Jump to main content.


Vol. 57 No. 238 Thursday, December 10, 1992  p 58644 (Proposed Rule
    1/6187  


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


40 CFR Part 82


[FRL-4542-9]


Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Refrigerant Recycling


AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.


ACTION: Proposed Rule.


____________________________________________________________


SUMMARY: In this document, EPA proposes regulations under section 


608 of the Clean Air Act (the Act) that would establish a recycling



program for ozone depleting refrigerants recovered during the 


servicing and disposal of air conditioning or refrigeration 


equipment. The proposed regulations would require persons servicing



air conditioning and refrigeration equipment to observe certain 


service practices that reduce refrigerant emissions and would 


establish equipment and off-site reclaimer certification programs. 


In addition, EPA would 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 and room air conditioners, 


be provided with a servicing aperture that would facilitate 


recovery of the refrigerant. These proposed regulations should 


significantly reduce emissions of ozone depleting refrigerants 


and therefore aid U.S. and global efforts to minimize damage 


to the ozone layer.


DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule must be received 


on or before January 22, 1993. A public hearing is scheduled 


for December 23, 1992 in the EPA Auditorium, located at 401 


M St., SW., Washington, DC.


ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in duplicate to the 


attention of 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: Debbie Ottinger, Stratospheric 


Ozone Protection Branch, Global Change Division, Office of
Atmospheric 


and Indoor Air Programs, Office of Air and Radiation, ANR-445, 


401 M Street SW., Washington DC 20460. (202) 233-9200. The
Stratospheric 


Ozone Information Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 can also be contacted 


for further information on weekdays from 10:00 to 4:00, Eastern 


Time.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of today's preamble 


are listed in the following outline:


I. Background


  A. Ozone Depletion


  B. Montreal Protocol and EPA's Implementing Regulations


  C. Excise Tax


  D. London Amendments to the Protocol


  E. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Recycling


  F. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990


II. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act


III. Today's Proposed Rule


  A. Equipment Affected


  B. Factors Considered in the Development of this Proposal


  C. Overview of Proposed Requirements


  D. Public Participation


  E. Definitions and Interpretations


  F. Required Practices


  1. Evacuation of air conditioning and refrigeration equipment


  2. Leak repair


  3. Disposition of Recovered Refrigerant


  4. RCRA Regulations Regarding the Management of CFCs and CFC-


    Contaminated Wastes


  5. 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


  a. Recovery efficiency


  b. Refrigerant recovery rates


  c. Low loss fittings


  d. Purge loss


  e. Volume-sensitive shut-off


  2. Standards for recovery machines intended for use with small 


    appliances


  3. Possible standards for recycling and recovery machines 


    used with equipment identical to MVACs


  4. Testing of recycling and recovery equipment intended for 


    use on air conditioning and refrigeration equipment except 


    small appliances


  5. Testing of recycling and recovery equipment intended for 


    use on small appliances


  6. Effective Dates and Grand Fathering Provisions


  H. EPA Promotion of Service Technician Competence


  1. Curriculum or Test Content


  2. Administration


  3. Possible Need for Mandatory Certification


  I. Certification by Owners of Recycling or Recovery of Equipment


  J. Certification of Reclaimers


  K. Recordkeeping Requirements


  L. Safe Disposal Requirements


  M. Servicing Apertures


  N. Possible exemption from regulatory requirements for
refrigerant 


    uses for which no high-efficiency recovery technology exists


IV. Possible Future Rulemakings to Implement Section 608


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 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. 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.  


   The original theory linking CFCs to ozone depletion was first 


proposed in 1974. Since then, the scientific community has made 


remarkable advances in understanding atmospheric processes
affecting 


stratospheric ozone science. Model predictions in the late 1980s 


suggested that continued use of CFCs would lead to substantial 


ozone depletion in the middle of the next century. Despite the 


sophistication of these models, scientists did not predict the 


extent of the decrease in stratospheric ozone over Antarctica 


that was first reported in 1985. This seasonal loss of ozone 


over the south pole became known as the "Antarctic Ozone hole". 


   More recent studies have continued to deepen concern over 


stratospheric ozone loss. In 1988, the results of an international 


assessment of ozone trends were published in the Executive Summary 


of the Ozone Trends Panel Report. In addition to the ozone hole, 


this report stated that analysis of total-column ozone data 


showed measurable downward trends from 1969 to 1988 of 3 to 


5 percent in the northern hemisphere in the winter. In early 


1991, new scientific evidence from satellite data indicated 


a year-round loss of stratospheric ozone over the northern mid-


latitudes during the past decade of 3 to 5 percent. This amount 


is 2 times greater than past studies suggested and has raised 


the concern that ozone depletion appears to be occurring faster 


than theoretical models had predicted. A scientific assessment 


published in October, 1991 showed for the first time stratospheric 


ozone depletion in summertime over the continental United States. 


Most recently, analyses of atmospheric chemistry in the northern 



hemisphere have indicated that an ozone hole similar to the 


one in the antarctic could appear in the arctic. These analyses 


also imply that ozone depletion at the northern mid-latitudes 


could accelerate.  


   A more detailed discussion of the background of the ozone 


depletion problem, the scientific evidence regarding the issue, 


and the health and environmental effects of ozone depletion 


can be found at 56 FR 49548 (September 30, 1991).  


B. Montreal Protocol and EPA's Implementing Regulations  


   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, 76 nations representing 


well over 90% 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. 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. 


As a result of the tax, there is an added incentive for industry 


to shift away from controlled substances and to increase recycling 


activities. The tax has also stimulated the market for alternative 


chemicals and processes. 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.  


D. London Amendments to the Protocol  


   Since the signing of the Protocol in 1987, additional scientific



evidence became available indicating that depletion of the
stratospheric 


ozone layer was occurring more quickly than had been anticipated. 


In response to this evidence (i.e. the 1988 Ozone Trends Panel 


Report), the Parties to the Protocol at their meeting in London 


in June 1990 amended the Protocol schedule for CFCs and halons 


to require a complete phaseout by January 1, 2000. Methyl
chloroform 


and carbon tetrachloride were added to the list of ozone depleting 


substances, with carbon tetrachloride phased out by January 


1, 2000 and methyl chloroform phased out by January 1, 2005. 


   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 


calls for the phaseout of HCFCs by 2020 if feasible and no later 


than 2040 in any case.  


E. 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 be established to help efforts to 


protect the ozone layer and to provide a source of refrigerant 


to service existing capital equipment after the phaseout of 


CFC production is complete.  


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 phase out date (2002 instead 


of 2005). For the HCFCs, title VI requires use restrictions, 


a production freeze in 2015 and a phaseout in 2050. 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).


   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 proposed 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 labelling, 


a ban on nonessential products, and a program to review the 


safety of alternatives to class I and class II substances.


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 substances 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, will be subject to disposal regulations 


proposed 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 


substance 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 substance 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 is proposing



that, once the requirements of the regulations proposed today 


go into effect, "de minimis releases" be interpreted to mean 


releases that occur when 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 is subject to the prohibition on venting. 


   Today's notice, proposing refrigerant recycling and safe 


disposal requirements, is 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 proposed 


today should sharply reduce emissions during servicing and
disposal, 


bringing total potential emissions from 41,000 metric tons per 


year to approximately 15,000 metric tons per year (RIA). (These 


figures are weighted by ozone depletion potential; unweighted 


figures are higher). In those sectors where leakage during use 


accounts for a significant percentage of total emissions, EPA 


will evaluate the need to establish standards to minimize emissions



during this life cycle stage. Finally, EPA will evaluate the 


need to regulate 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 whether 


or not to take further action under section 608, EPA will consider 


the incremental costs and benefits of such action. 


III. Today's Proposed Rule 





A. Equipment Affected 


   Today's proposed 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). The proposed rule also applies 


to the disposal of 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. (This 


and other estimates in this section are based on figures from 


1990.) This makes up approximately 17% 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 43 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, 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 133 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 1600 metric tons 


per year (when weighted by the ozone-depletion potential of 


the refrigerant), which makes up approximately five 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 only
approximately 


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, which makes up approximately five 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 2.5 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, which makes up approximately 26% of the total available 


from the sectors affected by this rule.


   Because of the large charge sizes and frequency of servicing 


in the retail food sector, EPA believes that recycling in the 


sector is already widespread.


   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 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 80 


metric tons per year, which makes up less than one percent of 


the total available from the sectors affected by this rule. 


