for appliances
except small appliances) have been changed in a number of areas
since the rule was proposed. The refrigerant quantity threshold
between stringent and less stringent requirements has been changed
from 50 lbs to 200 lbs, and the relevant quantity is no longer
the total charge of the equipment, but the charge in the isolated
component of the equipment that is opened for service. EPA is
establishing less stringent requirements for appliances containing
HCFC-22 than were proposed, and the evacuation level for large
high-pressure appliances has been changed from 20 inches to
15 inches. The effective date of the evacuation requirements
has been changed from 30 days after publication of the rule
to 60 days after publication of the rule.
EPA has added an exception to its evacuation requirements
for maintenance, service, or repair that is not "major" and
that is not followed by evacuation of the appliance to the
environment.
The exception for leaky appliances has been expanded to allow
for evacuation of leaky low-pressure appliances in addition
to leaky high-pressure appliances. These exceptions appear at
82.156(a) (1), (2), and (3).
EPA has expanded its required practices for evacuation of
small appliances ( 82.156(a)(4)) to account for the fact that
recovery equipment certified under appendix B may now be used
in addition to equipment certified under appendix C.
The Agency has adopted applicable requirements from the MVACs
rule for the maintenance, service, and repair of MVAC-like
appliances
( 82.156(a)(5)).
EPA has added requirement (b) to ensure that technicians
who service, maintain, or repair appliances besides small
appliances
possess self-contained equipment in addition to system-dependent
equipment.
Requirement (c) has been added to limit the use of system-
dependent equipment to appliances with less than 15 pounds of
refrigerant.
MVAC-like appliances have been excluded from provision (e),
regarding transfers of refrigerant between equipment owned by
the same person, because this provision contradicts the requirement
to "properly use" recycling equipment under the MVACs rule,
which is being adopted for MVAC-like appliances.
Required practice 82.156(f) was modified to specify that
ultimate disposers of small appliances and MVACs must either
remove the refrigerant from equipment or verify that it has
been removed. Further specificity was added to clarify activities
that facility operators could take to notify suppliers to remove
refrigerant if they are not removing it themselves. The last
sentence of the proposed 82.156(f) was deleted.
Required practice (h) regarding the performance standards
for equipment used to recover refrigerant from small appliances
was modified to reflect the changes in the efficiency standards
for servicing equipment. No changes were made to the required
practice (g) regarding equipment appropriate for removal of
refrigerant from MVACs at disposal.
Required practice 82.156(i) was added to specify the size
of leaks that must be repaired in the industrial process and
commercial refrigeration sectors (35 percent per year), and
for all other equipment (15 percent per year) with charges larger
than 50 pounds.
E. Standards for Recovery and Recycling Equipment ( 82.158)
Section 82.158(a) requires manufacturers of recycling and
recovery equipment to have the equipment certified by an approved
equipment testing organization to meet EPA's requirements. Section
82.158(b) establishes these requirements for recycling and recovery
equipment used with appliances besides small appliances. The
levels of evacuation that the equipment must be able to achieve
( 82.158(b)(1)) have been changed since the proposal to conform
with the service practice standards described above. In addition,
EPA is now requiring ARI 740-1993 instead of ARI 740-1988 as
the method for testing equipment.
Provision 82.158(b)(2) has been added to permit the testing
and certification of recycling or recovery equipment for which
no test methodology is set forth in ARI 740-1993. Standard
82.158(b)(3),
which adopts ARI's minimum requirements for equipment
certification,
is unchanged (except for its number). Standard 82.158(b)(4)
has been changed to lower the quantity of refrigerant that can
be released during noncondensables purging to three percent
of the charge in two years.
Standard 82.158(b)(5) has been changed to require that
recycling and recovery equipment possess "low-loss fittings"
as defined at 82.152(h) (instead of "positive shutoff
connections").
Standard 82.158(b)(6) has been added to require that equipment
have its liquid and vapor recovery rates measured.
Section 82.158(c) establishes requirements for grandfathered
recycling and recovery equipment. These requirements have not
been changed since the proposal, except in the case of small
HCFC-22 equipment.
The equipment standard in 82.158(d) was modified to require
90% efficiency when the compressor on the appliance is operating
and 80% efficiency when the compressor is not operational. These
requirements are the same for both passive and active equipment.
A provision was also added to establish a standard (four inches
of Hg vacuum) for equipment intended for use with small appliances
that is certified under Appendix B. The standard for equipment
used to recover refrigerant from small appliances at disposal
( 82.158(m)) was modified to reflect these changes also. There
were no changes in 82.158(l)-equipment used to recover refrigerant
from MVACs.
Requirement 82.158(f) was added to apply the certification
requirements for recycling and recovery equipment used with
MVACs to recycling and recovery equipment used with MVAC-like
appliances. Requirement 82.158(g) permits grandfathering of
recycling and recovery equipment intended for use with MVAC-
like appliances as long as that equipment can draw a vacuum
of 102mm of mercury.
E. Approved Equipment Testing Organizations ( 82.160)
A requirement was added to 82.160(c) to prevent organizations
from certifying equipment before they are approved by EPA. However,
82.160(e) was added to allow organizations to certify equipment
tested previously under their programs if they can demonstrate
to EPA that both the program and the equipment met all the
requirements
of this rule.
F. Technician Certification ( 82.161)
Section 82.161(a) establishes a mandatory certification
requirement,
not in the NPRM, whereby all technicians must be certified by
an approved certifying program within 18 months of the effective
date of today's rule.
Section 82.161(b) describes the test subject material that
will be included on the certification test.
Section 82.161(c) describes the responsibilities of certifying
organizations.
Section 82.161 (d) and (e) describes the process for
reconsideration
of a certifying program.
Section 82.161(f) requires certified technicians to be able
to perform recycling and recovery procedures. Failure to correctly
perform these procedures could result in the revocation of
certification.
Section 82.161(g) establishes a method for certifying programs
to seek recognition for technicians trained prior to the effective
date of today's rule.
G. Certification by Owners of Recovery and Recycling Equipment
( 82.162)
Section 82.162 requires the certification of equipment by
owners by September 13, 1993. New 82.162 (a)(3) and (c)(3)
have been added. These sections require the equipment owners
to include the number of service vehicles used, as part of their
certification statement. Sections 82.162 (a)(3) and (c)(3) in
the NPRM now appear as 82.162 (a)(4) and (c)(4). These sections
were slightly modified. Equipment grandfathered by today's rule
may not have serial or model numbers, therefore the phrase "if
applicable" was added. Corrections were made to the addresses
listed in 82.162 (a)(5).
I. Reclaimer Certification ( 82.164)
Section 82.164 establishes the requirements for reclaimers
reprocessing refrigerant after September 13, 1993. There were
no changes between the NPRM and today's rule.
J. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements ( 82.166)
Provision 82.166(b) was added to facilitate the functioning
of the sales restriction.
Provision 82.166(c) (formerly (b)) has been changed to
require submission of lists of certified equipment annually
at the end of each calendar year rather than annually beginning
60 days after publication of this rule.
Provision 82.166(f) was added to require technician
certification
programs to keep records of the names and addresses of all
individuals
taking the tests, the scores of all certification tests
administered,
and the dates and locations of all tests administered, and to
send EPA an activity report every six months.
Provision 82.166(j) was added to require persons servicing
appliances normally containing over 50 pounds of refrigerant
to provide the owner and/or operator of such appliances with
documentation that indicates the amount of refrigerant added
to the appliance.
Provision 82.166(k) was added to require owners and/or
operators of appliances normally containing over 50 pounds of
refrigerant to keep servicing records documenting the date and
type of service, as well as the quantity of refrigerant added.
Provision 82.166(l) was added to require technicians to
keep a copy of their certificate at their place of business.
K. Appendices A, B and C.
Appendix A was not changed.
Appendix B was changed from ARI 740-1991 to ARI 740-1993.
Appendix C has been modified in some of its measurement
techniques.
L. Standards for Becoming a Certifying Program for Technicians
(Appendix D)
Appendix D establishes additional requirements organizations
must meet in order to be approved as a technician certifying
program pursuant to 82.161.
V. Summary of Supporting Analyses
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Executive Order No. 12291 requires the preparation of a
regulatory
impact analysis (RIA) for major rules, defined by the order
as those likely to result in:
(1) An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
(2) A major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual
industries, Federal, state or local government agencies, or
geographic industries; or
(3) Significant adverse effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of the
United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises in domestic or export markets.
The annualized costs for this rulemaking, $71 million, fall
under $100 million. Therefore, the Agency has determined that
this regulation does not meet the definition of a major rule
under E.O. 12291. Nonetheless, due to the proximity of the costs
of this rule to the $100 million threshold, the Agency has
fulfilled
the requirements of E.O. 12291 and prepared an RIA to assess
the impact of the regulation (see Regulatory Impact Analysis:
The National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program, March
23, 1993) which is available for review in the public docket
for this rulemaking. This analysis is summarized below.
1. Baseline. Since these regulations are being promulgated
in addition to other regulations that affect the use of CFCs
and HCFCs, the baseline for this analysis must reflect the state
of affairs after the implementation of previous rules and before
the implementation of the final rule. Two provisions of the
Clean Air Act that must be considered when defining the baseline
for these regulations are the phaseout of CFCs required by section
604 of the Act and the prohibition on venting contained in section
608(c), which is self-effectuating. For the purposes of the
analysis, two variables were chosen to describe the effects
of these provisions: the percentage of the market in which
recycling
and recovery would occur as a result of the provision (referred
to as either market penetration or compliance); and the average
recapture efficiency of the recycling or recovery methods that
would be employed.
The CFC phaseout has two important effects for the baseline:
it affects the quantities of CFCs and HCFCs that need to be
recycled and it makes recycling cost-effective for owners of
equipment in certain sectors. As the CFC phaseout restricts
the supply of CFCs, their prices will rise. As a result, substitute
chemicals will replace CFCs in new equipment and it will become
less expensive to recycle the CFCs in existing equipment than
to buy virgin CFCs to replace them. Sectors in which recycling
is likely to occur under the phaseout include retail food, cold
storage, chillers, refrigerated transport, and industrial process
refrigeration. In this analysis, market penetration is expected
to be 100%, and the efficiency of equipment to be about 95%
in these sectors under the phaseout. A recovery efficiency of
ninety-five percent is assumed to be the level that is most
cost-effective from a private (as opposed to a social) perspective.
This baseline assumes that producers will phase out the production
of CFCs by January 1, 1996.
The self-effectuating prohibition on venting required by
section 608(c) can be considered a minimal requirement to recycle
because chemicals must be recycled, or at least stored, if they
cannot be vented. However, because the prohibition on venting
does not in itself contain standards, maximum recovery efficiency
and full compliance would not be expected under the prohibition
alone. The likely rates of compliance in the household
refrigeration
and residential air-conditioning sectors would be estimated
to reach approximately 80% under the prohibition alone, and
efficiencies are estimated to be 75% for these sectors.
Under the requirements of this recycling rule, recovery
efficiencies
are expected to range between 90% and 99%, depending upon the
equipment requirements for each sector. The analysis assumes
full compliance across all sectors.
2. Costs. The costs of the recycling rule consist of the
costs of certifying recycling and recovery equipment, technician
certification, recordkeeping costs, and refrigerant storage
costs. The Agency estimates the cost for this regulatory program
over a 25 year period between 1994 and 2015 is $1.3 billion.
These costs were discounted at 2%. EPA performed this same analysis
with discount rates of 4% and 7%. The costs are $1 billion and
$0.8 billion, respectively.
3. Benefits. The benefits of the three provisions discussed
above consist of the avoided damage to human health and the
environment that would have occurred if, without regulation,
ozone-depleting refrigerants had been released rather than
recaptured.
EPA's calculation of benefits includes the following: (1) Reduction
in the incidence of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer cases
and fatalities, (2) reduction in the incidence of cataract cases,
(3) increases in the value of crops harvested due to reductions
in both direct UV effects and indirect effects from tropospheric
(ground-based) ozone, (4) increases in the value of fish harvested
due to decreased levels of damaging UV radiation, and (5) decreased
costs in protecting polymer products.
Under the recycling rule, recycling efficiencies are assumed
to increase because certification of recycling and recovery
equipment increases the average efficiency of this equipment.
The Agency estimates the range of benefits to be from $.4 billion
to $1.7 billion, depending upon whether each life saved is valued
at $3 or $12 million. These benefits were discounted at a 2%
discount rate. The Agency estimated benefits at discount rates
of 4% and 7%. The resulting benefits were from $.1 billion to
$.6 billion at the 4% discount rate, and $.04 billion to $.2
billion for the 7% discount rate.
4. Initial Program Costs and Benefits for Technician Certification
The short-term benefits of technician certification were
not included in the previous section. The Agency assumed that
all technicians immediately complied with the regulation, and
that the market fully transmitted all costs and benefits to
equipment owners and technicians. Under this "perfect market
scenario", technicians knew how to recycle efficiently, did
not mistakenly mix refrigerants, took precautions to avoid using
contaminated refrigerants, and worked to maximize benefits for
themselves, as well as for equipment owners.
Unfortunately, there are impediments to the functioning of
this market. First, technicians may not be fully accountable
to the owners. Eventual equipment failure and losses in energy
efficiency cannot be readily traced to poor servicing techniques.
These may be hidden costs, or may not surface until some time
after servicing. In such cases, the owner is unable to determine
the cause of the failure. Technician training can ensure an
educated workforce to avoid costly mistakes.
Furthermore, there are over 300,000 technicians. It is difficult
to assume that all 300,000 technicians immediately comply with
the regulation, and use proper servicing techniques. Technicians
must become trained in recycling techniques and become
knowledgeable
of the regulation. A technician certification program would
provide this information as quickly as possible.
In a separate analysis, the Agency investigated short-term
costs and benefits to the immediate implementation of the recycling
program. Under this scenario, the Agency assumes that without
technician certification and training, there are likely energy
efficiency losses due to inadvertent mixing of refrigerants.
The Agency estimates that in the first year, these costs could
exceed $100 million. In addition, trained technicians would
avoid introducing refrigerant contaminated with acids and other
corrosives due to compressor burnouts. The Agency estimates
this cost saving to be $15 million annually.
In addition, proper training could improve productivity.
Under this assumption, technicians could save $50 million in
the first year. Furthermore, increased recycling avoids the
need to retrofit a significant number of pieces of equipment.
This could save close to $88 million annually.
An increase in compliance rates due to better knowledge of
responsibilities yields environmental benefits. EPA anticipates
that an increase of 5% in compliance with the recycling regulation
yields an annualized benefit of $10 to $42 million. Through
increased recycling, the United States can avoid more than $6
to $26 million in environmental costs for production past the
year 1995 for essential uses.
The Agency believes that these short-term cost savings and
benefits exceed the costs for such a program. EPA estimates
that the start-up cost to certify 300,000 technicians can range
from $50 to $80 million. Even when compared to the long-term
cost of $152 million for technician certification, these benefits
outweigh the cost.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. Purpose
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires
that Federal agencies examine the impacts of their regulations
on small entities. Under 5 U.S.C. 604(a), whenever an agency
is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking,
it must prepare and make available for public comment an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA). Such an analysis is not
required if the head of an agency certifies that a rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
The Agency has performed an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis and determined that this regulation is unlikely to
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
businesses.
The analysis is found in appendix A in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis: The National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program
and is available for review in the docket. The methodology and
results of the analysis are presented below.
2. Methodology
To examine the impacts on small businesses, EPA characterized
the regulated community by identifying the SIC codes that would
be involved in the disposal of motor vehicle air conditioners
and in the servicing, repair, and disposal of small appliances,
residential air-conditioning, and transport refrigeration. Firms
in these sectors were divided into six segments: Appliance repair
shops, air-conditioning contractors, refrigerated transport
service dealers, scrap yards and intermediate processors,
automobile
dismantlers, and autowreckers. Impacts on the retail food, cold
storage, chiller, and industrial process sectors were not analyzed
because refrigerant recycling and recovery is cost-effective
from a private perspective in these sectors. For these sectors,
the private costs associated with recycling and recovery are
negligible or negative. In addition, two other sectors were
excluded from the analysis: Vocational schools and municipal
solid waste facilities. Data on vocational schools are scarce,
and the proposed regulations, which affect only one aspect of
vocational training, are not likely to have any significant
impact on vocational schools. Similarly, the regulations are
not likely to have a significant impact on municipal solid waste
facilities because these facilities generally do not accept
white goods such as refrigerators, freezers, and room air
conditioners.
There was a disparity between the EPA and the Census Bureau
estimates of the number of establishments in each of the six
affected industry segments. In some areas, such as the appliance
repair segment, the number of establishments estimated by EPA
exceeded the number allocated to the corresponding SIC category.