As in the retail food sector, EPA believes that recycling is 


already widespread in this sector. 


   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 


167,000 units currently installed, making this sector the smallest 


one 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, centrigual 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, which makes up approximately 14% 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 refigerants, 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, 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 approximately 119 million 


MVACs currently on the road, this sector is one of the largest 


sectors affected by the recycling rule. Most MVACs used 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. 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 9000 


metric tons per year, which makes up approximately 25% 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 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.


B. Factors Considered in the Development of this Proposal


   Section 608 of the Clean Air Act provides the statutory basis 


for the standards and requirements contained in these proposed 


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. EPA notes that section 608(a)(3) specifically 


refers to the use of safe alternatives pursuant to section 612, 


which sets out the policy that "to the maximum extent practicable, 


class I and class II substances shall be replaced" by other 


chemicals, products, or manufacturing processes. Terminology 


such as "maximum extent practicable" allows for the consideration 


of economic factors. EPA also notes that in other provisions 


of the Clean Air Act, similar terms have been used that contemplate



the incorporation of cost and economic factors. See, e.g., section 


202(a)(3)(A)(i) (providing for emissions standards for heavy-


duty vehicles that "reflect the greatest degree of emission 


reduction achievable through the application of technology which 


the Administrator determines will be available * * * giving 


appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors"); 


section 213(a)(3) (using similar language in the context of 


emission standards for non-road engines). Thus, in EPA's view, 


there is nothing inherent in the use of the terms "achievable" 


or "maximize" that precludes the consideration of economic factors.


   Furthermore, this view is consistent with the legislative 


history of section 608. In a statement made on the floor of 


the House of Representatives shortly before passage of the Clean 


Air Act Amendments of 1990, Representative Ralph Hall stated 


that: "In promulgating regulations [under section 608] the
Administrator 


shall take into account the extent to which emissions reductions 


can be achieved, the costs and benefits of implementing available 


controls, and the time before which certain uses may no longer 


rely on the covered substances." (Cong. Rec. H 12907 (Oct. 26, 


1990).) See also statement of Rep. Walgren (Cong. Rec. 12937 


(Oct. 26, 1990).)


   The stringency of the regulations promulgated to implement 


these standards will also be affected by the amount of leadtime 


between their date of promulgation and their effective date. 


The longer the leadtime, the more time there will be 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. (This date also coincides with the effective



date of the venting prohibition contained in section 608(c) 


for releases of class I and class II refrigerants from appliances 


and industrial process refrigeration.) Moreover, 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 proposed requirements would 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 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 


proposed rule have tiny charges and are serviced infrequently. 


Under today's proposed 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 50 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.F.


   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 special 


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.L.


   Although EPA is not expressly required to include class II 


substances in the recycling regulations to become effective 


on July 1, 1992, EPA is proposing to include class II substances 


in today's proposed 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 considers it
desirable 


to provide a clear, consistent framework for fully implementing 


the prohibition on venting for all refrigerants. The agency 


believes that this framework will 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 may 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. 


While EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) does not now
explicitly 


calculate the incremental net benefits of addressing class II 


substances in this regulation (as opposed to in a regulation 


to be promulgated by November, 1994), the final RIA will address 


this issue. EPA requests comment on the costs and benefits of 


including class II substances in the regulation.


C. Overview of Proposed Requirements


   EPA's proposal has three main elements, which, taken together, 


satisfy the criteria of section 608 concerning recycling, emissions



reduction, and disposal. First, the Agency would require
technicians 


servicing and disposing of air conditioning and refrigeration 


equipment to observe certain service practices that reduce
refrigerant 


emissions. Second, EPA would establish 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. Third, to implement 


the safe disposal requirements of section 608, EPA would require 


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. 


In addition to the three main elements of its proposal, EPA 


is requesting comment on the need for EPA involvement in technician



education.


   In order to allow the regulated community sufficient time 


to come into compliance with the certification requirements, 


EPA proposes to phase them in over a period of twelve months. 


In addition, the Agency proposes to "grandfather in" equipment 


meeting certain minimum requirements set forth in Section III. 


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.


   Section 608(a) of the Act specifies an initial effective 


date for these regulations of July 1, 1992. EPA recognizes that, 


due to the fact that these regulations have not been proposed 


until today, a July 1, 1992 effective date is not possible for 


most portions of them. For certain portions of them, however, 


a July 1, 1992, effective date would still be possible, albeit 


retroactively. EPA believes that a July 1, 1992 effective date 


is appropriate for the provision of the proposed regulations 


prohibiting the venting of refrigerants because the prohibition 


on venting contained in section 608(c) of the Act is
self-effectuating 


and went into effect on July 1, 1992, notwithstanding the lack 


of final regulations under section 608. For other portions of 


the regulations, EPA is proposing various effective dates in 


order to allow sufficient lead time for the affected industry 


to comply. EPA requests comment on what the appropriate effective 


dates would be for the different provisions of the regulations, 


taking into account the amount of leadtime necessary to comply 


with these new regulatory requirements and the proposed
grandfathering 


provisions. EPA also requests comment on the feasibility and 


implications of adopting a retroactive effective date in the 


final regulations.


D. Public Participation 


   EPA has worked extensively with outside groups in developing 


this proposal. In particular, the Agency has established and 


has 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, services, and users, manufacturers of recycling 


and recovery equipment, refrigerant manufacturers and reclaimers, 


educational organizations, state and local governments, and 


environmentalists. To date, EPA has met with members of the 


Subcommittee six times: The Subcommittee as a whole has met 


twice, and smaller groups have 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 has 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 proposal. 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, 


(Appendix A to the proposed regulations), and the ARI Standard 


740-1991, Performance of Refrigerant Recovery, Recycling, and/or 


Reclaim Equipment, (Appendix B to the proposed regulations). 


EPA has 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 proposed rule. 


   In addition to convening the Subcommittee for Recycling, 


EPA has 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 services, 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. 


E. Definitions and Interpretations 





Active Recovery Device 


   Recovery devices used with refrigerators and freezers and 


other small appliances can be divided into two main types: Active 


and passive. While active equipment has its own compressor to 


pump refrigerant out of the refrigerator system, passive equipment 


relies solely upon the compressor in the small appliance and/or 


the pressure of the refrigerant in the appliance to recover 


the refrigerant. EPA proposes to define these two types of
equipment 


accordingly. The distinction is important because active and 


passive recovery devices differ in their recovery efficiencies 


and other performance characteristics, and EPA is proposing 


different certification standards for them. 


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." In 


today's proposed rule, EPA is proposing that this language also 


be used in the regulatory definition of appliance. 


   EPA interprets the Act's definition of appliance to include 


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.")  


   The Act's definition of "appliance" has one minor limitation: 


The reference to the use of devices for "household or commercial 


purposes." While these purposes encompass virtually all uses 


of devices containing and using refrigerants, EPA does not believe 


that they encompass devices containing and using refrigerants 


that are designed for and used solely in a military application. 


Thus, the Act's definition of appliance does not appear to include,



for example, a refrigeration unit designed only for and used 


only in a nuclear submarine. If, however, the 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. For example, a room air conditioner used on 


a military base is still considered an appliance even through 


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.  


   This interpretation is consistent with section 118 of the 


Act, which provides that "[e]ach department, agency,
instrumentality 


of executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal 


Government * * * shall be subject to, and comply with, all Federal,



State, interstate, and local requirements, administrative
authority, 


and process and sanctions respecting the control and abatement 


of air pollution in the same manner, and to the same extent 


as any non governmental entity." Section 618 of the Act explicitly 


provides that the requirements of Title VI concerning the
protection 


of the stratospheric ozone layer "shall be treated as requirements 


for the control and abatement of air pollution within the meaning 


of section 118."  


   Although EPA believes that equipment designed and used
exclusively 


for military purposes falls outside the definition of "appliance," 


EPA believes that it has the authority under section 608(a)(2) 


to regulate the use and emissions of refrigerant from such
equipment. 


EPA requests comment on whether it should pursue such regulation. 


Approved Equipment Testing Organization  


   EPA proposes to define 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 proposes to define Certified Refrigerant Recycling Equipment



as equipment certified by an approved testing organization to 


meet EPA's final standards or equipment purchased before [6 


months after publication of the final rule] that meets EPA's 


standards for grandfathered equipment.  