In others, such as the air-conditioning contractor segment,
EPA estimates fell below Census numbers for the corresponding
SIC. The disparities in each category were largely a matter
of definition. Because the Census Bureau assigns a business
to a given SIC code based on the source of the majority of its
sales receipts, an SIC code may not include many businesses
that do only some work in the area of concern. At the same time,
some SIC codes may prove overly inclusive, such as SIC 1711,
"Plumbing, Heating, and Air-conditioning Contractors," which
includes some establishments engaged only in plumbing work and
not in the service or disposal of air-conditioning equipment.
In choosing the SIC codes that corresponded to segments of the
potential regulated community, EPA's analysis focussed primarily
on ensuring that each sector of the potential regulated community
had a corresponding SIC code that accurately represented its
structure. The fraction of businesses that would be defined
as small (under the Small Business Act, or SBA) among the
establishments
identified by EPA in each segment was then assumed to be the
same as the fraction of businesses that would be defined as
small among those in the comparable SIC category.
After determining the number of entities in each industry
segment that would be classified as small, the Agency examined
the compliance costs initially incurred by firms and the extent
to which these costs could be passed on to consumers. EPA then
performed impact tests using sales, profits, and cash-flow
measures.
The costs incurred by a firm as a result of the proposed
rule include the following elements: Labor costs, operating
costs, capital costs, certification costs, and the avoided costs
of purchasing virgin refrigerant. To estimate these costs, EPA
used data on the quantity of air-conditioning or refrigeration
equipment in each of the affected sectors and on the frequency
of service and disposal in each sector. EPA then divided affected
businesses into those with under $1 million annual sales and
those with over $1 million annual sales. This distinction is
important because larger firms perform more service and disposal
jobs than smaller firms and therefore incur higher labor and
operating costs. (The distinction bears no direct relationship
to the SBA definition of small business.) Annual direct compliance
costs per business ranged between $624 for small appliance repair
shops and $36,932 for large autowreckers.
Under certain conditions, some portion of regulatory costs
will be passed on to consumers. Since the proposed rule meets
these conditions, businesses will not bear all regulatory costs.
(For a complete discussion of regulatory costs incidence, please
see appendix A to the RIA.) Microeconomic theory suggests that
the ratio between the elasticity of demand for a good and the
elasticity of supply for that good is roughly equivalent to
the ratio between the producers' share of regulatory costs and
the consumers' share of regulatory costs. The extent to which
regulatory costs may be passed on to consumers, therefore, depends
upon the relationship between the elasticity of demand and the
elasticity of supply for the good in question. The elasticities
of demand and supply are a measure of how demand for a good
and supply of a good change in response to changes in price.
Although the factors that determine supply and demand elasticity
can be complex, certain forces frequently play an important
role in determining the character of supply and demand elasticity
for a good. Generally, demand for a good will decrease when
the price rises because consumers will choose to purchase
substitutes
for the good. However, if substitutes are nonexistent or expensive,
consumers will have fewer alternative to purchasing the original
good, and demand will change very little. In this case, the
demand elasticity for the good is low. Supply of a good will
usually decrease when the price falls because it becomes less
profitable to produce the good. However, if it is expensive
to change the supply of the good (e.g., requires the retirement
of valuable capital equipment), producers will have fewer
alternatives
to producing the good, and supply will change relatively little.
In this case, the supply elasticity of the good is low.
When the demand elasticity for a good is low and the supply
elasticity for the good is high, the majority of regulatory
costs will likely be borne by consumers. EPA developed elasticity
estimates for each segment of the regulated community. Demand
elasticity estimates for the specific goods in question were
not available. As a result, the Agency used estimates of demand
elasticity in closely related industries as proxies for actual
elasticity estimates. Since no estimates of supply elasticity
were available, the Agency developed quantitative estimates
of supply elasticity based on its understanding of the various
segments of the regulated community.
EPA's analysis showed that demand was likely to be inelastic
in all affected industry segments. For instance, demand for
household appliance service is unlikely to fall significantly
in response to a rise in price because (1) Equipment such as
the household refrigerator renders a service that is vital to
most consumers, and (2) the few substitutes to appliance repair,
such as purchase of a new appliance, are often expensive and
impracticable. The situation is similar in the other service
segments. In the disposal segments, demand is likely to be
inelastic
because consumers have few alternatives to disposing of appliances
when these items are retired, and auto dismantlers and wreckers
(who play the role of consumer in this transaction) have few
substitutes for junked automobiles in their operations.
Elasticities of supply varied somewhat more. The appliance
and residential air-conditioning repair segments are likely
to have high supply elasticities because entering these businesses
requires a relatively low capital investment and moving into
related areas (e.g., heating) is relatively easy. On the other
hand, the supply elasticity of refrigerated transport service
is lower because refrigerated transport service is highly
specialized
and entry into the industry entails substantial capital investment.
Scrap yards and intermediate processors are likely to respond
readily to price changes because they have a large degree of
flexibility with regard to which type of appliances they choose
to accept. Supplies of junked automobiles, however, are unlikely
to change significantly in response to the prices offered for
them.
Based on these estimates, EPA calculates that firms will
bear between four percent (for scrap yards and intermediate
processors) and 25 percent (for refrigerated transport service
dealers) of the compliance costs associated with the proposed
rule. Annual compliance costs borne by firms range between $39
for small appliance repair shops and $6,987 for large auto
dismantlers.
(Again, the term "large" is used here to refer to a large small
business.)
To evaluate the significance of these costs, EPA performed
impact tests using sales, profits, and cash flow measures. Existing
EPA guidelines suggest that significant economic impacts on
small businesses occur when any one of the following three criteria
are satisfied (Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy,
Planning, and Evaluation, Guidelines for Complying with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, Draft Document dated January 18,
1991.):
Annual compliance costs exceed one percent of sales;
Annual compliance costs exceed 10 percent of profits; or
Annual debt-financed capital compliance costs exceed 20
percent of current cash flow.
These criteria makeup a screening test used to assess initially
the impacts likely to result from a proposed regulation. Should
a "substantial number" of small business, defined as over 20
percent of affected small business, satisfy any of the criteria
outlined above, EPA guidelines require that more detailed economic
analysis be performed.
Many small establishments failed the profits and cash flow
tests (that is, profits and cash flow were negative) before
imposition of the regulation. These were thus determined to
be in poor financial condition under the baseline and their
continued failure of these tests was not attributed to the proposed
rule. Any small entities not in poor financial condition under
the baseline that failed any of the tests above were assumed
to incur a significant economic impact under the proposed rule.
EPA's analysis showed that the proposed rule will have a
significant impact on 16 percent of the affected small businesses.
These small businesses may respond in a number of ways. They
may: (1) Close as a result of the costs imposed by regulation,
(2) avoid the costs imposed by the regulation by ceasing work
on refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment while continuing
to provide other types of service, or (3) continue to service
or dispose of affected equipment while incurring increased cost.
Available census and financial data suggest that most of
the 16 percent will continue to service or dispose of affected
equipment. EPA estimates that annual compliance costs borne
by firms as a result of the proposed rule will actually exceed
annual profits for approximately 2500 small businesses. These
2500 establishments comprise approximately 3 percent of all
small businesses in the regulated community. Firms that incur
annual compliance costs in excess of annual profits may be forced
out of business or, alternatively, may elect to discontinue
work that involves refrigeration or air-conditioning equipment.
Firms whose annual compliance costs fall below their annual
profits are likely to stay in business.
Where possible, EPA has attempted to minimize the economic
impact of this regulation on small businesses. For instance,
EPA is proposing less stringent standards for the recovery of
refrigerant from small appliances, which are frequently repaired
by one- or two-man service shops. These standards would permit
the use of relatively inexpensive passive recovery devices.
In addition, EPA is proposing fewer requirements and a more
flexible program for the disposal of small appliances, room
air conditioners, and MVACs because the industries that dispose
of these items are unusually decentralized.
Moreover, this analysis probably overstated the potential
impacts of regulation for two reasons. First, it estimated the
combined impacts of both the section 608 recycling rule and
the self-effectuating prohibition on venting. EPA estimates
that for the residential air-conditioning and household appliance
sectors, 80 percent of recovery jobs can be attributed to the
prohibition on venting, and for transport refrigeration, 50
percent of recovery jobs can be attributed to the prohibition.
If this analysis had examined only the incremental impacts due
to the recycling rule, the estimate of the percentage of small
businesses affected significantly would have been reduced
accordingly.
Second, this analysis examined each industry segment in isolation,
failing to account for interactions between competing industry
sectors (e.g., service vs. disposal of appliance) that would
tend to decrease costs borne by firms. Thus, the Agency certifies
that this regulation will not have an impact on a significant
number of small entities, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq. An Information Collection Request document (ICR No.
1626.02) has been prepared by EPA and a copy may be obtained
from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M Street,
SW., (PM-223Y); Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-
2740.
Public reporting burden for this collection of information
is estimated to vary from 0.08 to 180 hours per response with
an average of 0.2 hours per response, including time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing the collection of
information.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions
for reducing this burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch;
EPA; 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked "Attention: Desk Officer
for EPA."
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Stratospheric ozone
layer.
Dated: April 23, 1993.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is
amended as follows:
PART 82-PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
1. Authority: The authority citation for part 82 continues
to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
2. Part 82 is amended by adding subpart F to read as follows:
Subpart F-Recycling and Emissions Reduction
Sec.
82.150 Purpose and scope.
82.152 Definitions.
82.154 Prohibitions.
82.156 Required practices.
82.158 Standards for recycling and recovery equipment.
82.160 Approved equipment testing organizations.
82.161 Technician certification.
82.162 Certification by owners of recovery and recycling equipment.
82.164 Reclaimer certification.
82.166 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Appendix A to Subpart F-Specifications for Fluorocarbon
Refrigerants
Appendix B to Subpart F-Performance of Refrigerant Recovery,
Recycling and/or Reclaim Equipment
Appendix C to Subpart F-Method for Testing Recovery Devices
for Use With Small Appliances
Appendix D to Subpart F-Standards for Becoming a Certifying
Program for Technicians
Subpart F-Recycling and Emissions Reduction
82.150 Purpose and scope.
(a) The purpose of this subpart is to reduce emissions of
class I and class II refrigerants to the lowest achievable level
during the service, maintenance, repair, and disposal of appliances
in accordance with section 608 of the Clean Air Act.
(b) This subpart applies to any person servicing, maintaining,
or repairing appliances except for motor vehicle air conditioners.
This subpart also applies to persons disposing of appliances,
including motor vehicle air conditioners. In addition, this
subpart applies to refrigerant reclaimers, appliance owners,
and manufacturers of appliances and recycling and recovery
equipment.
82.152 Definitions.
(a) Appliance means any device which contains and uses a
class I or class II substance as a refrigerant and which is
used for household or commercial purposes, including any air
conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or freezer.
(b) Approved equipment testing organization means any
organization
which has applied for and received approval from the Administrator
pursuant to 82.160.
(c) Certified refrigerant recovery or recycling equipment
means equipment certified by an approved equipment testing
organization
to meet the standards in 82.158 (b) or (d), equipment certified
pursuant to 82.36(a), or equipment manufactured before November
15, 1993, that meets the standards in 82.158 (c), (e), or
(g).
(d) Commercial refrigeration means, for the purposes of
82.156(i), the refrigeration appliances utilized in the retail
food and cold storage warehouse sectors. Retail food includes
the refrigeration equipment found in supermarkets, convenience
stores, restaurants and other food service establishments. Cold
storage includes the equipment used to store meat, produce,
dairy products, and other perishable goods. All of the equipment
contains large refrigerant charges, typically over 75 pounds.
(e) Disposal means the process leading to and including:
(1) The discharge, deposit, dumping or placing of any discarded
appliance into or on any land or water;
(2) The disassembly of any appliance for discharge, deposit,
dumping or placing of its discarded component parts into or
on any land or water; or
(3) The disassembly of any appliance for reuse of its component
parts.
(f) High-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses
a refrigerant with a boiling point between -50 and 10 degrees
Centigrade at atmospheric pressure (29.9 inches of mercury).
This definition includes but is not limited to appliances using
refrigerants -12, -22, -114, -500, or -502.
(g) Industrial process refrigeration means, for the purposes
of 82.156(i), complex customized appliances used in the chemical,
pharmaceutical, petrochemical and manufacturing industries.
This sector also includes industrial ice machines and ice rinks.
(h) Low-loss fitting means any device that is intended to
establish a connection between hoses, appliances, or recovery
or recycling machines and that is designed to close automatically
or to be closed manually when disconnected, minimizing the release
of refrigerant from hoses, appliances, and recovery or recycling
machines.
(i) Low-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a
refrigerant with a boiling point above 10 degrees Centigrade
at atmospheric pressure (29.9 inches of mercury). This definition
includes but is not limited to equipment utilizing refrigerants
-11, -113, and -123.
(j) Major maintenance, service, or repair means any maintenance,
service, or repair involving the removal of any or all of the
following appliance components: Compressor, condenser, evaporator,
or auxiliary heat exchanger coil.
(k) Motor vehicle air conditioner (MVAC) means any appliance
that is a motor vehicle air conditioner as defined in 40 CFR
part 82, subpart B.
(l) MVAC-like appliance means mechanical vapor compression,
open-drive compressor appliances used to cool the driver's or
passenger's compartment of an non-road motor vehicle. This includes
the air-conditioning equipment found on agricultural or
construction
vehicles. This definition is not intended to cover appliances
using HCFC-22 refrigerant.
(m) Normally containing a quantity of refrigerant means
containing
the quantity of refrigerant within the appliance or appliance
component when the appliance is operating with a full charge
of refrigerant.
(n) Opening an appliance means any service, maintenance,
or repair on an appliance that could be reasonably expected
to release refrigerant from the appliance to the atmosphere
unless the refrigerant were previously recovered from the
appliance.
(o) Person means any individual or legal entity, including
an individual, corporation, partnership, association, state,
municipality, political subdivision of a state, Indian tribe,
and any agency, department, or instrumentality of the United
States, and any officer, agent, or employee thereof.
(p) Process stub means a length of tubing that provides access
to the refrigerant inside a small appliance or room air conditioner
and that can be resealed at the conclusion of repair or service.
(q) Reclaim refrigerant means to reprocess refrigerant to
at least the purity specified in the ARI Standard 700-1988,
Specifications for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants (appendix A to
40 CFR part 82, subpart F) and to verify this purity using the
analytical methodology prescribed in the ARI Standard 700-1988.
In general, reclamation involves the use of processes or procedures
available only at a reprocessing or manufacturing facility.
(r) Recover refrigerant means to remove refrigerant in any
condition from an appliance without necessarily testing or
processing
it in any way.
(s) Recovery efficiency means the percentage of refrigerant
in an appliance that is recovered by a piece of recycling or
recovery equipment.
(t) Recycle refrigerant means to extract refrigerant from
an appliance and clean refrigerant for reuse without meeting
all of the requirements for reclamation. In general, recycled
refrigerant is refrigerant that is cleaned using oil separation
and single or multiple passes through devices, such as replaceable
core filter-driers, which reduce moisture, acidity, and particulate
matter. These procedures are usually implemented at the field
job site.
(u) Self-contained recovery equipment means refrigerant recovery
or recycling equipment that is capable of removing the refrigerant
from an appliance without the assistance of components contained
in the appliance.
(v) Small appliance means any of the following products that
are fully manufactured, charged, and hermetically sealed in
a factory with five (5) pounds or less of refrigerant:
refrigerators
and freezers designed for home use, room air conditioners
(including
window air conditioners and packaged terminal air conditioners),
packaged terminal heat pumps, dehumidifiers, under-the-counter
ice makers, vending machines, and drinking water coolers.
(w) System-dependent recovery equipment means refrigerant
recovery equipment that requires the assistance of components
contained in an appliance to remove the refrigerant from the
appliance.
(x) Technician means any person who performs maintenance,
service, or repair that could reasonably be expected to release
class I or class II substances from appliances into the atmosphere,
including but not limited to installers, contractor employees,
in-house service personnel, and in some cases, owners. Technician
also means any person disposing of appliances except for small
appliances.
(y) Very high-pressure appliance means an appliance that
uses a refrigerant with a boiling point below -50 degrees
Centigrade
at atmospheric pressure (29.9 inches of mercury). This definition
includes but is not limited to equipment utilizing refrigerants
-13 and -503.
82.154 Prohibitions.
(a) Effective June 14, 1993, no person maintaining, servicing,
repairing, or disposing of appliances may knowingly vent or
otherwise release into the environment any class I or class
II substance used as refrigerant in such equipment. De minimis
releases associated with good faith attempts to recycle or recover
refrigerants are not subject to this prohibition. Releases shall
be considered de minimis if they occur when:
(1) The required practices set forth in 82.156 are observed
and recovery or recycling machines that meet the requirements
set forth in 82.158 are used; or
(2) The requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 82, subpart
B are observed.
The knowing release of refrigerant subsequent to its recovery
from an appliance shall be considered a violation of this
prohibition.
(b) Effective July 13, 1993 no person may open appliances
except MVACs for maintenance, service, or repair, and no person
may dispose of appliances except for small appliances, MVACs,
and MVAC-like appliances:
(1) Without observing the required practices set forth in
82.156; and
(2) Without using equipment that is certified for that type
of appliance pursuant to 82.158.
(c) Effective November 15, 1993, no person may manufacture
or import recycling or recovery equipment for use during the
maintenance, service, or repair of appliances except MVACs,
and no person may manufacture or import recycling or recovery
equipment for use during the disposal of appliances except small
appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances, unless the equipment
is certified pursuant to 82.158 (b), (d), or (f), as applicable.
(d) Effective June 14, 1993, no person shall alter the design
of certified refrigerant recycling or recovery equipment in
a way that would affect the equipment's ability to meet the
certification standards set forth in 82.158 without resubmitting
the altered design for certification testing. Until it is tested
and shown to meet the certification standards set forth in
82.158, equipment so altered will be considered uncertified
for the purposes of 82.158.
(e) Effective August 12, 1993, no person may open appliances
except MVACs for maintenance, service, or repair, and no person
may dispose of appliances except for small appliances, MVACs,
and MVAC-like appliances, unless such person has certified to
the Administrator pursuant to 82.162 that such person has
acquired certified recovery or recycling equipment and is complying
with the applicable requirements of this subpart.
(f) Effective August 12, 1993, no person may recover refrigerant
from small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances for purposes
of disposal of these appliances unless such person has certified
to the Administrator pursuant to 82.162 that such person has
acquired recovery equipment that meets the standards set forth
in 82.158 (l) and/or (m), as applicable, and that such person
is complying with the applicable requirements of this subpart.
(g) Effective August 12, 1993 until November 13, 1995, no
person may sell or offer for sale for use as a refrigerant any
class I or class II substance consisting wholly or in part of
used refrigerant unless the class I or class II substance has
been reclaimed as defined at 82.152(q).
(h) Effective August 12, 1993 until November 13, 1995, no
person may sell or offer for sale for use as a refrigerant any
class I or class II substance consisting wholly or in part of
used refrigerant unless the refrigerant has been reclaimed by
a person who has been certified as a reclaimer pursuant to
82.164.
(i) Effective August 12, 1993, no person reclaiming refrigerant
may release more than 1.5% of the refrigerant received by them.
(j) Effective November 15, 1993, no person may sell or
distribute,
or offer for sale or distribution, any appliances, except small
appliances, unless such equipment is equipped with a servicing
aperture to facilitate the removal of refrigerant at servicing
and disposal.
(k) Effective November 15, 1993, no person may sell or
distribute,
or offer for sale or distribution any small appliance unless
such equipment is equipped with a process stub to facilitate
the removal of refrigerant at servicing and disposal.
(l) Effective November 14, 1994 no person may open an appliance
except for an MVAC and no person may dispose of an appliance
except for a small appliance, MVAC, or MVAC-like appliance,
unless such person has been certified as a technician for that
type of appliance pursuant to 82.161.
(m) No technician training or testing program may issue
certificates
pursuant to 82.161 unless the program complies with all of
the standards of 82.161 and appendix D, and has been granted
approval.
(n) Effective November 14, 1994 no person may sell or
distribute,
or offer for sale or distribution, any class I or class II
substance
for use as a refrigerant to any person unless:
(1) The buyer has been certified as a Type I, Type II, Type
III, or Universal technician pursuant to 82.161;
(2) The buyer has been certified pursuant to 40 CFR part
82, subpart B;
(3) The refrigerant is sold only for eventual resale to
certified
technicians or to appliance manufacturers (e.g., sold by a
manufacturer
to a wholesaler, sold by a technician to a reclaimer);
(4) The refrigerant is sold to an appliance manufacturer;
(5) The refrigerant is contained in an appliance; or
(6) the refrigerant is charged into an appliance by a certified
technician during maintenance, service, or repair.
(o) It is a violation of this subpart to accept a signed
statement pursuant to 82.156(f)(2) if the person knew or had
reason to know that such a signed statement is false.
82.156 Required practices.
(a) Effective July 13, 1993, all persons opening appliances
except for MVACs for maintenance, service, or repair must evacuate
the refrigerant in either the entire unit or the part to be
serviced (if the latter can be isolated) to a system receiver
or a recovery or recycling machine certified pursuant to 82.158.
All persons disposing of appliances except for small appliances,
MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances must evacuate the refrigerant
in the entire unit to a recovery or recycling machine certified
pursuant to 82.158.
(1) Persons opening appliances except for small appliances,
MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances for maintenance, service, or
repair must evacuate to the levels in Table 1 before opening
the appliance, unless
(i) Evacuation of the appliance to the atmosphere is not
to be performed after completion of the maintenance, service,
or repair, and the maintenance, service, or repair is not major
as defined at 82.152(j); or
(ii) Due to leaks in the appliance, evacuation to the levels
in Table 1 is not attainable, or would substantially contaminate
the refrigerant being recovered. In any of these cases, the
requirements of 82.156(a)(2) must be followed.
(2)(i) If evacuation of the appliance to the atmosphere is
not to be performed after completion of the maintenance, service,
or repair, and if the maintenance, service, or repair is not
major as defined at 82.152(j), the appliance must:
(A) Be evacuated to a pressure no higher than 0 psig before
it is opened if it is a high- or very high-pressure appliance;
or
(B) Be pressurized to 0 psig before it is opened if it is
a low-pressure appliance, without using methods, e.g., nitrogen,
that require subsequent purging.
(ii) If, due to leaks in the appliance, evacuation to the
levels in Table 1 is not attainable, or would substantially
contaminate the refrigerant being recovered, persons opening
the appliance must:
(A) Isolate leaking from non-leaking components wherever
possible;
(B) Evacuate non-leaking components to be opened to the levels
specified in Table 1; and
(C) Evacuate leaking components to be opened to the lowest
level that can be attained without substantially contaminating
the refrigerant. In no case shall this level exceed 0 psig.
(3) Persons disposing of appliances except for small appliances,
MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances, must evacuate to the levels
in Table 1.
Table 1.-Required Levels of Evacuation for Appliances
[Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like
appliances]
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ Inches of Hg vacuum (relative
to standard
³ atmospheric pressure of 29.9
inches Hg)
ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ Using recovery ³
³ or recycling ³ Using
recovery or recycling
Type of appliance ³ equipment ³
equipment manufactured or
³ manufactured ³ imported
on or after Nov. 15,
³ or imported ³
1993
³ before Nov. 15,³
³ 1993 ³
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
HCFC-22 appliance, or ³ 0 ³ 0.
isolated component of such ³ ³
appliance, normally ³ ³
containing less than 200 ³ ³
pounds of refrigerant. ³ ³
HCFC-22 appliance, or ³ 0 ³ 0.
isolated component of such ³ ³
appliance, normally ³ ³
containing less than 200 ³ ³
pounds of refrigerant. ³ ³
HCFC-22 appliance, or ³ 4 ³ 10.
isolated component of such ³ ³
appliance, normally ³ ³
containing 200 pounds or ³ ³
more of refrigerant. ³ ³
Other high-pressure ³ 4 ³ 10.
appliance, or isolated ³ ³
component of such ³ ³
appliance, normally ³ ³
containing less than 200 ³ ³
pounds of refrigerant. ³ ³
Other high-pressure ³ 4 ³ 15.
appliance, or isolated ³ ³
component of such ³ ³
appliance, normally ³ ³
containing 200 pounds or ³ ³
more of refrigerant. ³ ³
Very high-pressure ³ 0 ³ 0.
appliance. ³ ³
Low-pressure appliance .... ³ 25 ³ 25 mm Hg
absolute.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
(4) Persons opening small appliances for maintenance, service,
or repair must:
(i) When using recycling and recovery equipment manufactured
before November 15, 1993, recover 80% of the refrigerant in
the small appliance; or
(ii) When using recycling or recovery equipment manufactured
on or after November 15, 1993, recover 90% of the refrigerant
in the appliance when the compressor in the appliance is operating,
or 80% of the refrigerant in the appliance when the compressor
in the appliance is not operating; or
(iii) Evacuate the small appliance to four inches of mercury
vacuum.
(5) Persons opening MVAC-like appliances for maintenance,
service, or repair may do so only while properly using, as defined
at 82.32(e), recycling or recovery equipment certified pursuant
to 82.158 (f) or (g), as applicable.
(b) Effective July 13, 1993, all persons opening appliances
except for small appliances and MVACs for maintenance, service,
or repair and all persons disposing of appliances except for
small appliances must have at least one piece of certified,
self-contained recovery equipment available at their place of
business.
(c) System-dependent equipment shall not be used with appliances
normally containing more than 15 pounds of refrigerant.
(d) All recovery or recycling equipment shall be used in
accordance with the manufacturer's directions unless such
directions
conflict with the requirements of this subpart.
(e) Refrigerant may be returned to the appliance from which
it is recovered or to another appliance owned by the same person
without being recycled or reclaimed, unless the appliance is
an MVAC-like appliance.
(f) Effective July 13, 1993, persons who take the final step
in the disposal process (including but not limited to scrap
recyclers and landfill operators) of a small appliance, room
air conditioning, MVACs, or MVAC-like appliances must either:
(1) Recover any remaining refrigerant from the appliance
in accordance with paragraph (g) or (h) of this section, as
applicable; or
(2) Verify that the refrigerant has been evacuated from the
appliance or shipment of appliances previously. Such verification
must include a signed statement from the person from whom the
appliance or shipment of appliances is obtained that all
refrigerant
that had not leaked previously has been recovered from the
appliance
or shipment of appliances in accordance with paragraph (g) or
(h) of this section, as applicable. This statement must include
the name and address of the person who recovered the refrigerant
and the date the refrigerant was recovered or a contract that
refrigerant will be removed prior to delivery.
(3) Persons complying with paragraph (f)(2) of this section
must notify suppliers of appliances that refrigerant must be
properly removed before delivery of the items to the facility.
The form of this notification may be warning signs, letters
to suppliers, or other equivalent means.
(g) All persons recovering refrigerant from MVACs and MVAC-
like appliances for purposes of disposal of these appliances
must reduce the system pressure to or below 102 mm of mercury
vacuum, using equipment that meets the standards set forth in
82.158(l).
(h) All persons recovering the refrigerant from small appliances
for purposes of disposal of these appliances must either:
(1) Recover 90% of the refrigerant in the appliance when
the compressor in the appliance is operating, or 80% of the
refrigerant in the appliance when the compressor in the appliance
is not operating; or
(2) Evacuate the small appliance to four inches of mercury
vacuum.
(i) (1) Owners of commercial refrigeration and industrial
process refrigeration equipment must have all leaks repaired
if the equipment is leaking at a rate such that the loss of
refrigerant will exceed 35 percent of the total charge during
a 12 month period, except as described in paragraph (i)(3) of
this section.
(2) Owners of appliances normally containing more than 50
pounds of refrigerant and not covered by paragraph (i)(1) of
this section must have all leaks repaired if the appliance is
leaking at a rate such that the loss of refrigerant will exceed
15 % of the total charge during a 12-month period, except as
described in paragraph (i)(3) of this section.
(3) Owners are not required to repair the leaks defined in
paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section if, within 30 days,
they develop a one-year retrofit or retirement plan for the
leaking equipment. This plan (or a legible copy) must be kept
at the site of the equipment. The original must be made available
for EPA inspection on request. The plan must be dated and all
work under the plan must be completed within one year of plan's
date.
(4) Owners must repair leaks pursuant to paragraphs (i)(1)
and (2) of this section within 30 days of discovery or within
30 days of when the leak(s) should have been discovered, if
the owners intentionally shielded themselves from information
which would have revealed a leak.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the control
number 2060-0256)
82.158 Standards for recycling and recovery equipment.
(a) Effective November 15, 1993, all manufacturers and importers
of recycling and recovery equipment intended for use during
the maintenance, service, or repair of appliances except MVACs
and MVAC-like appliances or during the disposal of appliances
except small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances, shall
have had such equipment certified by an approved equipment testing
organization to meet the applicable requirements in paragraph
(b) or (d) of this section. All manufacturers and importers
of recycling and recovery equipment intended for use during
the maintenance, service, or repair of MVAC-like appliances
shall have had such equipment certified pursuant to 82.36(a).
(b) Equipment manufactured or imported on or after November
15, 1993 for use during the maintenance, service, or repair
of appliances except small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like
appliances or during the disposal of appliances except small
appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances must be certified
by an approved equipment testing organization to meet the following
requirements:
(1) In order to be certified, the equipment must be capable
of achieving the level of evacuation specified in Table 2 of
this section under the conditions of the ARI Standard 740-1993,
Performance of Refrigerant Recovery, Recycling and/or Reclaim
Equipment (ARI 740-1993) (Appendix B):
Table 2.-Levels of Evacuation Which Must Be Achieved by
Recovery or
Recycling Equipment Intended for Use With Appliances {1}
[Manufactured on or after November 15, 1993]
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Type of appliance with which recovery or recycling machine is
³ Inches
intended to be used
³ of Hg
³ vacuum
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³
HCFC-22 appliances, or isolated component of such appliances,
³ 0
normally containing less than 200 pounds of refrigerant.
³
HCFC-22 appliances, or isolated component of such appliances,
³ 10
normally containing 200 pounds or more of refrigerant.
³
Very high-pressure appliances ..................................
³ 0
Other high-pressure appliances, or isolated component of such
³ 10
appliances, normally containing less than 200 pounds of
³
refrigerant.
³
Other high-pressure appliances, or isolated component of such
³ 15
appliances, normally containing 200 pounds or more of
³
refrigerant.
³
Low-pressure appliances ........................................
³ {2} 25
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
{1} Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances.
{2} mm Hg absolute.
The vacuums specified in inches of Hg vacuum must be achieved
relative to an atmospheric pressure of 29.9 inches of Hg absolute.
(2) Recovery or recycling equipment whose recovery efficiency
cannot be tested according to the procedures in ARI 740-1993
may be certified if an approved third-party testing organization
adopts and performs a test that demonstrates, to the satisfaction
of the Administrator, that the recovery efficiency of that
equipment
is equal to or better than that of equipment that:
(i) Is intended for use with the same type of appliance;
and
(ii) Achieves the level of evacuation in Table 2.
(3) The equipment must meet the minimum requirements for
ARI certification under ARI 740-1993.
(4) If the equipment is equipped with a noncondensables purge
device:
(i) The equipment must not release more than five percent
of the quantity of refrigerant being recycled through
noncondensables
purging under the conditions of ARI 740-1993; and
(ii) Effective May 14, 1995, the equipment must not release
more than three percent of the quantity of refrigerant being
recycled through noncondensables purging under the conditions
of ARI 740-1993.
(5) The equipment must be equipped with low-loss fittings
on all hoses.
(6) The equipment must have its liquid recovery rate and
its vapor recovery rate measured under the conditions of ARI
740-1993.
(c) Equipment manufactured or imported before November 15,
1993 for use during the maintenance, service, or repair of
appliances
except small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances or
during the disposal of appliances except small appliances, MVACs,
and MVAC-like appliances will be considered certified if it
is capable of achieving the level of evacuation specified in
Table 3 of this section when tested using a properly calibrated
pressure gauge:
Table 3.-Levels of Evacuation Which Must Be Achieved by
Recovery or
Recycling Machines Intended for Use With Appliances {1}
[Manufactured before November 15, 1993]
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³
Inches of vacuum
Type of air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment ³
(relative to
with which recovery or recycling machine is intended ³
standard
to be used ³
atmospheric
³
pressure of 29.9
³
inches Hg)
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³
HCFC-22 equipment, or isolated component of such ³
0
equipment, normally containing less than 200 pounds ³
of refrigerant. ³
HCFC-22 equipment, or isolated component of such ³
4
equipment, normally containing 200 pounds or more of ³
refrigerant. ³
Very high-pressure equipment ......................... ³
0
Other high-pressure equipment, or isolated component ³
4
of such equipment, normally containing less than 200 ³
pounds of refrigerant. ³
Other high-pressure equipment, or isolated component ³
4
of such equipment, normally containing 200 pounds or ³
more of refrigerant. ³
Low-pressure equipment ............................... ³
25
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
{1} Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances.