High-pressure Appliance  


   Because the physical properties of high, very high,
intermediate, 


and low pressure refrigerants differ, EPA proposes to establish 


somewhat different requirements for technicians and equipment 


servicing high, very high, intermediate, and low pressure
appliances. 


EPA proposes to define high-pressure appliances as appliances 


that uses a refrigerant with a boiling point between -50 and 


0 degrees Centigrade at atmospheric pressure (29.9 inches Hg). 


This definition would include equipment using CFCs 12, 500, 


and 502, and HCFC 22.  


Intermediate-pressure Appliance


   EPA proposes to define intermediate-pressure appliances as 


appliances that use a refrigerant with a boiling point between 


0 and 10 degrees Centigrade at atmospheric pressure (29.9 inches 


Hg). This definition would include appliances using CFC-114 


and possibly blends of CFC-114 and other refrigerants.


Low Loss Fitting


   EPA is proposing to require that recovery or recycling machines 


manufactured after [6 months after publication of the final 


rule], possess low loss fittings or positive shutoff devices. 


EPA proposes to define 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 when disconnected, 


minimizing the release of refrigerant from hoses, air conditioning 


or refrigeration equipment, and recovery or recycling machines.


Low-pressure Appliance


   EPA proposes to define 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 


would include appliances using CFCs 11 and 113, and HCFC 123.


Passive Recovery Device


   As discussed above in the explanation of the term "active 


recovery device," EPA proposes to define a passive recovery 


device as a device that relies solely upon the compressor in 


a small appliance and/or upon the pressure of the refrigerant 


inside a small appliance to remove the refrigerant into an external



container.


Person


   EPA is proposing to require that refrigerant transferred 


between air conditioning or refrigeration equipment owned by 


different persons must be fully reclaimed. EPA proposes to define 


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 proposing to require that small appliances and room 


air conditioners sold after July 1, 1993, be provided with a 


process stub to facilitate removal of the refrigerant at servicing.



The Agency is proposing to define 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 proposing to adopt 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 proposes to adopt 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 proposes to define the term more narrowly in its regulations. 


Once again, EPA is proposing to adopt 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 proposing to require 


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.


Small Appliance


   EPA is proposing to define as "small appliance" air conditioning



or refrigeration equipment containing less than one pound of 


charge during normal operation. Equipment containing less than 


one pound of charge includes household refrigerators, household 


freezers, dehumidifiers, vending machines, and water coolers. 


EPA is also proposing special servicing and safe disposal
requirements 


for these items. EPA requests comment on using the one-pound 


quantity to define them.


Technician  


   EPA is proposing a number of requirements that apply to
technicians. 


EPA proposes to define 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., installers, contractor
employees, 


in-house service personnel, and in some cases, owners. Technician 


also means any person disposing of air conditioning or
refrigeration 


equipment except for small appliances.  


Very High Pressure Equipment  


   EPA proposes to define 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 would include equipment using
refrigerants 


13 and 503.  


F. Required Practices  


   EPA is proposing to require 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 that accompany a good faith effort to recycle) 


is expressly prohibited by section 608(c) of the Act after July 


1, 1992.  


   EPA proposes to define venting as any release to the environment



of a class I or class II substance that takes place with the 


knowledge of the technician during the maintenance, servicing, 


repairing, or disposal of air conditioning or refrigeration 


equipment. De minimis releases, as discussed below, are not 


considered venting.  


   As noted above, section 608(c)(1) of the CAA prohibits the 


knowing venting of class I and class II substances from appliances 


or industrial process refrigeration during servicing and disposal. 


However, that section 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 therefore proposes 


to define 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 when 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 proposes 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 would apply to equipment that 


is to be disposed of, except for small appliances, room air 


conditioners, and MVACs, whose disposal is covered by Section 


III.L below. In order to ensure that the maximum amount of
refrigerant 


possible is captured rather than released, EPA is proposing 


to require that air conditioning and refrigeration equipment 


be evacuated to or below specified levels of vacuum. 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 unnecessary 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). Characteristics of recycling and recovery 


equipment are discussed in more detail in section III.G; servicing 


times and the possible impact of evacuation on air conditioning 


and refrigeration equipment are discussed in section a. below.


   The required level of evacuation would 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). For small appliances, the requirements 


would also vary depending on the capacities of the recovery 


system used under the circumstances (e.g., with an operating 


vs. a nonoperating refrigerator compressor).


   a. Evacuation requirements for air conditioning and
refrigeration 


equipment besides small appliances. When recovery and recycling 


machines manufactured or imported after [6 months after publication



of the final rule], are employed for recovery, EPA is proposing 


to require evacuation to 0 inches of vacuum, 10 inches of vacuum, 


20 inches of vacuum, 25 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, 4 inches of vacuum 


in high pressure systems, and 25 inches of vacuum in low pressure 


systems and in systems utilizing CFC 114, 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  
          


                                                                   
          


__________________________________________Â___________________________________


                                          ³         Inches of
Vacuum          


                                          ³                   
               


                                         
Ã________________Â__________________


                                          ³ Using recovery
³ Using recovery   


                                          ³  or recycling 
³  or recycling    


Type of air conditioning or refrigeration ³    equipment  
³    equipment     


                equipment                 ³  manufactured 
³  manufactured    


                                          ³ before [6 mos.
³ on or after [6   


                                          ³      after    
³   mos. after     


                                          ³ publication of
³ publication of   


                                          ³   final rule] 
³   final rule]    


______________ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ


                                          ³               
³                  


High pressure equipment with a charge of  ³              4
³             10   


 less than 50 pounds.                     ³               
³                  


High pressure equipment with a charge of  ³              4
³             20   


 more than 50 pounds.                     ³               
³                  


Very high pressure equipment ............ ³              0
³              0   


Intermediate pressure equipment ......... ³             25
³             25   


Low pressure equipment .................. ³             25
³             25   


                                          ³               
³         mm Hg*   


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ


  *Pressures below 25 inches of vacuum are typically measured in
millimeters  


  (mm) or microns (æ) of mercury absolute rather than in
inches of mercury    


  vacuum. At standard sea-level atmospheric pressure (29.9 inches
of mercury  


  absolute), 25 mm of mercury absolute is approximately equal to
one inch of  


  mercury absolute or 29 inches of mercury vacuum. EPA proposes to
use the    


  absolute rather than relative measure here not only because this
is the     


  standard industry practice but because 29 inches of vacuum cannot
          


  physically be attained in areas where atmospheric pressure
typically falls  


  very near or below 29 inches of mercury absolute (e.g., areas at
high       


  elevation, such as Denver, Colorado).                            
          





   i. Impact of vacuums on high-pressure air conditioning or 


refrigeration equipment. Some industry representatives on the 


STOPAC Subcommittee expressed concern that drawing vacuums on 


high-pressure equipment could have two adverse effects: (1) 


If air conditioning or refrigeration equipment is leaky, drawing 


a vacuum on the equipment may pull air and moisture into the 


equipment and from there into the recycling or recovery device, 


contaminating refrigerant and in some instances, limiting the 


depth of vacuum that can be achieved; and (2) when air conditioning



and refrigeration equipment is opened for service after a vacuum 


has been drawn, air and moisture are drawn into the system in 


greater amounts than they are if the interior of the system 


is at atmospheric pressure. If these contaminants are not removed 


from the system, they can corrode equipment and cause it to 


fail.


   As discussed below in section III.F.1.d., the Agency has 


attempted to provide for situations involving leaky equipment. 


Influxes of air and moisture caused by opening a system whose 


interior pressure is lower than atmospheric pressure may be 


addressed in two ways, according to industry sources. First, 


such influxes may be prevented by breaking the vacuum with dry 


nitrogen. This method, however, requires technicians to carry 


heavy nitrogen cylinders, a procedure that may be impractical 


for servicing equipment located on rooftops or other difficult 


to reach areas. Second, air and moisture may be removed from 


a system by drawing a second, deeper vacuum on the system after 


it is repaired. However, although drawing a second vacuum is 


standard industry practice, the time involved in drawing a deep 


vacuum discourages many technicians from achieving a vacuum 


deep enough to remove all the air and moisture that may have 


entered the system. Thus, a number of service companies recommend 


that their technicians evacuate high pressure systems only to 


atmospheric pressure, minimizing the intrusion of air and moisture.