(d) Equipment manufactured or imported on or after November
15, 1993 for use during the maintenance, service, or repair
of small appliances must be certified by an approved equipment
testing organization to be capable of either:
(1) Recovering 90% of the refrigerant in the test stand when
the compressor of the test stand is operating and 80% of the
refrigerant when the compressor of the test stand is not operating
when used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions
under the conditions of appendix C, Method for Testing Recovery
Devices for Use with Small Appliances; or
(2) Achieving a four-inch vacuum under the conditions of
appendix B, ARI 740-1993.
(e) Equipment manufactured or imported before November 15,
1993 for use with small appliances will be considered certified
if it is capable of either:
(1) Recovering 80% of the refrigerant in the system, whether
or not the compressor of the test stand is operating, when used
in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions under the
conditions of appendix C, Method for Testing Recovery Devices
for Use with Small Appliances; or
(2) Achieving a four-inch vacuum when tested using a properly
calibrated pressure gauge.
(f) Equipment manufactured or imported on or after November
15, 1993 for use during the maintenance, service, or repair
of MVAC-like appliances must be certified in accordance with
82.36(a).
(g) Equipment manufactured or imported before November 15,
1993 for use during the maintenance, service, or repair of MVAC-
like appliances must be capable of reducing the system pressure
to 102 mm of mercury vacuum under the conditions of the SAE
Standard, SAE J1990 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart B).
(h) Manufacturers and importers of equipment certified under
paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section must place a label on
each piece of equipment stating the following:
THIS EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY [APPROVED EQUIPMENT
TESTING ORGANIZATION] TO MEET EPA's MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR
RECYCLING OR RECOVERY EQUIPMENT INTENDED FOR USE WITH [APPROPRIATE
CATEGORY OF APPLIANCE].
The label shall also show the date of manufacture and the
serial number (if applicable) of the equipment. The label shall
be affixed in a readily visible or accessible location, be made
of a material expected to last the lifetime of the equipment,
present required information in a manner so that it is likely
to remain legible for the lifetime of the equipment, and be
affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed from the
equipment without damage to the label.
(i) The Administrator will maintain a list of equipment
certified
pursuant to paragraphs (b), (d), and (f) of this section by
manufacturer and model. Persons interested in obtaining a copy
of the list should send written inquiries to the address in
82.160(a).
(j) Manufacturers or importers of recycling or recovery
equipment
intended for use during the maintenance, service, or repair
of appliances except MVACs or MVAC-like appliances or during
the disposal of appliances except small appliances, MVACs, and
MVAC-like appliances must periodically have approved equipment
testing organizations conduct either:
(1) Retests of certified recycling or recovery equipment;
or
(2) Inspections of recycling or recovery equipment at
manufacturing
facilities to ensure that each equipment model line that has
been certified under this section continues to meet the
certification
criteria.
Such retests or inspections must be conducted at least once
every three years after the equipment is first certified.
(k) An equipment model line that has been certified under
this section may have its certification revoked if it is
subsequently
determined to fail to meet the certification criteria. In such
cases, the Administrator or her or his designated representative
shall give notice to the manufacturer or importer setting forth
the basis for her or his determination.
(l) Equipment used to evacuate refrigerant from MVACs and
MVAC-like appliances before they are disposed of must be capable
of reducing the system pressure to 102 mm of mercury vacuum
under the conditions of the SAE Standard, SAE J1990 (appendix
A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart B).
(m) Equipment used to evacuate refrigerant from small appliances
before they are disposed of must be capable of either:
(1) Removing 90% of the refrigerant when the compressor of
the small appliance is operating and 80% of the refrigerant
when the compressor of the small appliance is not operating,
when used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions
under the conditions of appendix C, Method for Testing Recovery
Devices for Use With Small Appliances; or
(2) Evacuating the small appliance to four inches of vacuum
when tested using a properly calibrated pressure gauge.
82.160 Approved equipment testing organizations.
(a) Any equipment testing organization may apply for approval
by the Administrator to certify equipment pursuant to the standards
in 82.158 and appendices B or C of this subpart. The application
shall be sent to: Section 608 Recycling Program Manager,
Stratospheric
Protection Division, 6205-J, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
(b) Applications for approval must include written information
verifying the following:
(1) The list of equipment present at the organization that
will be used for equipment testing.
(2) Expertise in equipment testing and the technical experience
of the organization's personnel.
(3) Thorough knowledge of the standards as they appear in
82.158 and appendices B and/or C (as applicable) of this subpart.
(4) The organization must describe its program for verifying
the performance of certified recycling and recovery equipment
manufactured over the long term, specifying whether retests
of equipment or inspections of equipment at manufacturing
facilities
will be used.
(5) The organization must have no conflict of interest and
receive no direct or indirect financial benefit from the outcome
of certification testing.
(6) The organization must agree to allow the Administrator
access to records and personnel to verify the information contained
in the application.
(c) Organizations may not certify equipment prior to receiving
approval from EPA. If approval is denied under this section,
the Administrator or her or his designated representative shall
give written notice to the organization setting forth the basis
for her or his determination.
(d) If at any time an approved testing organization is found
to be conducting certification tests for the purposes of this
subpart in a manner not consistent with the representations
made in its application for approval under this section, the
Administrator reserves the right to revoke approval. In such
cases, the Administrator or her or his designated representative
shall give notice to the organization setting forth the basis
for her or his determination.
(e) Testing organizations seeking approval of an equipment
certification program may also seek approval to certify equipment
tested previously under the program. Interested organizations
may submit to the Administrator at the address in 82.160(a)
verification that the program met all of the standards in
82.160(b) and that equipment to be certified was tested to and
met the applicable standards in 82.158 (b) or (d). Upon EPA
approval, the previously tested equipment may be certified without
being retested (except insofar as such retesting is part of
the testing organization's program for verifying the performance
of equipment manufactured over the long term, pursuant to
82.160(b)(4)).
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the control
number 2060-0256)
82.161 Technician certification.
(a) Effective November 14, 1994, persons who maintain, service,
or repair appliances, except MVACs, and persons who dispose
of appliances, except for small appliances, room air conditioners,
and MVACs, must be certified by an approved technician
certification
program as follows:
(1) Persons who maintain, service, or repair small appliances
as defined in 82.158(v) must be properly certified as Type
I technicians.
(2) Persons who maintain, service, or repair high or very
high-pressure appliances, except small appliances and MVACs,
or dispose of high or very high-pressure appliances, except
small appliances and MVACs, must be properly certified as Type
II technicians.
(3) Persons who maintain, service, or repair low-pressure
appliances or dispose of low-pressure appliances must be properly
certified as Type III technicians.
(4) Persons who maintain, service, or repair low- and high-
pressure equipment as described in 82.161(a) (1), (2) and
(3) must be properly certified as Universal technicians.
(5) Persons who maintain, service, or repair MVAC-like
appliances
must either be properly certified as Type II technicians or
complete the training and certification test offered by a training
and certification program approved under 82.40.
(b) Test Subject Material. The Administrator shall maintain
a bank of test questions divided into four groups, including
a core group and three technical groups. The Administrator shall
release this bank of questions only to approved technician
certification
programs. Tests for each type of certification shall include
a minimum of 25 questions drawn from the core group and a minimum
of 25 questions drawn from each relevant technical group. These
questions shall address the subject areas listed in appendix
D.
(c) Program Approval. Persons may seek approval of any
technician
certification program (program), in accordance with the provisions
of this paragraph, by submitting to the Administrator at the
address in 82.160(a) verification that the program meets all
of the standards listed in appendix D and the following standards:
(1) Alternative Examinations. Programs are encouraged to
make provisions for non-English speaking technicians by providing
tests in other languages or allowing the use of a translator
when taking the test. If a translator is used, the certificate
received must indicate that translator assistance was required.
A test may be administered orally to any person who makes this
request, in writing, to the program at least 30 days before
the scheduled date for the examination. The letter must explain
why the request is being made.
(2) Recertification. The Administrator reserves the right
to specify the need for technician recertification at some future
date, if necessary, by placing a notice in the Federal Register.
(3) Proof of Certification. Programs must issue individuals
a wallet-sized card to be used as proof of certification, upon
successful completion of the test. Programs must issue an
identification
card to technicians that receive a score of 70 percent or higher
on the closed-book certification exam, within 30 days. Programs
providing Type I certification using the mail-in format, must
issue a permanent identification card to technicians that receive
a score of 84 percent or higher on the certification exam, no
later than 30 days after the program has received the exam and
any additional required material. Each card must include, at
minimum, the name of the certifying program, and the date the
organization became a certifying program, the name of the person
certified, the type of certification, a unique number for the
certified person, and the following text:
[Name of person] has been certified as a [Type I, Type II,
Type III, and/or Universal, as appropriate] technician as required
by 40 CFR part 82, subpart F.
(4) The Administrator reserves the right to consider other
factors deemed relevant to ensure the effectiveness of
certification
programs.
(d) If approval is denied under this section, the Administrator
shall give written notice to the program setting forth the basis
for her or his determination.
(e) If at any time an approved program violates any of the
above requirements, the Administrator reserves the right to
revoke approval. In such cases, the Administrator or her or
his designated representative shall give notice to the organization
setting forth the basis for her or his determination.
(f) Authorized representatives of the Administrator may require
technicians to demonstrate on the business entity's premises
their ability to perform proper procedures for recovering and/or
recycling refrigerant. Failure to demonstrate or failure to
properly use the equipment may result in revocation of the
certificate.
Failure to abide by any of the provisions of this subpart may
also result in revocation or suspension of the certificate.
If a technician's certificate is revoked, the technician would
need to recertify before maintaining, servicing, repairing or
disposing of any appliances.
(g) Persons seeking approval of a technician certification
program may also seek approval for technician certifications
granted previously under the program. Interested persons may
submit to the Administrator at the address in 82.160(a)
verification
that the program met all of the standards of 82.161(c) and
appendix D, or verification that the program met all of the
standards of 82.161(c) and appendix D, except for some elements
of the test subject material, in which case the person must
submit verification that supplementary information on that material
will be provided pursuant to appendix D, section (j).
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the control
number 2060-0256)
82.162 Certification by owners of recovery and recycling
equipment.
(a) No later than August 12, 1993, or within 20 days of
commencing
business for those persons not in business at the time of
promulgation,
persons maintaining, servicing, or repairing appliances except
for MVACs, and persons disposing of appliances except for small
appliances and MVACs, must certify to the Administrator that
such person has acquired certified recovery or recycling equipment
and is complying with the applicable requirements of this subpart.
Such equipment may include system-dependent equipment but must
include self-contained equipment, if the equipment is to be
used in the maintenance, service, or repair of appliances except
for small appliances. The owner or lessee of the recovery or
recycling equipment may perform this certification for his or
her employees. Certification shall take the form of a statement
signed by the owner of the equipment or another responsible
officer and setting forth:
(1) The name and address of the purchaser of the equipment,
including the county name;
(2) The name and address of the establishment where each
piece of equipment is or will be located;
(3) The number of service trucks (or other vehicles) used
to transport technicians and equipment between the establishment
and job sites and the field;
(4) The manufacturer name, the date of manufacture, and if
applicable, the model and serial number of the equipment; and
(5) The certification must also include a statement that
the equipment will be properly used in servicing or disposing
of appliances and that the information given is true and correct.
Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having
their places of business in:
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
must send their certifications to:
CAA 608 Enforcement Contact, EPA Region I, Mail Code APC,
JFK Federal Building, One Congress Street, Boston, MA 02203.
Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having
their places of business in:
New York
New Jersey
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
must send their certifications to:
CAA 608 Enforcement Contact, EPA Region II, Jacob K. Javits
Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 5000, New York, NY
10278.
Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having
their places of business in:
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
must send their certifications to:
CAA 608 Enforcement Contact, EPA Region III, Mail Code
3AT21, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107.
Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having
their places of business in:
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
must send their certifications to:
CAA 608 Enforcement Contact, EPA Region IV, 345 Courtland
Street, NE., Mail Code APT-AE, Atlanta, GA 30365.
Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having
their places of business in:
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
must send their certifications to:
CAA 608 Enforcement Contact, EPA Region V, Mail Code AT18J,
77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3507.
Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having
their places of business in:
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
must send their certifications to:
CAA 608 Enforcement Contact, EPA Region VI, Mail Code 6T-
EC, First Interstate Tower at Fountain Place, 1445 Ross Ave.,
Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733.
Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having
their places of business in:
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
must send their certifications to:
CAA 608 Enforcement Contact, EPA Region VII, Mail Code
ARTX/ARBR, 726 Minnesota Ave., Kansas City, KS 66101.
Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having
their places of business in:
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
must send their certifications to:
CAA 608 Enforcement Contact, EPA Region VIII, Mail Code
8AT-AP, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2405.
Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having
their places of business in:
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
must send their certifications to:
CAA 608 Enforcement Contact, EPA Region IX, Mail Code A-
3, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
Owners or lessees of recycling or recovery equipment having
their places of business in:
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
must send their certifications to:
CAA 608 Enforcement Contact, EPA Region X, Mail Code AT-
082, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101.
(b) Certificates under paragraph (a) of this section are
not transferable. In the event of a change of ownership of an
entity that maintains, services, or repairs appliances except
MVACs, or that disposes of appliances except small appliances,
MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances, the new owner of the entity
shall certify within 30 days of the change of ownership pursuant
to paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) No later than August 12, 1993, persons recovering
refrigerant
from small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances for purposes
of disposal of these appliances must certify to the Administrator
that such person has acquired recovery equipment that meets
the standards set forth in 82.158 (l) and/or (m), as applicable,
and that such person is complying with the applicable requirements
of this subpart. Such equipment may include system-dependent
equipment but must include self-contained equipment, if the
equipment is to be used in the disposal of appliances except
for small appliances. The owner or lessee of the recovery or
recycling equipment may perform this certification for his or
her employees. Certification shall take the form of a statement
signed by the owner of the equipment or another responsible
officer and setting forth:
(1) The name and address of the purchaser of the equipment,
including the county name;
(2) The name and address of the establishment where each
piece of equipment is or will be located;
(3) The number of service trucks (or other vehicles) used
to transport technicians and equipment between the establishment
and job sites and the field;
(4) The manufacturer's name, the date of manufacture, and
if applicable, the model and serial number of the equipment;
and
(5) The certification must also include a statement that
the equipment will be properly used in recovering refrigerant
from appliances and that the information given is true and correct.
The certification shall be sent to the appropriate address in
paragraph (a).
(d) Failure to abide by any of the provisions of this subpart
may result in revocation or suspension of certification under
paragraph (a) or (c) of this section. In such cases, the
Administrator
or her or his designated representative shall give notice to
the organization setting forth the basis for her or his
determination.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the control
number 2060-0256)
82.164 Reclaimer certification.
Effective August 12, 1993, persons reclaiming used refrigerant
for sale to a new owner must certify to the Administrator that
such person will:
(a) Return refrigerant to at least the standard of purity
set forth in ARI Standard 700-1988, Specifications for Fluorocarbon
Refrigerants;
(b) Verify this purity using the methods set forth in ARI
Standard 700-1988;
(c) Release no more than 1.5 percent of the refrigerant during
the reclamation process, and
(d) Dispose of wastes from the reclamation process in accordance
with all applicable laws and regulations. The data elements
for certification are as follows:
(1) The name and address of the reclaimer;
(2) A list of equipment used to reprocess and to analyze
the refrigerant; and
(3) The owner or a responsible officer of the reclaimer must
sign the certification stating that the refrigerant will be
returned to at least the standard of purity set forth in ARI
Standard 700-1988, Specifications for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants,
that the purity of the refrigerant will be verified using the
methods set forth in ARI Standard 700-1988, that no more than
1.5 percent of the refrigerant will be released during the
reclamation
process, that wastes from the reclamation process will be properly
disposed of, and that the information given is true and correct.
The certification should be sent to the following address: Section
608 Recycling Program Manager, Stratospheric Protection Division,
(6205-J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20460.
(e) Certificates are not transferable. In the event of a
change in ownership of an entity which reclaims refrigerant,
the new owner of the entity shall certify within 30 days of
the change of ownership pursuant to this section.
(f) Failure to abide by any of the provisions of this subpart
may result in revocation or suspension of the certification
of the reclaimer. In such cases, the Administrator or her or
his designated representative shall give notice to the organization
setting forth the basis for her or his determination.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the control
number 2060-0256)
82.166 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(a) All persons who sell or distribute any class I or class
II substance for use as a refrigerant must retain invoices that
indicate the name of the purchaser, the date of sale, and the
quantity of refrigerant purchased.