   EPA requests comment on the option of requiring technicians 


who service small high pressure systems, particularly those 


utilizing HCFC-22, to evacuate these systems only to atmospheric 


pressure. As is discussed further in section III.G. below, the 


Agency is generally willing to consider less stringent standards 


for equipment utilizing HCFC-22 because HCFC-22 has approximately 


five percent of the ozone depletion potential of CFCs 11 and 


12. However, EPA believes strongly that larger systems and systems 


utilizing high-pressure refrigerants besides HCFC-22 should 


be evacuated to levels below atmospheric pressure. Large systems 


utilizing CFC-12 in particular may still contain several pounds 


of refrigerant at atmospheric pressure; for instance, a bank 


of compressors in a grocery store with a charge of 500 pounds 


of CFC-12 (a common quantity) will contain over 10 pounds of 


refrigerant at atmospheric pressure. For these and similar systems,



EPA believes the quantity of refrigerant recovered by pulling 


a deeper vacuum justifies the extra labor required either to 


break the vacuum with nitrogen or to pull a second vacuum deep 


enough to remove all the air and moisture that may enter a system 


below atmospheric pressure. The Agency requests comment on this 


rationale and on the levels of vacuum proposed above.


   ii. Servicing Times. EPA has also considered the amount of 


time technicians would have to spend on the job in order to 


achieve certain vacuums. Each additional unit of vacuum takes 


longer than the preceding one to achieve. Hence, a recovery 


or recycling machine that can achieve a 10 inch vacuum in a 


system in 15 minutes may require another 15 minutes to reach 


12 inches, then another 15 minutes to reach 13 inches, etc. 


However, EPA discussions with industry indicate that in general, 


the vacuums specified above can either be achieved within a 


reasonable time period while the technician is on the job or 


overnight. (Evacuations of large systems are often performed 


overnight.) EPA requests comment on this finding.


   b. Evacuation requirements for small appliances. For reasons 


discussed further in section EPA's proposed evacuation requirements



for small appliances would depend upon whether an active recovery 


device (with a pump) or a passive recovery device (without a 


pump) were employed for refrigerant recovery.


   Technicians using active recovery devices to recover refrigerant



would be required to reduce system pressure to one atmosphere 


(0 psig) (equivalent to 90% capture of refrigerant at 70 F) 


in the sealed system. Because the recovery efficiency of passive 


recovery device is less dependent on a pressure reading than 


on a specific procedure, technicians using passive systems would 


be required to adhere to the servicing procedure certified for 


that recovery system. Certification of passive recovery devices 


and recovery procedures are discussed in more detail in section 


III.G.


   c. Removal of entrained refrigerant from oil. In some cases, 


significant amounts of oil are left behind in a system after 


refrigerant has been recovered. In these cases, simply drawing 


the vacuums specified in table 1 above may not recover a high 


percentage of the refrigerant, because a large percentage of 


the refrigerant in a system may be entrained in the compressor 


oil. For instance, at 80 degrees F and atmospheric pressure, 


50% of the volume of oil in a low pressure chiller is typically 


made up of refrigerant. EPA has two concerns regarding oil
contaminated 


with refrigerant: (1) The refrigerant may be released once the 


system is opened and the oil is exposed to the air, and (2) 


the eventual combustion of the oil (a common method of disposal) 


may create toxic compounds. The latter concern has led EPA to 


classify oil containing certain concentrations of CFCs or HCFCs 


as an off-specification fuel under its RCRA regulations.
(Classification 


of oil as an off-specification fuel is discussed in more detail 


in section III.E.3.) The Agency has similar concerns regarding 


oil removed from the compressor during an oil change.


   There are a number of methods for recovering refrigerant 


entrained in oil The ASHRAE Guideline 3 mentions two, recommending:


   When removing oil from the compressor, it is recommended 


that the crankcase be pumped down to atmospheric pressure to 


remove dissolved refrigerant prior to exposing the oil to the 


atmosphere. Refrigerant in solution may be further reduced by 


use of crankcase heaters (ASHRAE Guideline 3-1990, p. 7).


The Trane company has determined that through the use of heat 


and vacuum, refrigerant concentrations in centrifugal chiller 


oil can be reduced to one percent or lower.


   Recent discussions with industry representatives indicate 


that these methods can be time-consuming and therefore costly. 


For instance, if a heat pump or air conditioner is not operational,



it can take up to 24 hours for a crankcase heater to warm up 


fully, and the Trane method for removing low-pressure refrigerant 


from oil can take several days. In addition, the equipment
necessary 


for transporting the oil and extracting the refrigerant can 


be cumbersome.


   EPA requests comment on the potential of oil in the various 


industry sectors to emit CFCs and HCFCs during or after servicing, 


and on whether it would be appropriate to require technicians 


to follow procedures to extract refrigerant from oil before 


exposing the oil to the atmosphere or disposing of the oil. 


Are there methods for removing most if not all of the refrigerant 


that can be implemented relatively quickly? When would such 


methods be applied? Should they be required even for operations 


such as oil sampling, which involve withdrawing only a small 


fraction of the oil in a system? Are any of the current methods 


for removing refrigerant from oil powerful enough to reduce 


refrigerant concentrations below the levels that trigger
designation 


as an off-specification fuel (4,000 ppm)? If so, even a somewhat 


complicated refrigerant recovery procedure may be preferable 


to generation of material that is difficult to dispose of.


   EPA could require that refrigerant be extracted from oil 


when ease of recovery, high oil volumes, and/or high refrigerant 


concentrations made the effort worthwhile. One relatively simple 


approach would be to require technicians to hold the system 


at a vacuum for a period of time that would vary depending upon 


the type and size of equipment. As refrigerant evaporated out 


of the oil, the system pressure would rise. The technician would 


then be required to pump the system back down to the specified 


vacuum before opening the system for service. (Adding heat to 


the system could expedite this process.) Such a requirement 


would have the additional benefit of permitting any remaining 


liquid refrigerant in the system to evaporate and be recovered.


   d. Evacuation of leaky equipment. Industry representatives 


on the STOPAC Subcommittee of recycling noted that in some cases, 


large leaks made it impossible to draw a deep vacuum on high-


pressure air conditioning or refrigeration equipment. In such 


cases, EPA proposes to allow high pressure equipment to be
evacuated 


to 0 psig (atmospheric pressure) instead of to the levels above. 


A large leak would be defined as one that lowers the pressure 


of a high pressure system to less than two atmospheres (60 inches 


of mercury absolute). Industry members stated that leaks smaller 


than this would not prevent evaluation to the level specified 


in Table 1 (Memorandum from Deborah Ottinger to the Record, 


"Meeting Between EPA and ASHRAE Representatives," November 19, 


1992). EPA requests comment on this proposal.


   2. Leak Repair. Although EPA will consider developing
comprehensive 


regulations to reduce refrigerant leakage during equipment use 


in the next phase of rulemaking under section 608, the Agency 


requests comment on whether it should include in this rule a 


requirement to repair substantial leaks. Such a provision could 


require technicians servicing equipment that leaks more than 


35% of its charge per year to find and repair the leak within 


some period of time, perhaps 30 days after the leak's discovery. 


While technicians would not be required to inspect for leaks 


outside of their normal servicing procedures, they would be 


required to repair leaks that they become aware of during such 


procedures (e.g., by noting that the charge was low by 35% or 


more). This provision would be an emergency, stop-gap measure 


to ensure that technicians repaired large leaks instead of
repeatedly 


"topping off" systems with new refrigerant. A number of industry 


representatives have stated that the latter practice remains 


common, despite the increasing cost of refrigerant.


   The Agency is suggesting the 35% figure because research 


on emissions from equipment in different sectors shows that 


this is five percentage points above the typical annual leak 


rate in the most leak-prone sectors. Rather than adopt a standard 


based on the annual leak rates in the leakiest sectors, however, 


EPA could establish different criteria for different sectors. 


For example, technicians would be required to repair leaks in 


chillers if they released more than 15% of the charge annually 


(chillers typically leak 10% of their charge per year), but 


they would not have to repair leaks in the retail food sector 


unless they released more than 35% of the total charge annually 


(refrigeration in the retail food sector typically leaks 30% 


of the charge per year). By using the typical leak rate of a 


given sector as a bench mark, the Agency is assuming that it 


represents an industry standard for the amount of leakage from 


normally maintained and operated equipment. Leaks that are
significantly 


higher than this benchmark should be worth repairing according 


to most service technicians in the sector. While this approach 


falls short of establishing a lowest achievable level of emissions 


to the extent that typical industry practice falls short of 


that level, it would reduce leaks until needed additional analysis 


can be performed and regulations establishing lowest achievable 


levels of emissions during operation of equipment are promulgated. 