(b) Purchasers of any class I or class II refrigerants who
employ technicians who recover refrigerants may provide evidence
of each technician's certification to the wholesaler who sells
them refrigerant; the wholesaler will then keep this information
on file. In such cases, the purchaser must notify the wholesaler
regarding any change in a technician's certification or employment
status.
(c) Approved equipment testing organizations must maintain
records of equipment testing and performance and a list of
equipment
that meets EPA requirements. A list of all certified equipment
shall be submitted to EPA within 30 days of the organization's
approval by EPA and annually at the end of each calendar year
thereafter.
(d) Approved equipment testing organizations shall submit
to EPA within 30 days of the certification of a new model line
of recycling or recovery equipment the name of the manufacturer
and the name and/or serial number of the model line.
(e) Approved equipment testing organizations shall notify
EPA if retests of equipment or inspections of manufacturing
facilities conducted pursuant to 82.158(j) show that a previously
certified model line fails to meet EPA requirements. Such
notification
must be received within thirty days of the retest or inspection.
(f) Programs certifying technicians must maintain records
in accordance with section (g) of appendix D of this subpart.
(g) Reclaimers must maintain records of the names and addresses
of persons sending them material for reclamation and the quantity
of the material (the combined mass of refrigerant and contaminants)
sent to them for reclamation. Such records shall be maintained
on a transactional basis.
(h) Reclaimers must maintain records of the quantity of material
sent to them for reclamation, the mass of refrigerant reclaimed,
and the mass of waste products. Reclaimers must report this
information to the Administrator annually within 30 days of
the end of the calendar year.
(i) Persons disposing of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-
like appliances must maintain copies of signed statements obtained
pursuant to 82.156(f)(2).
(j) Persons servicing appliances normally containing 50 or
more pounds of refrigerant must provide the owner/operator of
such appliances with an invoice or other documentation, which
indicates the amount of refrigerant added to the appliance.
(k) Owners/operators of appliances normally containing 50
or more pounds of refrigerant must keep servicing records
documenting
the date and type of service, as well as the quantity of
refrigerant
added. The owner/operator must keep records of refrigerant
purchased
and added to such appliances in cases where owners add their
own refrigerant. Such records should indicate the date(s) when
refrigerant is added.
(l) Technicians certified under 82.161 must keep a copy
of their certificate at their place of business.
(m) All records required to be maintained pursuant to this
section must be kept for a minimum of three years unless otherwise
indicated. Entities that dispose of appliances must keep these
records on-site.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the control
number 2060-0256)
Appendix A to Subpart F-Specifications for Fluorocarbon
Refrigerants
This appendix is based on Air-conditioning and Refrigeration
Institute Standard 700-88:
Section 1. Purpose
1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to enable users
to evaluate and accept/reject refrigerants regardless of source
(new, reclaimed and/or repackaged) for use in new and existing
refrigerating and air conditioning products within the scope
of ARI.
1.1.1 This standard is intended for the guidance of the
industry,
including manufacturers, refrigerant reclaimers, repackagers,
distributors, installers, servicemen, contractors and for
consumers.
1.2 Review and Amendment. This standard is subject to review
and amendment as the technology advances.
Section 2. Scope
2.1 Scope. This standard defines and classifies refrigerant
contaminants primarily based on standard and generally available
test methods and specifies acceptable levels of contaminants
(purity requirements) for various fluorocarbon refrigerants
regardless of source. These refrigerants are: R11; R12; R13;
R22; R113; R114; R500; R502 and R503 as referenced in the
ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard "Number Designation of Refrigerants" (American Society
of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc.,
Standard 34-78).
Section 3. Definitions
3.1 "Shall", "Should", "Recommended", or "It Is Recommended".
"Shall", "should", "recommended", or "it is recommended" shall
be interpreted as follows:
3.1.1 Shall. Where "shall" or "shall not" is used for a
provision
specified, that provision is mandatory if compliance with the
standard is claimed.
3.1.2 Should, Recommended, or It is Recommended. "Should",
"recommended", or "it is recommended" is used to indicate
provisions
which are not mandatory but which are desirable as good practice.
Section 4. Characterization of Refrigerants and Contaminants
4.1 Characterization of refrigerants and contaminants addressed
are listed in the following general classifications:
4.1.1 Characterization
a. Boiling point
b. Boiling point range
4.1.2 Contaminants
a. Water
b. Chloride ion
c. Acidity
d. High boiling residue
e. Particulates/solids
f. Non-condensables
g. Other refrigerants
Section 5. Sampling, Test Methods and Maximum Permissible
Contaminant
Levels
5.1 The recommended referee test methods for the various
contaminants are given in the following paragraphs. If alternate
test methods are employed, the user must be able to demonstrate
that they produce results equivalent to the specified referee
method.
5.2 Refrigerant Sampling.
5.2.1 Special precautions should be taken to assure that
representative samples are obtained for analysis. Sampling shall
be done by trained laboratory personnel following accepted sampling
and safety procedures.
5.2.2 Gas Phase Sample. A gas phase sample shall be obtained
for determining the non-condensables by connecting the sample
cylinder to an evacuated gas sampling bulb by means of a manifold.
The manifold should have a valve arrangement that facilitates
evacuation of all connecting tubing leading to the sampling
bulb. Since non-condensable gases, if present, will concentrate
in the vapor phase of the refrigerant, care must be exercised
to eliminate introduction of air during the sample transfer.
Purging is not an acceptable procedure for a gas phase sample
since it may introduce a foreign product. Since R11 and R113
have normal boiling points at or above room temperatures, non-
condensable determination is not required for these refrigerants.
5.2.3 Liquid Phase Sample. A liquid phase sample, which may
be obtained as follows, is required for all tests listed in
this standard, except the test for non-condensables. Place an
empty sample cylinder with the valve opened in an oven at
230øF
[110øC] for one hour. Remove it from the oven while hot,
immediately
connect to an evacuation system and evacuate to less than 1
mm. mercury (1000 microns). Close the valve and allow it to
cool.
5.2.3.1 The valve and lines from the unit to be sampled shall
be clean and dry. Connect the line to the sample cylinder loosely.
Purge through the loose connection. Make the connection tight
at the end of the purge period. Take the sample as a liquid
by chilling the sample cylinder slightly. Do not load the cylinder
over 80 percent full at room temperature. This can be accomplished
by weighing the empty cylinder and then the cylinder with
refrigerant.
The cylinder must not become completely full of liquid below
130øF [54.4øC]. When the desired amount of refrigerant
has been
collected, close the valve(s) and disconnect the sample cylinder
immediately.
5.2.3.2 Check the sample cylinder for leaks and record the
gross weight.
5.3 Refrigerant Boiling Point and Boiling Range.
5.3.1 The test method shall be that described in the Federal
Specification for "Fluorocarbon Refrigerants" BB-F-1421 B dated
March 5, 1982, section 4.4.3.
5.3.2 The required values for boiling point and boiling point
range are given in Table 1, "Physical Properties of Fluorocarbon
Refrigerants and Maximum Contaminant Levels."
5.3.3 Gas chromatography (GC) is an acceptable alternate
test method which can be used to characterize refrigerants.
This is done by comparison to the known standards. Listed below
are some readily available GC methods.
Alternate Gas Chromatography Test
Methods
[See Appendix A for titles and sources]
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Refrigerant ³ ICI ³
Dupont ³ Allied
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³
R11 ³ RSV/ALAB/CM3 and ³ F3205.165.01CW
³ G-11-7A
³ RSV/ALAB/CM4 ³
³
R12 ³ RSV/ALAB/CM5 ³
F3227.165.01CW(P) ³ G-12-7A
R13 ³ RSV/ALAB/CM20 ³
F3275.165.01CC(P) ³ -
R22 ³ RSV/ALAB/CM8 ³
F3290.165.01LV(P) ³ G-22-7A
R113 ³ RSV/ALAB/CM6 ³ F3297.165.01CC
³ GSVD-1A
R114 ³ RSV/ALAB/CM21 ³
F3305.165.01CC(P) ³ G-114-7A
R500 ³ RSV/ALAB/CM5 ³
F3327.165.01CW(P) ³ G-500-7A
R502 ³ RSV/ALAB/CM8 ³ F3333.165.01CC
³ G-502-7A
R503 ³ RSV/ALAB/CM20 ³
F3337.165.01CW(P) ³ G-503-7A
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Note: Equivalent laboratory test methods may be available from
other producers of these
refrigerants.
5.4 Water Content.
5.4.1 The Karl Fischer Test Method shall be used for determining
the water content of refrigerant. This method is described in
ASTM Standard for "Water In Gases Using Karl Fisher Reagent"
E700-79, reapproved 1984 (American Society for Testing Materials,
Philadelphia, PA). This method can be used for refrigerants
that are either a liquid or a gas at room temperature, including
Refrigerants 11 and 113. For all refrigerants, the sample for
water analysis shall be taken from the liquid phase of the
container
to be tested. Proper operation of the analytical method requires
special equipment and an experienced operator. The precision
of the results is excellent if proper sampling and handling
procedures are followed. Refrigerants containing a colored dye
can be successfully analyzed for water using this method.
5.4.2 Water is a harmful contaminant in refrigerants because
it causes freeze up, corrosion and promotes unfavorable chemical
breakdown. The refrigerants covered in this standard shall have
a maximum water content of 10 parts per million (ppm) by weight.
5.5 Chloride Ions. The refrigerant shall be tested for chlorides
as an indication of the presence of hydrochloric or similar
acids.
5.5.1 The test method shall be that described in the Federal
Specification for "Fluorocarbon Refrigerants," BB-F-1421B, dated
March 5, 1982, (U.S. General Services Administration) section
4.4.4 (silver nitrate reagent). This simple test will detect
HC1 and other halogens and requires only a 5 ml sample. The
test will show noticeable turbidity at equivalent HC1 levels
of about 25 ppm by weight or higher.
5.5.2 The results of the test shall not exhibit any sign
of turbidity. Report the results as "pass" or "fail."
5.6 Acidity.
5.6.1 The acidity test uses the titration principle to detect
any compound that ionizes as an acid. The test requires about
a 100 to 120 gram sample and has a lower detection limit of
0.1 ppm by weight.
5.6.2 The test method shall be per Allied approved analytical
procedure "Determination of Acidity in Genetron(R) and Genesolv(R)
Fluorocarbons," GP-GEN-2A (used by permission of Allied-Signal,
Inc., Columbia Road and Park Avenue, P.O. Box 1139R, Morristown,
New Jersey 07960), or DuPont procedure, "The Determination of
Acid Number-Visual Titrimetric Procedure," FPL-3-1974 (used
by permission of Freon Products Division E.I. duPont de Nemours
and Co., Inc., Brandywine Building 13237, Wilmington, Delaware
19898).
5.6.3 The maximum permissible acidity is 1 ppm by weight.
5.7 High Boiling Residue.
5.7.1 High boiling residue will be determined by measuring
the residue after evaporation of a standard volume of refrigerant
at a temperature 50øF [10.0øC], above the boiling point
of the
sample using a Goetz tube as specified in the Federal Specification
for "Fluorocarbon Refrigerants," BB-F-1421B, dated March 5,
1982. Oils and organic acids will be captured by this method.
5.7.2 The value for high boiling residue shall be expressed
as a percentage by volume and shall not exceed the maximum percent
specified in Table 1.
5.8 Particulates/Solids.
5.8.1 During the Boiling Range test, a measured amount of
sample is evaporated from a Goetz bulb under controlled temperature
conditions. The particulates/solids shall be determined by visual
examination of the empty Goetz bulb after the sample has evaporated
completely. Presence of dirt, rust or other particulate
contamination
is reported as "fail."
5.8.2 For details of the above test method, refer to the
DuPont method for "Determination of Boiling Range, Residue,
Particulates" F3200.037.01CW(P) (used by permission of Freon
Products Division, E.I. duPoint de Nemours and Co., Inc.).
5.9 Non-Condensables.
5.9.1 Non-condensable gases consist primarily of air accumulated
in the vapor phase of refrigerant-containing tanks. The solubility
of air in the refrigerants liquid phase is extremely low and
air is not significant as a liquid phase contaminant. The presence
of non-condensable gases may reflect poor quality control in
transferring refrigerants to storage tanks and cylinders.
5.9.2 The test method shall be that described in the Federal
Specification for "Fluorocarbon Refrigerants," BB-F-1421B, dated
March 5, 1982, section 4.4.2 (perchloroethylene method). Gas
Chromatography, as described in 5.3.3 is an acceptable alternate
test method.
5.9.3 The maximum level of non-condensables in the vapor
phase of a refrigerant in a container shall not exceed 1.5 percent
by volume.
5.10 Other Refrigerants.
5.10.1 The amount of other refrigerants in the subject
refrigerant
shall be determined by one of the gas chromatographic methods
described in 5.3.3 for the appropriate refrigerant.
5.10.2 The subject refrigerant shall not contain more than
0.5 percent by weight of other refrigerants (see Table 1).
Section 6. Reporting Procedure
6.1 The source (manufacturer, reclaimer or repackager) of
the packaged refrigerant should be identified. The fluorocarbon
refrigerant shall be identified by its accepted refrigerant
number and/or its chemical name. Maximum permissible levels
of contaminants are shown in Table 1. Test results shall be
tabulated in a like manner.
Section 7. Voluntary Conformance
7.1 Voluntary Conformance. Conformance to this standard is
voluntary. However, any refrigerant specified as meeting these
requirements shall meet all of the requirements given in this
standard.
Table 1-Physical Properties of Fluorocarbon
Refrigerants and Maximum Contaminant Levels
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³
Refrigerants
ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ R11 ³ R12 ³ R13
³ R22 ³ R113 ³ R114 ³
R500 ³ R502 ³ R503
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
Physical ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
Properties: ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
Boiling ³ 74.9 ³ -21.6 ³ -114.6
³ -41.4 ³ 117.6 ³ 38.8 ³
-28.3 ³ -49.8 ³ -127.6
point. ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
F @ 29.92 ³ [23.8] ³ [-29.8] ³ [-81.4]
³ [-40.8] ³ [47.6] ³ [3.8] ³
[-33.5] ³ [-45.4] ³ [-88.7]
in. Hg. ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
Boiling ³ 0.5 ³ 0.5 ³ 0.9
³ 0.5 ³ 0.5 ³ 0.5 ³
0.9 ³ 0.9 ³ 0.9
range F ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
for 5% to ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
85% by ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
volume ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
distilled ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
Vapor Phase ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
Contaminant ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
: ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
Air and ³ ³ 1.5 ³ 1.5
³ 1.5 ³ ³ 1.5 ³
1.5 ³ 1.5 ³ 1.5
other non ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
-condens- ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
ables (in ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
filled ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
container ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
) Max. % ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
by volume ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
Liquid Phase ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
Contaminant ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
: ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
Water-ppm ³ 10 ³ 10 ³ 10
³ 10 ³ 10 ³ 10 ³
10 ³ 10 ³ 10
by weight ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
Chloride ³ Pass ³ Pass ³ Pass
³ Pass ³ Pass ³ Pass ³
Pass ³ Pass ³ Pass
ion-no ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
turbidity ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
to pass ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
by test. ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
Acidity- ³ 1.0 ³ 1.0 ³ 1.0
³ 1.0 ³ 1.0 ³ 1.0 ³
1.0 ³ 1.0 ³ 1.0
Max. ppm ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
by weight ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
High ³ 0.01 ³ 0.01 ³ 0.05
³ 0.01 ³ 0.03 ³ 0.01 ³
0.05 ³ 0.01 ³ 0.01
boiling ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
residues- ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
Max. % by ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
volume. ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
Particula- ³ Pass ³ Pass ³ Pass
³ Pass ³ Pass ³ Pass ³
Pass ³ Pass ³ Pass
tes/ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
Solids- ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
visually ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
clean to ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
pass. ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
Other ref- ³ 0.5 ³ 0.5 ³ 0.5
³ 0.5 ³ 0.5 ³ 0.5 ³
0.5 ³ 0.5 ³ 0.5
rigerants ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
-Max. % by ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
weight. ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Titles and Sources of Alternate Gas Chromatography Test Methods
ICI
General Chemical Business
ICI Chemicals and Polymer Ltd.
P.O. Box 13
The Heath
Runcorn Cheshire, England WA74QF
Methods for the Analysis of "Arctons," MD1400/32
"Organic Impurities by Gas Chromatography"
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Refrigerant ³ Method No. ³
Title
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
R11 ³ RSV/ALAB/CM3 and RSV/ALAB/CM4 ³
Arcton 11.