   3. Disposition of Recovered Refrigerant. EPA proposes to 


allow technicians considerable flexibility in the disposition 


of recovered refrigerant. The one restriction (besides the
prohibition 


on venting) that EPA proposes to impose is that refrigerant 


transferred between equipment owned by different persons must 


be reclaimed. 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. (Technically, the
refrigerant 


need not be reprocessed if chemical analysis shows that it already 


meets the ARI 700 standard of purity; however, this is seldom 


expected to be the case.) EPA proposes to implement this
restriction 


by prohibiting the sale or offering for sale of class I and 


class II refrigerants that do not meet the ARI 700 Standard. 


In this requirement, EPA would codify the industry recommendation 


for refrigerant moved off-site. In fact, the requirement would 


apply the standard of purity set forth in ARI 700 somewhat less 


restrictively than ARI itself, which states that the standard 


is intended for refrigerant transferred between any two pieces 


of equipment, even if they are owned by the same person. Under 


this proposed regulation, refrigerant moved between equipment 


owned by the same person, corporation, or governmental entity 


would not need to be either tested or treated. Thus, for instance, 


grocery store chains could move refrigerant from equipment in 


one store to equipment in another without treating it. 


   EPA proposes to focus on changes in ownership of refrigerant 


because such transfers introduce uncertainties into the marketplace



regarding the purity of the refrigerant. Manufacturers of air 


conditioning and refrigeration equipment on the STOPAC Subcommittee



for Recycling states that unless used refrigerant were chemically 


analyzed, there was a significant risk of contaminated or mixed 


refrigerant entering the market and ultimately damaging equipment 


on a large scale. Refrigerant reclaimers have reported finding 


a wide range of contaminants in used refrigerants delivered 


to them. Many of these contaminants (including other refrigerants) 


are not removed by standard recycling machines. EPA is concerned 


not only with the damage that contaminated refrigerant could 


cause, but with the reduction of consumer confidence in the 


quality of recycled refrigerant that might result. Slackened 


demand could lead to the stockpiling (and ultimately, the venting) 


of unwanted used refrigerant. 


   When refrigerant is moved from one piece of equipment to 


another but ownership does not change, the risks to equipment 


are still present, but a single owner is in the position to 


evaluate those risks and they do not present a problem for a 


market in which other consumers are purchasing the used
refrigerant. 


   EPA is particularly concerned that, in the absence of a
requirement 


to reclaim refrigerant before selling it to a new owner, these 


recycling requirements could encourage the development of
"recycling 


centers" that accepted used refrigerant from a wide variety 


of sources without analyzing it. In such cases, uncertainty 


regarding the origin and purity of the refrigerant would be 


compounded by the participation of an intermediate party. In 


addition, if a recycler unknowingly mixed contaminated refrigerant 


into a larger batch, the potential for harm would be multiplied 


accordingly. Consolidation of batches also increases the likelihood



of mixing different refrigerants. In either of these cases, 


the recycled refrigerant would be rendered unusable, making 


its release (either through damage to equipment or deliberate 


venting) far more likely. EPA requests comment on the likelihood 


that without regulation, recycling centers would arise and lead 


to the release of refrigerants into the environment. 


   EPA recognizes that private parties will continue to face 


strong incentives to ensure adequate refrigerant purity in the 


absence of any federal regulation. Purchasers of refrigerant 


have always had the incentive to ensure refrigerant purity; 


yet with the expected increase in refrigerant recycling, the 


cost of ensuring purity might increase. The risks by contaminated 


refrigerant may consist of damage to private property,
specifically, 


potential harm to equipment caused by moisture-, acid-, or oil-


contaminated refrigerant, decreases in equipment operating
efficiency 


caused by mixed refrigerant, and loss of refrigerant caused 


by system rupture or irreversible contamination (e.g., mixture 


of CFC-12 and HCFC-22). These types of risks impose potential 


costs upon the private parties that would purchase reclaimed 


refrigerant, and so these parties would be expected to take 


steps to ensure purity to a level adequate for the intended 


use. Equipment owners, for example, could undertake a range 


of actions to ensure adequate refrigerant purity: Purchase used 


refrigerants only from reputable suppliers or technicians, insist 


upon contract provisions specifying technician or supplier
guarantees 


to repair any equipment damaged by contaminated refrigerant, 


insist that used refrigerant meet some purity standard less 


stringent than ARI 700, or only use refrigerant that is fully 


certified to meet ARI 700.


   The degree to which the purchasers of used refrigerant would 


undertake these actions will depend upon their awareness of 


the risks posed by contaminated or mixed refrigerants. Because 


the potential damage to equipment might only occur after months 


or years of operation, consumer awareness of the risks could 


trail actual equipment damage. This problem of inadequate
information 


could, however, be addressed through EPA and industry efforts 


to educate potential consumers of refrigerants. EPA solicits 


public comment on the adequacy of the private party actions 


described above and potential EPA and industry educational efforts 


in minimizing the harm that may result from damage to private 


equipment from contaminated or mixed refrigerants.


   Some members of the STOPAC subcommittee for recycling suggested 


that EPA address cross-contamination concerns through a less 


stringent requirement than requiring reclamation of all refrigerant



transferred between owners. One alternative would be to require 


reclamation only when refrigerant was moved between equipment 


of different types. Such a restriction would allow contractors 


servicing a single type of equipment to consolidate and transport 


the refrigerant to their shops for "off-site" recycling. The 


contractors could then sell the refrigerant to other customers 


using the same type of equipment, but sales of recycled refrigerant



to anyone but end-users would be prohibited. This requirement 


would be especially advantageous for contractors who service 


small equipment, for instance, home unitary air conditioners 


(central air conditioning units) utilizing HCFC-22. While recycling



machines are capable of processing 50 pounds of refrigerant 


at once, the charge in home unitary air conditioners ranges 


between four and seven pounds. Thus, allowing contractors to 


consolidate refrigerant would permit them to use their recycling 


machines more efficiently than they could if they were required 


to process each owner's refrigerant separately. Moreover, because 


1-2 pounds of refrigerant is usually left behind in recycling 


equipment after each job is complete, substantial mixing occurs 


even with on-site recycling. The purity gained by allowing only 


on-site recycling may therefore not justify the additional expense 


that this option entails.


   However, although transfers of refrigerant between similar 


pieces of equipment are less likely to lead to cross-contamination 


than transfers between different types of equipment, EPA has 


several concerns about this option. First, if limited off-site 


recycling is permitted, it may be difficult to distinguish between 


legitimate and illegal use of the recycling machines. Recycling 


centers selling refrigerant to walk-in customers may find it 


easy to masquerade as contractors recycling refrigerant only 


to recharge their customer's equipment. Second, defining "types" 


of equipment within which transfers of refrigerant could proceed 


may present problems. Should distinctions be based on size, 


possession of hermetic vs. open-drive compressors, or some other 


characteristic? Third, there is no industry standard for the 


ability of recycling machines to clean refrigerant. While the 


ARI 740 Standard for Recycling Equipment includes a test for 


cleaning ability, it does not set any minimum level of performance 


in this area. Thus, there is currently no guarantee that an 


individual recycling machine is capable of removing even those 


contaminants, such as acid and water, that recycling machines 


are theoretically capable of removing. In the future a "clean-


up" standard may be developed; with EPA's encouragement, ARI 


has taken preliminary steps in this direction. If and when such 


a standard is developed, EPA will view off-site recycling with 


more confidence.


   EPA requests comment on the option of permitting limited 


off-site recycling. Could the Agency design its program in such 


a way as to prevent the development of "Recycling centers" that 


do not analyze the refrigerant they sell? How? What criteria 


would EPA use to distinguish between equipment types? Finally, 


should even limited off-site recycling be permitted in the absence 


of a "clean-up" standard for recycling equipment?


   Some members of the STOPAC argued that EPA should allow sales 


of recycled (as opposed to reclaimed and therefore, chemically 


analyzed) refrigerant as long as the refrigerant is labelled 


as such. However, since the label would only indicate that the 


refrigerant had been used, not what its chemical contents were, 


EPA does not believe that a labelling requirement would
sufficiently 


inform the purchaser of refrigerant of the risks associated 


with its use. This rule will dramatically increase the volume 


of used refrigerant on the market, and many purchasers will 


not be familiar with the hazards that may be associated with 


used refrigerants that have not been analyzed, e.g., residuals 


from hermetic motor burnouts, improper identification,
incompatibility 


of lubricants, etc. Thus, EPA believes that the integrity of 


the market for used refrigerant is best served by requiring 


that the purity of the refrigerant be chemically verified before 


refrigerant is sold to a new owner.


   Refrigerant that is not sold to a new owner would not have 


to meet any standard of purity under section 608. When refrigerant 


is returned to the equipment from which it is removed, it is 


frequently not necessary either to test or to treat the
refrigerant. 


ASHRAE Guideline 3-1990 states, "refrigerant withdrawn from 


equipment so that routine service or major overhaul can be
performed 


can usually be returned to the equipment without reprocessing," 


and this guidance was confirmed by several members of the STOPAC 


Subcommittee for Recycling. As long as recovered refrigerant 


does not change hands, therefore, EPA considers it reasonable 


to leave treatment to the discretion of the service technician.


   4. RCRA Regulations Regarding the Management of CFCs and 


CFC-Contaminated Wastes. This section is intended to give an 


overview of EPA's hazardous waste regulations as they affect 


refrigerant recovery, recycling, and reclamation. Throughout 


this section the terms recovery, recycling, and reclamation 


are used as defined previously in section III.D. of today's 


proposed rule and not as defined in the Resource Conservation 


and Recovery Act (RCRA).{1} The regulations described in this 


section are not part of this rulemaking. Individuals with questions



regarding them should call the RCRA Hotline at 1-800-424-9346 


or 701-920-9810. 


      ³{1} As stated in RCRA regulations, material is
"recycled" 


      ³if it is used, reused, or reclaimed (40 CFR
261.1(c)(7). 


      ³A material is "used or reused" if it is either employed



      ³as an ingredient (including use as an intermediate) in 


      ³an industrial process to make a product or employed in 


      ³a particular function or application as an effective 


      ³substitute for a commercial product (40 CFR
261.1(c)(5)). 


      ³A material is "reclaimed" if it is processed to recover



      ³a usable product, or if it is regenerated (40 CFR
261.1(c)(4)). 


   a. Refrigerants. Due to a previous rulemaking (see 56 FR 


5910, February 13, 1991) and the July 28, 1989, Federal Register 


notice clarifying the applicability of RCRA Subtitle C regulations 


to CFC refrigerants (54 FR 31335), used CFC refrigerants from 


totally enclosed heat transfer equipment, including mobile air 


conditioning systems, mobile refrigeration, and commercial and 


industrial air conditioning and refrigeration systems that use 


chlorofluorocarbons as the heat transfer fluid in a refrigeration 


cycle are not hazardous wastes provided the refrigerant is recycled



or reclaimed for further use. If these CFCs are not recycled 


or reclaimed, it is the generator's responsibility to test the 


waste or apply knowledge of the waste to determine whether the 


waste exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 


Part 262 for standards applicable to generators of hazardous 


waste, especially 40 CFR 262.11, "Hazardous waste determination"). 


In the July 28, 1989, notice, EPA concluded that, in circumstances 


where something outside the realm of normal practice may cause 


a CFC refrigerant to exhibit a characteristic (e.g., compressor 


burnout), generators may need to determine, using testing or 


knowledge, whether the waste is hazardous. EPA was concerned 


that CFCs may break down at high compressor temperatures, forming 


hydrochloric acid, and may exhibit the characteristic of
corrosivity. 


If the spent refrigerant is mixed with a listed or characteristic 


hazardous waste (e.g., degreasing fluid or solvent), then the 


mixture may also be hazardous. 


   b. Byproducts of Refrigerant Recovery and Recycling. Two 


of the byproducts of refrigerant recovery and recyling may be 


hazardous waste: Used oil and used replaceable core filter driers. 


Generators of single and multiple pass through devices such 


as replaceable core filter-driers are subject to the RCRA hazardous



waste determination requirement (40 CFR 262.11). If the generator 


determines that the spent pass through device is a hazardous 


waste, then it must be managed in accordance with RCRA Subtitle 


C requirements. 


   As part of the CFC recycling process, used oil is separated 


from the CFCs. Used oils that are removed from refrigeration 


units and that are contaminated with CFCs are exempt from the 


rebuttable presumption of mixing with hazardous waste. The
rebuttable 


presumption of mixing, however, applies to used oil contaminated 


with CFCs that have been mixed with used oil from processes 


other than refrigeration units. (See 40 CFR 279.10(b)(ii)(B) 


and 40 CFR 279.44(c)(2). Thus, generators of used oil that is 


contaminated with CFCs from refrigeration units may wish to 


keep this oil separate from other used oil and retain records 


documenting the source of the oil. (Such recordkeeping, however, 


is not required.)


   Used oil separated from CFCs during refrigerant recycling 


is subject to the newly finalized part 279 requirements for 


recycled used oil management standards (57 FR 41566, September 


10, 1992). If used oil is destined for disposal, the generator 


has the responsibility to test or apply knowledge to determine 


whether the used oil exhibits one or more of the characteristics 


of hazardous waste. (See 40 CFR part 279, subpart I, Standards 


for use as a Dust Suppressant and Disposal of Used Oil.)


   Used oils that remain after the CFC recovery step and that 


are recycled are subject to 40 CFR part 279 requirements as 


applicable. Under RCRA subtitle C regulations, used oil that 


is recycled by being burned for energy recovery is subject to 


40 CFR part 266, subparts E and H. The 40 CFR part 266, subpart 


E requirements are included in new part 279 of 40 CFR. (See 


40 CFR part 279, subparts B, G, and H.)


   (1) Used Oil Fuel Specifications. Used oil that fails to 


meet used oil fuel specifications in the new 40 CFR 279.11 and 


279.60(c) (current 40 CFR 266.40(e){2}) may be burned only in 


industrial boilers and furnaces, as defined in 40 CFR 261.10 


and 266.41(b). Under the new 40 CFR 279.63(b) (current 40 CFR 


266.40)c)), used oil to be burned for energy recovery that contains



more than 1,000 ppm of total halogens is presumed to be hazardous 


waste because it has been mixed with halogenated hazardous waste 


listed in 40 CFR part 261, subpart D (e.g., F001, which includes 


chlorinated fluorocarbons used as solvents). Used oil that contains



greater than 1,000 ppm total halogens for which the presumption 


cannot be rebutted or used oil for which the generator chooses 


not to rebut the presumption is subject to regulation under 


subpart H of 40 CFR part 266, Hazardous Waste Burned in Boilers 


and Industrial Furnaces. The presumption may be rebutted by 


showing that the used oil does not contain concentrations in 


excess of 1,000 ppm of halogenated hazardous constituents listed 


in 40 CFR part 261, appendix VIII or that the constituents are 


only hazardous waste generated by conditionally exempt small 


quantity generators subject to 40 CFR 261.5.


      ³{2} Used oil that exceeds any of the following
specification 


      ³levels is considered to be "off-specification" used oil



      ³under 40 CFR 266.40(e): Arsenic-5 ppm, Cadmium-2 ppm, 


      ³Chromium-10 ppm, Lead-100 ppm, Flash Point-100øF
minimum, 


      ³Total Halogens-4000 ppm.


   Appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261 identifies CFCs used as 


solvents as a hazardous constituent. Thus, a chemical analysis 


may indicate that used oil containing a spent CFC (in
concentrations 


exceeding 1,000 ppm) used as a refrigerant (rather than as a 


solvent), is a hazardous waste under the rebuttable presumption 


at 40 CFR 279.11 and 279.60(c), (current 40 CFR 266.40(e)) when, 


in fact, the CFCs are not derived from a listed hazardous waste. 


Demonstrating that the CFCs in the used oil result from a
refrigerant 


use rather than from mixture with a listed hazardous waste may 


rebut the presumption. Once used oil from refrigeration units 


is mixed with used oil from other sources, one way to rebut 


the presumption could be to maintain records of chemical analysis 


for each generated wastestream, although EPA does not require 


this chemical analysis and recordkeeping. Then, non-refrigerant 


wastestreams containing CFCs could be eliminated from acceptance 


for commingling with used oil destined for burning for energy 


recovery as a used oil fuel.