R12 ³ RSV/ALAB/CM5 ³
Arcton 12.
R13 ³ RSV/ALAB/CM20 ³
............................................................
R22 ³ RSV/ALAB/CM8 ³
Arcton 22.
R113 ³ RSV/ALAB/CM6 ³
Arcton 113.
R114 ³ RSV/ALAB/CM21 ³
Arcton 114.
R500 ³ RSV/ALAB/CM5 ³
............................................................
R502 ³ RSV/ALAB/CM8 ³
............................................................
R503 ³ RSV/ALAB/CM20 ³
............................................................
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Note: Used with permission of the source.
DuPont
Freon Products Division
E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc.
1007 Market Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19898
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Refrigerant ³ Method No. ³
Title
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
R11 ³ F3205.165.01CW ³
Determination of Purity by Gas Chromatography "Freon" 11
³ ³
Fluorocarbon.
R12 ³ F3227.165.01CW(P) ³
"Freon" 12 Determination of Purity.
R13 ³ F3275.165.01CC(P) ³
Determination of Composition "Freon" 13 Fluorocarbon.
R22 ³ F3290.165.01LV(P) ³
"Freon" 22 Determination of Purity by Gas Chromatography.
R113 ³ F3297.165.01CC ³
"Freon" 113 Determination of Purity by Gas Chromatography.
R114 ³ F3305.165.01CC(P) ³
"Freon" 114 Fluorocarbon-Determination of Composition.
R500 ³ F3327.165.01CW(P) ³
"Freon" 500 Determination of Composition by Gas.
R502 ³ F3333.165.01CC ³
"Freon" 502 Determination of Composition Chromatography.
R503 ³ F3337.165.01CW(P) ³
"Freon" 503 Determination of Composition.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Note: Used with permission of the source.
Allied
Allied-Signal, Inc.
Engineered Material Sector
P.O. Box 1139R
Morristown, New Jersey 07960
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Refrigerant ³ Method No. ³
Title
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
R11 ³ G-11-7A ³
Determination of Genetron(R) 11 Fluorocarbon (Assay)
³ ³
Fluorocarbon 12, Carbon Tetrachloride, and Non-Specified
³ ³
Fluorocarbons in Genetron(R) 11 Fluorocarbon.
R12 ³ G-12-7A ³
Determination of Genetron(R) 12 Fluorocarbon (Assay),
³ ³
Fluorocarbons 11, 13, 22 and Non-Specified Fluorocarbons in
³ ³
Genetron(R) 12 Fluorocarbons.
R13 ³ ³
............................................................
R22 ³ G-22-7A ³
Determination of Genetron(R) 22 Fluorocarbons (Assay),
³ ³
Fluorocarbons 12, 21, 23 and Non-Specified Fluorocarbons in
³ ³
Genetron(R) 22 Fluorocarbons.
R113 ³ GSVD-1A ³
Determination of Genesolv(R) D (Assay), Fluorocarbons 112, 114,
³ ³
122, 123 and 1112a in Genesolv(R) D.
R114 ³ G-114-7A ³
Determination of Genetron(R) 114 Fluorocarbon (Assay),
³ ³
Fluorocarbons 113, 115, 123, and Non-Specified
³ ³
Fluorocarbons in Genetron(R) 114 Fluorocarbon.
R500 ³ G-500-7A ³
Determination of Fluorocarbon 12, Fluorocarbon 152a and Non-
³ ³
Specified Fluorocarbons in Genetron(R) 500 Fluorocarbon.
R502 ³ G-502-7A ³
Determination of Fluorocarbon 22 and Fluorocarbon 115, and
³ ³
Non-Specified Fluorocarbons in Genetron(R) 502 Fluorocarbon.
R503 ³ G-503-7A ³
Determination of Fluorocarbon 13, 23, 12, 22 and Non-
³ ³
Specified Fluorocarbons in Genetron(R) 503 Fluorocarbon.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Note: Used with permission of the source.
Bibliography
For additional information on subjects or tests described
in this Standard see:
1. ASHRAE Handbook Refrigeration 1986, Chapter 7, "Moisture
and Other Contaminant Control in Refrigerant Systems." American
Society for Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA 30329.
2. ASTM Standard Designation D3401-78, Standard Test Method
for "Water in Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their
Admixtures."
American Society for Testing Materials, 1916 Race Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103.
3. ASTM Standard D1533-83, "Water in Insulating Liquid (Karl
Fischer Reaction Method)." American Society for Testing
Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
4. ASTM Standard 2989-74 (reapproved 1981), Standard Test Method
for "Acidity-Alkalinity of Halogenated Organic Solvents
and Their Admixtures." American Society for Testing Materials,
1916 Race street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
5. DuPont Technical Bulletin B-8, "Quality Specifications and
Methods of Analysis for the `Freon' Fluorocarbon Refrigerants."
Freon Products Division, E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co.,
Inc.
6. Parmelee, H. M. "Solubility of Air in Freon-12 and Freon-
22." Refrigerating Engineering, June 1951, page 573.
7. Wojtkowski, E.F. "System Contamination and Cleanups," ASHRAE
Journal, June 1964, page 49.
Appendix B to Subpart F-Performance of Refrigerant Recovery,
Recycling and/or Reclaim Equipment
This appendix is based on Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration
Institute Standard 740-91.
Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment
Section 1. Purpose
1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to establish
methods of testing for rating and evaluating the performance
of refrigerant recovery, and/or recycling equipment, and general
equipment requirements (herein referred to as "equipment") for
containment or purity levels, capacity, speed, and purge loss
to minimize emission into the atmosphere of designated
refrigerants.
1.1.1 This standard is intended for the guidance of the
industry,
including manufacturers, refrigerant reclaimers, repackers,
distributors, installers, servicemen, contractors and for
consumers.
1.1.2 This standard is not intended to be used as a guide
in defining maximum levels of contaminants in recycled or reclaimed
refrigerants used in various applications.
1.2 Review and Amendment. This standard is subject to review
and amendment as the technology advances.
Section 2. Scope
2.1 Scope. This standard defines general equipment requirements
and the test apparatus, test mixtures, sampling and analysis
techniques that will be used to determine the performance of
recovery and/or recycling equipment for various refrigerants
including R11, R12, R13, R22, R113, R114, R123, R134a, R500,
R502, and R503, as referenced in the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-
1992, "Number Designation of Refrigerants" (American Society
of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc.).
Section 3. Definitions
3.1 Recovered refrigerant. Refrigerant that has been removed
from a system for the purpose of storage, recycling, reclamation
or transportation.
3.2 Recover. To remove refrigerant in any condition from
a system and store it in an external container without necessarily
testing or processing it in any way.
3.3 Recycle. To reduce contaminants in used refrigerant by
oil separation, non-condensable removal and single or multiple
passes through devices which reduce moisture, acidity and
particulate
matter, such as replaceable core filter-driers. This term usually
applies to procedures implemented at the field job site or in
a local service shop.
3.4 Reclaim. To reprocess refrigerant to new product
specifications
by means which may include distillation. Chemical analysis of
the refrigerant is required to determine that appropriate product
specifications are met. The identification of contaminants,
required chemical analysis, and acceptable contaminant levels
will be established in the latest edition of ARI Standard 700
"Specifications of Fluorocarbon and other Refrigerants." This
term usually implies the use of processes or procedures available
only at a reprocessing or manufacturing facility.
3.5 Standard Contaminated Refrigerant Sample. A mixture of
new and/or reclaimed refrigerant and specified quantities of
identified contaminants which are representative of field obtained,
used refrigerant samples and which constitute the mixture to
be processed by the equipment under test.
3.6 Push/Pull Method. The push/pull refrigerant recovery
method is defined as the process of transferring liquid refrigerant
from a refrigeration system to a receiving vessel by lowering
the pressure in the vessel and raising the pressure in the system,
and by connecting a separate line between the system liquid
port and the receiving vessel.
3.7 Recycle Rate. The amount of refrigerant processed (in
pounds) divided by the time elapsed in the recycling mode in
pounds per minute. For equipment which uses a separate recycling
sequence, the recycle rate does not include the recovery rate
(or elapsed time). For equipment which does not use a separate
recycling sequence, the recycle rate is a maximum rate based
solely on the higher of the liquid or vapor recovery rate, by
which the rated contaminant levels can be achieved.
3.8 Equpment Classification.
3.8.1 Self Contained Equipment. A refrigerant recovery or
recycling system which is capable of refrigerant extraction
without the assistance of components contained within an air
conditioning or refrigeration system.
3.8.2 System Dependent Equipment. Refrigerant recovery equipment
which requires for its operation the assistance of components
contained in an air conditioning or refrigeration system.
3.9 "Shall", "Should", "Recommended" or "It is Recommended",
"Shall" "Should", "recommended", or "it is recommended" shall
be interpreted as follows:
3.9.1 Shall. Where "shall" or "shall not" is used for a
provision
specified, that provision is mandatory if compliance with the
standard is claimed.
3.9.2 Should, Recommended, or It is Recommended, "Should",
"recommended", is used to indicate provisions which are not
mandatory but which are desirable as good practice.
Section 4. General Equipment Requirements
4.1 The equipment manufacturer shall provide operating
instructions,
necessary maintenance procedures, and source information for
replacement parts and repair.
4.2 The equipment shall indicate when any filter/drier(s)
needs replacement. This requirement can be met by use of a moisture
transducer and indicator light, by use of a sight glass/moisture
indicator, or by some measurement of the amount of refrigerant
processed such as a flow meter or hour meter. Written instructions
such as "to change the filter every 400 pounds, or every 30
days" shall not be acceptable except for equipment in large
systems where the Liquid Recovery Rate is greater than 25 lbs/min
[11.3 Kg/min] where the filter/drier(s) would be changed for
every job.
4.3 The equipment shall either automatically purge
non-condensables
if the rated level is exceeded or alert the operator that the
non-condensable level has been exceeded. While air purge processes
are subject to the requirements of this section, there is no
specific requirement to include an air purge process for "recycle"
equipment.
4.4 The equipment's refrigerant loss due to non-condensable
purging shall not be exceeded 5% by weight of total recovered
refrigerant. (See Section 9.4)
4.5 Internal hose assemblies shall not exceed a permeation
rate of 12 pounds mass per square foot [5.8 g/cm2 ] of internal
surface per year at a temperature of 120 F [48.8 øC] for any
designated refrigerant.
4.6 The equipment shall be evaluated at 75 F [24 øC] per
7.1. Normal operating conditions range from 50 øF to 104 F [10
øC to 40 øC].
4.7 Exemptions:
4.7.1 Equpment intended for recovery only shall be exempt
from sections 4.2 and 4.3.
Table 1.-Standard
Contaminated Refrigerant Samples
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ R11 ³ R12 ³ R13 ³
R22 ³ R113 ³ R114 ³ R123 ³ R134a
³ R500 ³ R502 ³ R503
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
Moisture ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
content: ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
PPM by ³ 100 ³ 80 ³ 30 ³
200 ³ 100 ³ 85 ³ 100 ³ 200
³ 200 ³ 200 ³ 30
weight of ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
pure ref- ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
rigerant. ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
Particulate ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
content: ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
PPM by ³ 80 ³ 80 ³ 80 ³
80 ³ 80 ³ 80 ³ 80 ³ 80
³ 80 ³ 80 ³ 80
weight of ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
pure ref- ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
rigerant ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
characte- ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
rized by ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
{1}. ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
Acid content:³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
PPM by ³ 500 ³ 100 ³ NA ³
500 ³ 400 ³ 200 ³ 500 ³ 100
³ 100 ³ 100 ³ NA
weight of ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
pure ref- ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
rigerant- ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
(mg KOH ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
per kg ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
refrig.) ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
characte- ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
rized by ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
{2}. ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
Mineral oil ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
content: ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
% by ³ 20 ³ 5 ³ NA ³
5 ³ 20 ³ 20 ³ 20 ³ 5
³ 5 ³ 5 ³ NA
weight of ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
pure ref- ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
rigerant. ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
Viscosity ³ 300 ³ 150 ³ ³
300 ³ 300 ³ 300 ³ 300 ³ 150
³ 150 ³ 150 ³
(SUS). ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
Non conde- ³ NA ³ 3 ³ 3 ³
3 ³ NA ³ 3 ³ 3 ³ 3
³ 3 ³ 3 ³ 3
nsable ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
gases air ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
content % ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
volume{3} ³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
{1} Particulate content shall consist of inert materials and
shall comply with particulate requirements in ASHRAE
Standard 63.2, "Method of Testing of Filtration Capacity of
Refrigerant Liquid Line Filters and Filter Driers."
{2} Acid consists of 60% oleic acid and 40% hydrochloric acid on
a total number basis.
{3} Synthetic ester based oil.
Section 5. Contaminated Refrigerants
5.1 The standard contaminated refrigerant sample shall have
the characteristics specified in Table 1, except as provided
in 5.2
5.2 Recovery equipment not rated for any specific contaminant
can be tested with new or reclaimed refrigerant.
Section 6. Test Apparatus
6.1 Self Contained Equipment Test Apparatus. The apparatus
as shown in Figure 1 consists of a 3 cubic foot [0.085 m3] mixing
chamber with a conical-shaped bottom, although a larger mixing
chamber is permissible. The size of the mixing chamber depends
upon the size of the equipment. The outlet at the bottom of
the cone and all restrictions and valves for liquid and vapor
refrigerant lines in the test apparatus shall be a minimum of
0.375 in. [9.5 mm] inside diameter or equivalent. The minimum
inside diameter for large equipment for use on chillers shall
be 1.5 in. [38 mm.]. The mixing chamber shall contain various
ports for receiving liquid refrigerant, oil, and contaminants.
A recirculating line connected from the bottom outlet through
a recirculating pump and then to a top vapor port shall be provided
for stirring of the mixture. Isolation valves may be required
for the pump. Alternative stirring means may be used if
demonstrated
to be equally effective.
6.1.1 For liquid refrigerant feed, the liquid valve is opened.
For vapor refrigerant feed, the vapor valve is opened and
refrigerant
passes through an evaporator coil. Flow is controlled by a
thermostatic
expansion valve to create 5 F [3 øC] superheat at an
evaporator
temperature of 70 F ñ 3 F[21 øCñ2ø]. The
evaporator coil or
equivalent evaporator means shall be either sized large enough
for the largest system or be sized for each system.
6.1.2 An alternative method for vapor refrigerant feed is
to pass through a boiler and then an automatic pressure regulating
valve set at refrigerant saturation pressure at 75 F ñ 3 F [24
øC ñ 2 øC].
6.2 System Dependent Equipment Test Apparatus. This test
apparatus is to be used for final recovery vacuum rating of
all system dependent equipment.
6.2.1 The test apparatus shown in Figure 2 consists of a
complete refrigeration system. The manufacturer shall identify
the refrigerants to be tested. The test apparatus can be modified
to facilitate operation or testing of the system dependent
equipment
if the modifications to the apparatus are specifically described
within the manufacturer's literature. (See Figure 2.) A 1/4
inch [6.3 mm] balance line shall be connected across the test
apparatus between the high and low pressure sides, with an
isolation
valve located at the connection to the compressor high side.
A 1/4 inch [6.3 mm] access port with a valve core shall be
located in the balance line for the purpose of measuring final
recovery vacuum at the conclusion of the test.
>>>> See the accompanying hardcopy volume for
non-machine-readable
data that appears at this point.
Section 7. Performance Testing
7.1 Contaminant removal and performance testing shall be
conducted at 75 F ñ 2 F [23.9 øC ñ 1.1 øC].
7.1.1 The equipment shall be prepared for operation per the
instruction manual.
7.1.2 The contaminated sample batch shall consist of not
less than the sum of the amounts required to complete steps
7.1.2.2 and 7.1.2.3 below.
7.1.2.1 A liquid sample shall be drawn from the mixing chamber
prior to starting the test to assure quality control of the
mixing process.
7.1.2.2 Vapor refrigerant feed testing, if elected, shall
normally be processed first. After the equipment reaches stabilized
conditions of condensing temperature and/or storage tank pressure,
the vapor feed recovery rate shall be measured. One method is
to start measuring the vapor refrigerant recovery rate when
85% of refrigerant remains in the mixing chamber and continue
for a period of time sufficient to achieve the accuracy in 9.2.
If liquid feed is not elected, complete Step 7.1.2.4.
7.1.2.3 Liquid refrigerant feed testing, if elected, shall
be processed next. After the equipment reaches stabilized
conditions,
the liquid feed recovery rate shall be measured. One method
is to wait 2 minutes after starting liquid feed and then measure
the liquid refrigerant recovery rate for a period of time
sufficient
to achieve the accuracy in 9.1. Continue liquid recovery operation
as called for in 7.1.2.4.
7.1.2.4 Continue recovery operation until all liquid is removed
from the mixing chamber and vapor is removed to the point where
the equipment shuts down per automatic means or is manually
stopped per the operating instructions.
7.1.2.5 After collecting the first contaminated refrigerant
sample batch, the liquid and vapor value of the apparatus shall
be closed and the mixing chamber pressure recorded after 1 minute
as required in 9.5. After preparing a second contaminated
refrigerant
sample batch, continue recovery until the storage container
reaches 80% liquid fill level. After recycling and measuring
the recycle rate per section 7.1.3, set this container aside
for the vapor sample in 8.2.2.
7.1.2.6 Interruptions in equipment operations as called for
in instruction manual are allowable.
7.1.3 Recycle as called for in equipment operating instructions.
Determine recycle rate by appropriate means as required in 9.3.
7.1.4 Repeat steps 7.1.2, 7.1.2.4, and 7.1.3 with contaminated
refrigerant sample until equipment indicator(s) show need to
change filter(s). It will not be necessary to repeat the recycle
rate determination in 7.1.3.
7.1.4.1 For equipment with a multiple pass recirculating
filter system, analyze the contents of the previous storage
container.
7.1.4.2 For equipment with a single pass filter system, analyze
the contents of the current storage container.
7.1.5 Refrigerant loss due to the equipment's non-condensable
gas purge shall be determined by appropriate means. (See Section
9.4.)
7.2 System Dependent Equipment. This procedure shall be used
for vacuum rating of all system dependent equipment. Liquid
refrigerant recovery rate, vapor refrigerant recovery rate,
and recycle rate are not tested on system dependent systems.
7.2.1 The apparatus operation and testing shall be conducted
at 75 F ñ 2 F. [23.9 øC. ñ/1.1. øC.].
7.2.2 The apparatus shall be charged with refrigerant per
its system design specifications.
7.2.3 For measurement of final recovery vacuum as required
in 9.5, first shut the balance line isolation valve and wait
1 minute for pressure to balance. Then connect and operate the
recovery system per manufacturers recommendations. When the
evacuation is completed, open the balance line isolation valve
and measure the pressure in the balance line.
Section 8. Sampling and Chemical Analysis Methods
8.1 The referee test methods for the various contaminants
are summarized in the following paragraphs. Detailed test
procedures
are included in Appendix A "Test Procedures for ARI STD 700."
If alternate test methods are employed, the user must be able
to demonstrate that they produce results equivalent to the
specified
referee method.
8.2 Refrigerant Sampling.
8.2.1 Sampling Precautions. Special precautions should be
taken to assure that representative samples are obtained for
analysis. Sampling shall be done by trained laboratory personnel
following accepted sampling and safety procedures.
8.2.2 Gas Phase Sample. A gas phase sample shall be obtained
for determining the non-condensables. Since non-condensable
gases, if present, will concentrate in the vapor phase of the
refrigerant, care must be exercised to eliminate introduction
of air during the sample transfer. Purging is not and acceptable
procedure for a gas phase sample since it may introduce a foreign
product. Since R11, R113 and R123 have normal boiling points
at or above room temperature, noncondensable determination is
not required for these refrigerants.
8.2.2.1 The sample cylinder shall be connected to an evacuated
gas sampling bulb by means of a manifold. The manifold should
have a valve arrangement that facilitates evacuation of all
connecting tubing leading to the sampling bulb.
8.2.2.2 After the manifold has been evacuated, close the
valve to the pump and open the valve on the system. Allow the
pressure to equilibrate and close valves.
8.2.3 Liquid Phase Sample. A liquid phase sample is required
for all tests listed in this standard, except the test for non-
condensables.
8.2.3.1 Place an empty sample cylinder with the valve open
in an oven at 230 F [110øC] for one hour. Remove it from the
oven while hot, immediately connect to an evacuation system
and evacuate to less than 1mm. mercury (1000 microns). Close
the valve and allow it to cool.
8.2.3.2 The valve and lines from the unit to be sampled shall
be clean and dry. Connect the line to the sample cylinder loosely.
Purge through the loose connection. Make the connection tight
at the end of the purge period. Take the sample as a liquid
by chilling the sample cylinder slightly. Accurate analysis
requires that the sample container be filled to at least 60%
by volume; however under no circumstances should the cylinder
be filled to more than 80% by volume. This can be accomplished
by weighing the empty cylinder and then the cylinder with
refrigerant.
When the desired amount of refrigerant has been collected, close
the valve(s) and disconnect the sample cylinder immediately.
8.2.3.3 Check the sample cylinder for leaks and record the
gross weight.
8.3 Water Content.
8.3.1. The Coulometric Karl Fischer Titration shall be the
primary test method for determining the water content of
refrigerants.
This method is described in Appendix A. This method can be used
for refrigerants that are either a liquid or a gas at room
temperature,
including Refrigerants 11 and 13. For all refrigerants, the
sample for water analysis shall be taken from the liquid phase
of the container to be tested. Proper operation of the analytical
method requires special equipment and an experienced operator.
The precision of the results is excellent if proper sampling
and handling procedures are followed. Refrigerants containing
a colored dye can be successfully analyzed for water using this
method.
8.3.2 The Karl Fischer Test Method is an acceptable alternative
test method for determining the water content of refrigerants.
This method is described in ASTM Standard for "Water in gases
Using Karl Fisher Reagent" E700-79, reapproved 1984 (American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA).
8.3.3 Report the moisture level in parts per million by weight
if a sample is required.
8.4 Chloride. The refrigerant shall be tested for chlorides
as an indication of the presence of hydrochloric or similar
acids. The recommended procedure is intended for use with new
or reclaimed refrigerants. Significant amounts of oil may interfere
with the results by indicating a failure in the absence of
chlorides.
8.4.1 The test method shall be that described in Appendix
A "Test Procedures for ARI-700." The test will show noticeable
turbidity at equivalent chloride levels of about 3 ppm by weight
or higher.
8.4.2 The results of the test shall not exhibit any sign
of turbity. Report results as "pass" or "fail."
8.5 Acidity.
8.5.1 The acidity test uses the titration principle to detect
any compound that is highly soluble in water and ionizes as
an acid. The test method shall be that described in Appendix
A. "Test Procedures for ARI-700." The test may not be suitable
for determination of high molecular weight organic acids; however
these acids will be found in the high boiling residue test outlined
in Section 5.7. The test requires about a 100 to 120 gram sample
and has a low detection limit of 0.1 ppm by weight as HC1.
8.6 High Boiling Residue.
8.6.1 High boiling residue will be determined by measuring
the residue of a standard volume of refrigerant after evaporation.
The refrigerant sample shall be evaporated at room temperature
or a temperature 50 F [10ø.0C], above the boiling point of the
sample using a Goetz tube as specified in Appendix A "Test
Procedures
for ARI-700." Oils and or organic acids will be captured by
this method.
8.6.2 The value for high boiling residue shall be expressed
as a percentage by volume.
8.7 Particulates/Solids.
8.7.1 A measured amount of sample is evaporated from a Goetz
bulb under controlled temperature conditions. The
particulates/solids
shall be determined by visual examination of the empty Goetz
bulb after the sample has evaporated completely. Presence of
dirt, rust or other particulate contamination is reported a
"fail." For details of this test method, refer to Appendix B
"Test Procedures for ARI-700."
8.8 Non-Condensables
8.8.1 A vapor phase sample shall be used for determination
of non-condensables. Non-condensable gases consist primarily
of air accumulated in the vapor phase of refrigerant containing
tanks. The solubility of air in the refrigerants liquid phase
is extremely low and air is not significant as a liquid phase
contaminant. The presence of non-condensable gases may reflect
poor quality control in transferring refrigerants to storage
tanks and cylinders.
8.8.2 The test method shall be gas chromatography with a
thermal conductivity detector as described in Appendix A "Test
Procedures for ARI-700."
8.8.2.1 The Federal Specification for "Fluorocarbon
Refrigerants,"
BB-F-1421B, dated March 5, 1992, section 4.4.2 (perchloroethylene
method) is an acceptable alternate test method.
8.8.3 Report the level of non-condensable as percent by volume.
Section 9. Performance Calculation and Rating
9.1 The liquid refrigerant recovery rate shall be expressed
in pounds per minute [kg/min] and measured by weight change
at the mixing chamber (See Figure 1) divided by elapsed time
to an accuracy within .02 lbs/min. [.009 kg/min]. Ratings using
the Push/Pull method shall be identified "Push/Pull". Equipment
may be rated by both methods.
9.2 The vapor refrigerant recovery rate shall be expressed
in pounds per minute [kg/min] and measured by weight change
at the mixing chamber (See Figure 1) divided by elapsed time
to an accuracy within .02 lbs/min. [.0.009 kg/min].
9.3 The recycle rate is defined in 3.7 and expressed in pounds
per minute [kg/min] of flow and shall be per ASHRAE 41.7-84
"Procedure For Fluid Measurement Of Gases" or ASHRAE 41.8-89
"Standard Method of Flow of Fluids-Liquids."
9.3.1 For equipment using multipass recycling or a separate
sequence, the recycle rate shall be determined by dividing the
net weight W of the refrigerant to be recycled by the actual
time T required to recycle the refrigerant. Any set-up or operator
interruptions shall not be included in the time T. The accuracy
of the recycle rate shall be within .02 lbs/min. [.009 kg/min].
9.3.2 If no separate recycling sequence is used, the recycle
rate shall be the higher of the vapor refrigerant recovery rate
or the liquid refrigerant recovery rate. The recycle rate shall
match a process which leads to contaminant levels in 9.6.
Specifically,
a recovery rate determined from bypassing a contaminant removal
device cannot be used as a recycle rate when the contaminant
levels in 9.6 are determined by passing the refrigerant through
the containment removal device.
9.4 Refrigerant loss due to non-condensable purging shall
be less than 5%. This rating shall be expressed as "passed"
if less than 5%.
This calculation will be based upon net loss of non-condensables
and refrigerant due to the purge divided by the initial net
content. The net loss shall be determined by weighing before
and after the purge, by collecting purged gases, or an equivalent
method.
9.5 The final recovery vacuum shall be the mixing chamber
pressure called for in 7.1.2.5 expressed in inches of mercury
vacuum, [mm Hg or kP]. The accuracy of the measurement shall
be within ñ.1 inch [ñ2.5mm] of Hg and rounding down to
the nearest
whole number.
9.6 The contaminant levels remaining after testing shall
be published as follows:
Moisture content, PPM by weight
Chloride ions, Pass/Fail
Acidity, PPM by weight
High boiling residue, percentage by volume
Particulate/solid, Pass/Fail
Non-condensables, % by volume
9.7 Product Literature: Except as provided under product
labelling in Section 11. performance ratings per 9.1, 9.2, 9.3,
and 9.5 must be grouped together and shown for all listed
refrigerants
(11.2) subject to limitations of 9.8. Wherever any contaminant
levels per 9.6 are rated, all ratings in 9.6 must be shown for
all listed refrigerants subject to limitations of 9.8. The type
of equipment in 11.1 must be included with either grouping.
Optional ratings in 9.8 need not be shown.
9.8 Ratings shall include all of the parameters for each
designed refrigerant in 11.2 as shown in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2.-Performance
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³ ³ System
Parameter/type of equipment ³ Recovery ³ Recovery
³ Recycle ³ depende-
³ ³ /recycle
³ ³ nt equ-
³ ³
³ ³ ipment
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³ ³
Liquid refrigerant recovery ³ (2) ³ (2)
³ N/A ³ N/A
rate. ³ ³
³ ³
Vapor refrigerant recovery rate ³ (2) ³ (2)
³ N/A ³ N/A
³ ³
³ ³
Final recovery vacuum.......... ³ (1) ³ (1)
³ N/A ³ (1)
Recycle rate................... ³ N/A ³ (1)
³ (1) ³ N/A
Refrigerant loss due to non- ³ (3) ³ (1)
³ (1) ³ N/A
condensable purging. ³ ³
³ ³
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
1 Mandatory rating.
2 For a recovery or recovery/recycle unit, one must rate for
either liquid
feed only or vapor feed only or can rate for both. If rating only
the one,
the other shall be indicated by "N/A."
3 For Recovery Equipment, these parameters are optional. If not
rated, use
N/A.
Table 3.-Contaminants
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
Recovery/ ³ ³ System
Contaminant/type of equipment ³ Recovery ³
recycle ³ Recycle ³ dependent
³ ³
³ ³ equipment
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³ ³
³ ³
Moisture content ................. ³ (*) ³
x ³ x ³ NA.
Chloride ions .................... ³ (*) ³
x ³ x ³ NA.
Acidity .......................... ³ (*) ³
x ³ x ³ NA.
High boiling residue ............. ³ (*) ³
x ³ x ³ NA.
Particulates ..................... ³ (*) ³
x ³ x ³ NA.
Non-condensables ................. ³ (*) ³
x ³ x ³ NA.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
* For Recovery Equipment, these parameters are optional. If not
rated, use N/A.
x Mandatory rating.
Section 10. Tolerances
10.1 Any equipment tested shall produce contaminant levels
not higher than the published ratings. The liquid refrigerant
recovery rate, vapor refrigerant recovery rate, final recovery
vacuum and recycle rate shall not be less than the published
ratings.
Section 11. Product Labelling
11.1 Type of equipment. The type of equipment shall be as
listed:
11.1.1 Recovery only
11.1.2 System Dependent Recovery
11.1.3 Recovery/Recycle
11.1.4 Recycle only
11.2 Designated refrigerants and the following as applicable
for each:
11.2.1 Liquid Recovery Rate
11.2.2 Vapor Recovery Rate
11.2.3 Final Recovery Vacuum
11.2.4 Recycle Rate
Section 12. Voluntary Conformance
12.1 Conformance. While conformance with this standard is
voluntary, conformance shall not be claimed or implied for products
or equipment within its Purpose (Section 1) and Scope (Section
2) unless such claims meet all of the requirements of the
standards.
Appendix A
Particulate Used in Standard Contaminated Refrigerant Sample.
1. Particulate Specification
1.1 The particulate material pm will be a blend of 50% coarse
air cleaner dust as received, and 50% retained on a 200-mesh
screen. The coarse air cleaner dust is available from: AC Spark
Plug Division, General Motors Corporation, Flint, Michigan.
1.2 Preparation of Particulate Materials
To prepare the blend of contaminant, first wet screen a quantity
of coarse air cleaner dust on a 200-mesh screen (particle retention
74 pm). This is done by placing a portion of the dust on a 200-
mesh screen and running water through the screen while stirring
the dust with the fingers. The fine contaminant particles passing
through the screen are discarded. The +200 mesh particles collected
on the screen are removed and dried for one hour at 230 F [110
øC]. The blend of standard contaminant is prepared by mixing
50% by weight of coarse air cleaner dust as received after drying
for one hour at 230 F [110 øC] with 50% by weight of the +200
mesh screened dust.
1.3 The coarse air cleaner dust as received and the blend
used as the standard contaminant have the following approximate
particle size analysis: Wt. % in various size ranges, pm.
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Size range ³ As received
³ Blend
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³
³
0-5 .......................................... ³ 12
³ 6
5-10 ......................................... ³ 12
³ 6
10-20 ......................................... ³ 14
³ 7
20-40 ......................................... ³ 23
³ 11
40-80 ......................................... ³ 30
³ 32
80-200 ........................................ ³ 9
³ 38
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Appendix C to Subpart F-Method for Testing Recovery Devices
for Use With Small Appliances
Recovery Efficiency Test Procedure for Refrigerant Recovery
Equipment Used on Small Appliances
The following test procedure is utilized to evaluate the
efficiency of equipment designed to recover ozone depleting
refrigerants (or any substitute refrigerant subject to the
recycling
rules promulgated pursuant to section 608 of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990) from small appliances when service of those
appliances requires entry into the sealed refrigeration system
or when those appliances are destined for disposal. This procedure
is designed to calculate on a weight or mass basis the percentage
of a known charge of CFC-12 refrigerant removed and captured
from a test stand refrigeration system. Captured refrigerant
is that refrigerant delivered to a container suitable for shipment
to a refrigerant reclaimer plus any refrigerant remaining in
the recovery system in a manner that it will be transferred
to a shipping container after additional recovery operations.
The test stand refrigeration system required for this procedure
is constructed with standard equipment utilized in currently
produced household refrigerator and freezer products. The procedure
also accounts for compressor oils that might be added to or
removed from the test stand compressor or any compressor used
in the recovery system.
I. Test Stand
Test stands are constructed in accordance with the following
standards.