   (2) Used Oil Fired Space Heaters. As discussed in 40 CFR 


278.23 (a) and 40 CFR 279.62 (a) and (b) (current 40 CFR
266.44(b)), 


owners and operators of used oil-fired space heaters that burn 


used oil fuel under the provisions of 266.41(b)(2) are exempt 


from notification requirements of Section 3010 of RCRA. Off-


specification used oil fuel may be burned for energy recovery 


in used oil-fired space heaters provided that: the heater burns 


only used oil that the owner or operator generates or used oil 


received from do-it-yourself oil changers who generate used 


oil as household waste; the heater is designed to have a maximum 


capacity of not more than 0.5 million Btu per hour; and the 


combustion gases from the heater are vented to the ambient air. 


For example, the generator could be the owner of the refrigeration 


equipment as well as the service person or company who, in
servicing 


the equipment, collects the used oil. Than, the service person 


or company may burn the used oil provided that the owner or 


operator can successfully rebut the presumption at 40 CFR 279.66(a)



(current 40 CFR 266.40(c)).


   c. Refrigerant Reclamation. Used oil separated from CFCs 


during reclamation is managed in the same manner as used oil 


separated from CFCs during recycling (see Refrigerant Recycling 


section). The generator has the responsibility to determine 


whether residuals (including used oil) generated during reclamation



are hazardous. If the residuals consist of a mixture of CFCs, 


used as refrigerants, and other solvents listed in 40 CFR part 


261, subpart D, then the residuals from CFC reclamation would 


be a listed hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii)). If 


the residuals from CFC reclamation exhibit one or more of the 


characteristics of hazardous waste, then the residuals are a 


characteristic hazardous waste (see 40 CFR part 261, subpart 


C).


   d. Used Refrigerant Oil. Thus far, this portion of the preamble 


has provided an overview of RCRA regulations with respect to 


refrigerant CFCs that have been recovered or will be recycled 


or reclaimed. Used oils, drained from refrigeration units, will 


be subject to the same regulations discussed above for used 


oils separated from CFCs during recycling and reclamation. For 


an additional discussion of regulations applicable to used oil 


and used oil filters, see 57 FR 21524, May 20, 1992.


   5. Handling Multiple Refrigerants in Recycling and Recovery 


Equipment. Under ordinary circumstances, one to two pounds of 


refrigerant may be left behind in a recycling or recovery device 


after the device is discharged back into the original equipment 


or into another container. Unless it is removed from the recovery 


or recycling machine using special methods, this refrigerant 


will contaminate the next batch of refrigerant recovered by 


the machine. If the first and second refrigerants are different 


(e.g., HCFC-22 and CFC-12), this mixture will become unusable, 


and will have to be disposed of.


   EPA requests comment on whether or not it should require 


technicians to remove residual refrigerant from recycling and 


recovery machines when these machines are switched between
refrigerants. 


Methods that may be used to remove residual refrigerant include 


evacuation using a second recovery device, heating the condenser 


of the recovery or recycling machine using a heat gun, or cooling 


the container (and/or tubing to it) to which the recovery or 


recycling machine is evacuated. Another option that would prevent 


mixture of refrigerants would be to require separate condensers 


for each refrigerant on recovery or recycling machines intended 


for use with multiple refrigerants. This, however, would increase 


the cost of the recovery or recycling machines. EPA requests 


comment on the effectiveness and practicality of procedures 


for evacuating refrigerants from recycling and recovery devices. 


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 proposing that recovery and recycling equipment manufactured



or imported on or after [6 months after publication of the final 


rule], be tested and certified by an EPA-approved laboratory 


or organization. The Agency proposes to require 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 proposing 


to require that equipment and hoses be fitted with shutoff valves 


or low-loss fittings. 


   In addition to the initial testing, manufacturers would have 


to have their equipment models tested or inspected at least 


once every three years to ensure that no changes had been made 


to the design that might prevent the equipment from meeting 


EPA requirements. Such "follow-up" programs are standard in 


equipment testing programs throughout industry. Manufacturers 


and importers would 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 would 


inform both consumers (technicians) and EPA enforcement personnel 


that the equipment met EPA standards.


1. Standards for Recovery and Recycling Machines Intended for 


Use With Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment Except 


Small Appliances


   a. Recovery efficiency. In developing proposed levels of 


evacuation, 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. Often the factors are 


interrelated; for instance, more powerful recovery and recycling 


machines are often more expensive, but they also reduce the 


time that the technician must spend evacuating the system.


   The relationship between the depth of vacuum drawn and the 


percentage of refrigerant that is recovered by recycling or 


recovery equipment varies from refrigerant to refrigerant. For 


HCFC-22, a vacuum of approximately 9 inches of mercury must 


be drawn in order to recover 99 percent of the refrigerant in 


the system. For CFC-12, vacuum of approximately 17 inches must 


be drawn to recover 99 percent of the refrigerant. For low-pressure



refrigerants, such as CFC-11 and HCFC-123, much deeper vacuums 


must be drawn in order to achieve 99 percent recovery; for
instance, 


a vacuum of 28 inches must be achieved in order to recover 99 


percent of the CFC-11 in a system.


   EPA surveyed manufacturers of recovery and recycling machines 


in order to ascertain the technical capabilities, prices, and 


availability of the equipment. Recycling and recovery machines 


can be divided into six major categories, depending upon the 


type of air conditioning or refrigeration equipment that they 


are intended to service. These categories include recovery or 


recycling machines intended to service: (1) Small appliances 


(discussed in section III.F.2 below), (2) high-pressure equipment 


with a charge of less than 50 pounds (e.g., residential and 


light commercial air conditioning), (3) high-pressure equipment 


with a charge of more than 50 pounds, (4) intermediate pressure 


equipment, (5) low-pressure equipment and (6) very high pressure 


equipment. Each of these categories varies in price and ability 


to draw vacuum. In addition, portability is of steadily lessening 


importance as one moves from the first to the fifth categories.


   EPA's survey indicated that currently available recovery 


and recycling machines intended for use with small high-pressure 


equipment are capable of drawing vacuums of between 9.9 and 


29.8 inches of Hg vacuum. The more efficient equipment appears 


to be competitively priced; while models drawing approximately 


10 inches of mercury ranged in price between $4,180 and $17,493, 


models drawing over 29 inches of mercury ranged in price between 


$1,316 and $6,700 (RIA). (The price of recovery and recycling 


machines appears to depend more on recovery rates, capacity, 


and number of refrigerants handled than on recovery efficiency.)


   However, the survey showed that the more efficient equipment 


probably could not be available in large quantities by the time 


the equipment certification requirements become effective. This 


result has been confirmed by a number of representatives of 


industry on the STOPAC Subcommittee for Recycling, who have 


stated that most models of recovery and recycling machines
currently 


on the market are incapable of drawing more than 10 inches of 


vacuum without risking damage to the machine's compressor.
According 


to these representatives, the relatively light, small recovery 


and recycling machines intended for use with small high pressure 


systems usually have hermetic compressors, which tend to overheat 


when drawing deep vacuums. This equipment also has difficulty 


working against the large difference in pressures (compression 


ratio) that must be overcome in order to achieve deeper vacuums. 


Thus, EPA is proposing to require that recovery or recycling 


machines intended for use with small high-pressure systems are 


able to draw a 10-inch vacuum.


   Some industry representatives have stated that most recovery 


or recycling machines currently available would have difficulty 


drawing more than a 4-inch vacuum on equipment using HCFC-22, 


because compression ratios at deeper vacuums become quite large 


for HCFC-22. The Agency requests comment on the alternative 


of requiring recovery or recycling machines intended for use 


with small systems using HCFC-22 to draw a 4-inch vacuum. EPA 


is willing to consider a less stringent standard for recycling 


and recovery machines used with small systems utilizing HCFC-


22 not only because of technical limitations but because HCFC-


22 has only approximately five percent of the ozone-depletion 


potential of CFC-11 and CFC-12.


   If more efficient equipment becomes widely available, EPA 


may evaluate the need for a higher standard for small, high-


pressure equipment in the more distant future. EPA requests 


comment on the possible future availability of portable, cost-


effective recovery and recycling machines able to draw more 


than 10 inches of vacuum and the costs of requiring such equipment.



Not only does EPA's survey indicates that the technology exists, 


but some industry members have stated that recovery and recycling 


machines utilizing open-drive, two-stage compressors would be 


able to achieve deep vacuums without significantly compromising 


portability or increasing cost.