1. Evaporator- 5/16 in. outside dia. with 30 cu. in. volume.
2. Condenser- 1/4 in. outside dia. with 20 cu. in volume.
3. Suction line capillary heat exchanger-appropriate for
compressor used.
4. An 800-950 Btu/hr high side case (rotary) compressor;
or (depending on the test senario);
5. An 800-9500 Btu/hr low side case (reciprocating) compressor.
A person seeking to have its recovery system certified shall
specify the compressors by manufacturer and model that are to
be used in test stands constructed for evaluation of its equipment,
and the type and quantity of compressor to be used in those
compressors. Only a compressor oil approved for use by the
compressor's
manufacturer may be specified, and the quantity of compressor
oil specified shall be an appropriate quantity for the type
of oil and compressor to be used. In order to reduce the cost
of testing, the person seeking certification of its recovery
system may supply an EPA approved third party testing laboratory
with test stands meeting these standards for use in evaluating
its recovery system.
II. Test Conditions
Tests are to be conducted at 75 degrees F, plus or minus
2 degrees F (23.9 C +/-1.1 C). Separate tests are conducted
on both high side case compressor stands and low side case
compressor
stands. Separate tests are also conducted with the test stand
compressor running during the recovery operation, and without
the test stand compressor running during the recovery operation,
to calculate the system's recovery efficiency under either
condition.
These tests are to be performed using a representative model
of all equipment used in the recovery system to deliver recovered
refrigerant to a container suitable for shipment to a refrigerant
reclaimer. The test stands are to be equipped with access valves
permanently installed as specific by the recovery system's vendor
to represent the valves used with that system in actual field
operations.
A series of five (5) recovery operations are to be performed
for each compressor scenario and a recovery efficiency is
calculated
based on the total quantity of refrigerant captured during all
five (5) recoveries. Alternatively, at the request of the recovery
system's vendor, a recovery efficiency is to be calculated for
each recovery event. In this case, a statistically significant
number of recovery operations are to be performed. Determination
of what is a statistically significant number of recoveries
is to be calculated as set out below. These individual recovery
efficiencies are then averaged.
There are four (4) compressor scenarios to be tested. These
are a high side case compressor in working condition; a high
side case compressor in nonworking condition; a low side case
compressor in working condition; and a low side case compressor
in nonworking condition. Recovery efficiencies calculated for
the two working compressor scenarios are to be averaged to report
a working compressor performance. The two nonworking compressor
efficiencies are also to be averaged to report a nonworking
compressor performance.
If large scale equipment is required in the system to deliver
recovered refrigerant to a refrigerant reclaimer (eg. carbon
desorption equipment) and it is not possible to have that equipment
evaluated under the procedure, the system's vendor shall obtain
engineering data on the performance of that large scale equipment
that will reasonably demonstrate the percentage refrigerant
lost when processed by that equipment. That data will be supplied
to any person required to evaluate the performance of those
systems. The following procedure will also be modified as needed
to determine the weight of refrigerant recovered from a test
stand and delivered to a container for shipment to the large
process equipment for further processing. The percentage loss
documented to occur during processing is then to be applied
to the recovery efficiencies calculated in this modified procedure
to determine the overall capture efficiency for the entire system.
The following are definitions of symbols used in the test
procedure.
Test Stand:
"TSO" means an original test stand weight.
"TSC" means a charged test stand weight.
Shipping Containers:
"SCO" means the original or empty weight of shipping
container(s).
"SCF" means the final or full weight of shipping container(s).
Recover/Transfer System:
"RSO" means the original weight of a recovery/transfer system.
"RSF" means the final weight of a recovery/transfer system.
"OL" means the net amount of oil added/removed from the recovery
device and/or transfer device between the beginning and
end of the test for one compressor scenario.
Weighing steps are conducted with precision and accuracy of
plus or minus 1.0 gram.
III. Test Procedure
1. Evacuate the test stand to 20 microns vacuum (pressure
measured at a vacuum pump) for 12 hours.
2. Weigh the test stand (TSO).
3. If this is the first recovery operation being performed
for a compressor scenario (or if a recovery efficiency is to
be calculated for each recovery event), then weigh all devices
used in the recovery system to deliver recovered refrigerant
to a container suitable for shipment or delivery to a refrigerant
reclaimer. Weigh only devices that can retain refrigerant in
a manner that it will ultimately be transferred to a shipping
container without significant release to the atmosphere (RSO).
4. Weigh final shipping containers (SCO).
5. Charge the test stand with an appropriate CFC-12 charge
(either 6 oz. or 9 oz.).
6. Run the test stand for four (4) hours with 100% run time.
7. Turn off the test stand for twelve (12) hours. During
this period evaporate all condensation that has collected on
the test stand during step 6.
8. Weigh the test stand (TSC).
9. Recover CFC-12 from the test stand and perform all operations
needed to transfer the recovered refrigerant to one of the shipping
containers weighed in step 4. All recovery and transfer operations
are to be performed in accordance with the operating instructions
provided by the system's vendor. The compressor in the test
stand is to remain "off" or be turned "on" during the recovery
operation depending on whether the test is for a nonworking
or working compressor performance evaluation. If a recovery
efficiency is to be calculated for each recovery event, transfer
the captured refrigerant to a shipping container and then skip
to step 13. Otherwise continue. If the system allows for multiple
recovery operations to be performed before transferring recovered
refrigerant to a shipping container, the transfer operation
can be delayed until either the maximum number of recovery
operations
allowed before a transfer is required have been performed, or
the last of the five (5) recovery operations has been performed.
10. Perform any oil removal or oil addition operations needed
to properly maintain the test stand and the devices used for
recovery or transfer operations. Determine the net weight of
the oil added or removed from the recovery device and/or transfer
device. (OP1 for oil added, OP2 for oil removed).
11. Evacuate the test stand to 20 microns vacuum for 4 hours.
12. Return to step 2 unless five (5) recovery operations
have been performed.
13. Weigh all final shipping containers that received recovered
refrigerant (SCF).
14. Weigh the equipment weighed in step three (3) above (RSF).
If a recovery efficiency is to be calculated for each recovery
event, perform calculations and return to step one (1) for
additional
recoveries.
IV. Calculations
A. For Five (5) Consecutive Recoveries
Refrigerant Recoverable equals the summation of charged test
stand weights minus original test stand weights.
5
Refrigerant Recoverable = ä (TSCi - TSOi)
i=1
Oil Loss equals the net weight of oil added to and removed
from the recovery device and/or transfer device.
5
OL = ä (OP1i - OP2i)
i=1
Refrigerant Recovered equals the final weight of shipping
containers minus the initial weight of final shipping containers,
plus final recovery system weight, minus original recovery system
weight, plus the net value of all additions and removals of
oil from the recovery and transfer devices.
n
Refrigerant Recovered = ( ä SCFi - SCOi ) + RSF - RSO - OL
i=1
n=number of shipping containers used.
Recovery Efficiency equals Refrigerant Recovered divided
by Refrigerant Recoverable times 100%.
Refrigerant Recovered
Recovery Efficiency =
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
100%
Refrigerant Recoverable
B. For Individual Recoveries
Refrigerant Recoverable equals the charged test stand weight
minus the original test stand weight.
Refrigerant Recoverable = TSCO - TSO
Refrigerant Recovered equals the final weight of the shipping
container minus the initial weight of the shipping container
plus the final weight of the recovery system minus the original
recovery system weight.
Refrigerant Recovered = SCF - SCO + RSF - RSO
Recovery Efficiency equals Refrigerant Recovered divided
by Refrigerant Recoverable times 100 percent.
Refrigerant Recovered
Recovery Efficiency =
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
100%
Refrigerant Recoverable
C. Calculation of a Statistically Significant Number of Recoveries
Nadd = ((t*sd)/(.10*X))2 - N
Where:
Nadd=the number of additional samples required to achieve
90% confidence.
sd=Standard deviation, or (X/(N-1)5)
X=Sample average
N=Number of samples tested
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Number of samples
³ t for 90%
³ confidence
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
³
2...........................................................
³ 6.814
3...........................................................
³ 2.920
4...........................................................
³ 2.353
5...........................................................
³ 2.132
6...........................................................
³ 2.015
7...........................................................
³ 1.943
8...........................................................
³ 1.895
9...........................................................
³ 1.860
10...........................................................
³ 1.833
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Procedure:
1. Compute Nadd after completing two recoveries.
2. If Nadd>0, then run an additional test.
3. Re-compute Nadd. Continue to test additional
samples until Nadd<0.
V. Test Procedure Approval and Certification
Each vendor of capture equipment for small appliances desiring
certification will provide a representative model of its capture
system and its recommended recovery procedures to an EPA approved
third party laboratory for testing in accordance with this
procedure.
The third party laboratory will certify recovery systems that
when tested in accordance with this procedure demonstrate a
sufficient recovery efficiency to meet EPA regulatory requirements.
Appendix D to Subpart F-Standards for Becoming a Certifying
Program for Technicians
Standards for Certifying Programs
a. Test Preparation
Certification for Type II, Type III and Universal technicians
will be dependent upon passage of a closed-book, proctored test,
administered in a secure environment, by an EPA-approved certifying
program.
Certification for Type I technicians will be dependent upon
passage of an EPA-approved test, provided by an EPA-approved
certifying program. Organizations providing Type I certification
only, may chose either an on-site format, or a mail-in format,
similar to what is permitted under the MVACs program.
Each certifying program must assemble tests by choosing a
prescribed subset from the EPA test bank. EPA expects to have
a test bank with a minimum of 500 questions, which will enable
the certifying program to generate multiple tests in order to
discourage cheating. Each test must include 25 questions drawn
from Group 1 and 25 questions drawn from each relevant technical
Group. Tests for Universal technicians will include 100 questions
(25 from Group 1 and 25 from each relevant technical Group).
Each 50-question test represents 10 percent of the total test
bank. Questions should be divided in order to sufficiently cover
each topic within the Group.
Each certifying program must show a method of randomly choosing
which questions will be on the tests. Multiple versions of the
test must be used during each testing event. Test answer sheets
or (for those testing via the computer medium) computer files
must include the name and address of the applicant, the name
and address of the certifying program, and the date and location
at which the test was administered.
Training material accompanying mail-in Type I tests must
not include sample test questions mimicking the language of
the certification test. All mail-in material will be subject
to review by EPA.
Certifying programs may charge individuals reasonable fees
for the administration of the tests. EPA will publish a list
of all approved certifying programs periodically, including
the fees charged by the programs. This information will be
available
from the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline.
b. Proctoring
A certifying program for Type II, Type III and Universal
technicians must designate or arrange for the designation of
at least one proctor registered for each testing event. If more
than 50 people are taking tests at the same time at a given
site, the certifying organization must adhere to normal testing
procedures, by designating at least one additional proctor or
monitor for every 50 people taking tests at that site.
The certification test for Type II, Type III and Universal
technicians is a closed-book exam. The proctors must ensure
that the applicants for certification do not use any notes or
training materials during testing. Desks or work space must
be placed in a way that discourages cheating. The space and
physical facilities are to be conducive to continuous surveillance
by the proctors and monitors during testing.
The proctor may not receive any benefit from the outcome
of the testing other than a fee for proctoring. Proctors cannot
know in advance which questions are on the tests they are
proctoring.
Proctors are required to verify the identity of individuals
taking the test by examining photo identification. Acceptable
forms of identification include but are not limited to drivers'
licenses, government identification cards, passports, and military
identification.
Certifying programs for Type I technicians using the mail-
in format, must take sufficient measures at the test site to
ensure that tests are completed honestly by each technician.
Each test for Type I certification must provide a means of
verifying
the identification of the individual taking the test. Acceptable
forms of identification include but are not limited to drivers'
licenses numbers, social security numbers, and passport numbers.
c. Test Security
A certifying program must demonstrate the ability to ensure
the confidentiality and security of the test questions and answer
keys through strict accountability procedures. An organization
interested in developing a technician certification program
will be required to describe these test security procedures
to EPA.
After the completion of a test, proctors must collect all
test forms, answer sheets, scratch paper and notes. These items
are to be placed in a sealed envelope.
d. Test Content
All technician certification tests will include 25 questions
from Group I. Group I will ask questions in the following areas:
I. Environmental impact of CFCs and HCFCs
II. Laws and regulations
III. Changing industry outlook
Type I, Type II and Type III certification tests will include
25 questions from Group II. Group II will ask questions covering
sector-specific issues in the following areas:
IV. Leak detection
V. Recovery Techniques
VI. Safety
VII. Shipping
VII. Disposal
Universal Certification will include 75 questions from Group
II, with 25 from each of the three sector-specific areas.
e. Grading
Tests must be graded objectively. Certifying programs must
inform the applicant of their test results no later than 30
days from the date of the test. Type I certifying programs using
the mail-in format, must notify the applicants of their test
results no later than 30 days from the date the certifying programs
received the completed test and any required documentation.
Certifying programs may mail or hand deliver the results.
The passing score for the closed-book Type I, Type II, Type
III and Universal certification test is 70 percent. For Type
I certification tests using the mail-in format, passing score
is 84 percent.
f. Proof of Certification
Certifying programs must issue a standard wallet-sized
identification
card no later than 30 days from the date of the test. Type I
certifying programs using mail-in formats must issue cards to
certified technicians no later than 30 days from the date the
certifying program receives the completed test and any required
documentation.
Each wallet-sized identification card must include, at a
minimum, the name of the certifying program including the date
the certifying program received EPA approval, the name of the
person certified, the type of certification, a unique number
for the certified person and the following text:
[name of person] has been certified as [Type I, Type II,
Type III and/or Universal-as appropriate] technician as required
by 40 CFR part 82, subpart F.
g. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
Certifying programs must maintain records for at least three
years which include but are not limited to the names and addresses
of all individuals taking the tests, the scores of all
certification
tests administered, and the dates and locations of all tests
administered.
Certifying programs must send EPA an activity report every
six months, the first to be submitted six months following approval
of the program by EPA. This report will include the pass/fail
rate and testing schedules. This will allow the Agency to determine
the relative progress and success of these programs. If the
certifying program believes a test bank question needs to be
modified, information about that question should also be included.
Approved certifying programs will receive a letter of approval
from EPA. Each testing center must display a copy of that letter.
h. Additional Requirements
EPA will periodically inspect testing sites to ensure compliance
with EPA regulations. If testing center discrepancies are found,
they must be corrected within a specified time period. If
discrepancies
are not corrected, EPA may suspend or revoke the certifying
programs's approval. The inspections will include but are not
limited to a review of the certifying programs' provisions for
test security, the availability of space and facilities to conduct
the administrative requirements and ensure the security of the
tests, the availability of adequate testing facilities and spacing
of the applicants during testing, a review of the proper procedures
regarding accountability, and that there is no evidence of
misconduct
on the part of the certifying programs, their representatives
and proctors, or the applicants for certification.
If the certifying programs offer training or provide review
materials to the applicants, these endeavors are to be considered
completely separate from the administration of the certification
test.
i. Approval Process
EPA anticipates receiving a large number of applications
from organizations seeking to become certifying programs. In
order to certify as many technicians as possible in a reasonable
amount of time, EPA will give priority to national programs.
Below are the guidelines EPA will use:
First: Certifying programs providing at least 25 testing
centers with a minimum of one site in at least 8 different states
will be considered.
Second: Certifying programs forming regional networks with
a minimum of 10 testing centers will be considered.
Third: Certifying programs providing testing centers in
geographically
isolated areas not sufficiently covered by the national or regional
programs will be considered.
Fourth: All other programs applying for EPA approval will
be considered.
Sample application forms may be obtained by contacting the
Stratopheric Ozone Hotline at 1-800-296-1996.
j. Grandfathering
EPA will grandfather technicians whose programs seek and
receive EPA approval as a certifying program. As part of this
process, these certifying programs may be required to send EPA-
approved supplemental information or provide additional testing
to ensure the level of the technicians' knowledge. The certifying
programs will also issue new identification cards meeting the
requirements specified above.
Persons who are currently technicians must be certified by
November 14, 1994. Technicians that participated in certification
programs which do not become EPA-approved certifying programs
must either receive EPA-approved supplemental information from
the original testing organization or be certified by taking
a test given by an EPA-approved certification organization by
November 14, 1994.
k. Sample Application
EPA has provided a sample application. The Agency designed
the application to demonstrate the information certifying programs
must provide to EPA. Programs are not required to use this form
or this format.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the control
number 2060-0256)
[FR Doc. 93-10832 Filed 5-13-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Ozone Layer Depletion - Regulatory Programs
- You are here: EPA Home
- Ozone Layer Depletion
- Regulatory Programs
- 58 FR 28660