   Recovery and recycling machines used to evacuate larger high-


pressure systems are capable of drawing vacuums of between 15 


and 29 inches, according to EPA's survey. These machines are 


typically larger and more powerful than machines used with
residential 


equipment because larger charge sizes necessitate both higher 


recovery rates and higher recovery efficiencies. In addition, 


portability is of somewhat less importance for large commercial 


than for residential applications because technicians in large 


commercial applications are less likely to have to carry recycling 


and recovery equipment up ladders and through narrow doorways. 


Because EPA's survey indicated that the majority of equipment 


currently available in this application draws vacuums closer 


to 20 inches than to 29 inches, EPA is proposing to require 


equipment in this application to draw a vacuum of 20 inches. 


EPA requests comment on this proposal and on the current and 


future availability of recovery or recycling machines intended 


for use with large high pressure equipment that can draw vacuums 


of more than 20 inches. As with recovery and recycling machines 


intended for use with smaller equipment, EPA may consider setting 


a stricter standard for recovery and recycling machines used 


with large equipment in the future.


   EPA's survey indicated that recovery and recycling machines 


used to service low-pressure centrifugal chillers are capable 


of drawing vacuums between 25.5 and 29.8 inches. The survey 


examined equipment in the two most common capacities for this 


application, 1,600 pounds and 3,400 pounds. For both the 1,600 


and 3,400 pound capacities, the most efficient equipment is 


somewhat more expensive than the least efficient equipment; 


however, in both cases it possesses other features besides high 


efficiency that are probably important to price (e.g., a high 


horsepower motor and a high recovery rate). More important, 


the social costs avoided by using the more efficient equipment 


(i.e., the damage to human health and the environment that would 


be caused by refrigerant released by the less efficient equipment) 


outweigh the price difference (Regulatory Impact Analysis). 


Thus, EPA is proposing to require that recovery or recycling 


machines intended for use with low pressure equipment reduce 


the system pressure to 25 mm of Hg (generally equivalent to 


a vacuum of 29 inches). EPA requests comment on this proposed 


level of evacuation.


   EPA considered defining low-pressure equipment to include 


equipment utilizing CFC-114, but the physical characteristics 


and special applications of this refrigerant appear to justify 


a separate classification, "intermediate pressure equipment." 


CFC-114 has a vapor pressure between those of low-pressure
refrigerants 


and those of high-pressure refrigerants. At a given level of 


evacuation, therefore, a higher percentage of 114 is recovered 


than would be recovered of CFC 11. Evacuation to 25 inches of 


Hg vacuum represents recovery of over 99% of the refrigerant 


in a 114 chiller. EPA is therefore proposing that CFC-114 and 


other intermediate pressure refrigerants (e.g., blends of CFCs-


114 and -12) be evacuated to 25 inches of vacuum. The Agency 


requests comment on this proposal.


   The requirements described above for high-pressure equipment 


would apply to equipment utilizing refrigerants 12, 22, 500, 


and 502. Refrigerants 13 and 503 are used in very low temperature 


applications and have very high pressures at ambient temperatures 


(e.g., 500 psia at 75 degrees F). Evacuating these refrigerants 


to the vacuums proposed for high pressure refrigerants would 


require recycling and recovery equipment to work against very 


high compression ratios, and over 99% of a very high pressure 


refrigerant can be recovered by evacuating it to atmospheric 


pressure. Thus, the standards and equipment appropriate for 


the recovery and recycling of the high pressure refrigerants 


are not appropriate for very high pressure refrigerants. ARI 


has recommended that EPA require evacuation of R-13 and 503 


to atmospheric pressure (At 75 degrees F), and EPA is proposing 


to adopt this recommendation. ARI has also noted that an especially



strong recovery container will be needed to recover these very 


high pressure refrigerants. EPA requests comment on the procedures,



equipment, and level of evacuation appropriate for recovering 


or recycling very high pressure refrigerants. 


   Following is a table listing the evacuation levels that must 


be achieved by the various types of recovery and recycling
equipment.





      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]             
          


   [Manufactured on or after (6 months after publication of the
final rule)]  


                                                                   
          


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ


 Type of air conditioning or refrigeration equipment with  ³  
 Inches of     


which recovery or recycling machine is intended to be used ³  
  vacuum       


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ


                                                           ³  
               


High Pressure Equipment with a Charge of Less than 50      ³
10               


 Pounds.                                                   ³  
               


High Pressure Equipment with a Charge of More than 50      ³
20               


 Pounds.                                                   ³  
               


Very High Pressure Equipment.............................. ³ 0
               


Intermediate Pressure Equipment........................... ³
25               


Low-pressure Equipment.................................... ³
25 mm Hg         


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ





   A few types of recycling and recovery equipment do not use 


an on-board compressor to remove refrigerant from the air
conditioning 


or refrigeration equipment. One model that has been brought 


to EPA's attention relies on the system compressor to evacuate 


the refrigerant, similar to the passive recovery devices used 


to evacuate refrigerators and freezers (discussed below). Another 


model uses an inert gas to push refrigerant out of the system 


and into the recovery device. EPA requests comment on how to 


evaluate the recovery efficiency of these two and other possible 


devices.


   The Agency is concerned that it would not be possible to 


ensure the performance of the first type of equipment because 


that performance would depend upon the system compressor, which 


would vary from job to job. The worst case would arise when 


the system compressor was not operating at all, in which case 


the efficiency of the equipment would probably be quite low. 


Although the technician in such a situation could theoretically 


return to his shop to pick up a recovery or recycling machine 


with an on-board compressor, EPA is concerned that this process 


would prove too time-consuming to depend upon in practice. EPA 


requests comment on these issues.


   Because the second type of equipment does not depend upon 


any external equipment during the recovery process, it should 


be possible to use laboratory tests to gauge its recovery
efficiency 


in the field. One method of measuring the efficiency might be 


to use a mass-balance approach, weighing the recovery equipment 


and the air conditioning or refrigeration equipment before and 


after the recovery procedure and subtracting the mass of the 


introduced inert gas. Such a method would require that the
refrigerant 


be distinguishable from the inert gas. EPA could approve the 


equipment if it achieved at least the recovery efficiency of 


comparable compressor-bearing equipment (between 98.5-99.5%). 


Although EPA is not proposing this method at this time, the 


Agency requests comment on this method of ensuring the recovery 


efficiency of this and other types of recovery or recycling 


equipment.


   b. Refrigerant recovery rates. Some representatives of industry 


on the STOPAC Subcommittee for Recycling have encouraged EPA 


to set minimum standards for liquid and vapor recovery rates, 


arguing that technicians will be less tempted to interrupt a 


swift recovery than a slow one (Letter from Bruce Siebert, the 


Trane Company, to Deborah Ottinger, Office of Air and Radiation, 


August 14, 1991). EPA is not proposing minimum recovery rates 



as a lead option in today's proposed rule. The Agency believes 


that, given the proposed requirements for evacuation and the 


growing value of refrigerant, contractors and technicians have 


sufficient incentive to purchase equipment with recovery rates 


adequate for their needs. However, EPA requests comment on the 


need for minimum recovery rates and on what those recovery rates 


might be for different types of air conditioning and refrigeration 


equipment.


   c. Low loss fittings. Low loss fittings or positive shutoff 


connections prevent refrigerant from escaping from hoses and 


equipment during connection and disconnection of recovery and 


recycling machines. EPA analysis indicates that shutoff valves 


for both high-pressure and low-pressure systems are cost-effective,



and in the case of low-pressure systems, actually save the user 


money (RIA). EPA is therefore proposing to require that hoses 


on recovery and recycling machines be equipped with low loss 


fittings. EPA requests comment on this proposal.


   d. 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 is 


proposing 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). Preliminary EPA analysis indicates 


that this is probably the most demanding standard that most 


existing recycling machines can meet (RIA). However, some industry 


representatives have stated that competitively priced machines 


are 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 is considering a 


3% (or still lower) limit as an alternative. Another alternative 


would be to require gradually higher standards over time, beginning



with 5%, and decreasing that quantity by one percent per year 


until a level of two or three percent is achieved. EPA requests 


comment on the current and future availability, technical
capacities, 


and costs of more efficient purge devices for recycling machines 


and on the appropriate limits for percentage of refrigerant 


released during the air purging process.


   e. Volume-sensitive Shut-off. Some members of the STOPAC 


Subcommittee for Recycling have recommended that EPA include 


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 is 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 


is not proposing to make possession of such a device a requirement 


for equipment certification in its lead option, but the Agency 


requests comment on this option. The Agency specifically requests 


comment on the cost and reliability of volume-sensitive switches.


2. Standards for Recovery Machines Intended for Use With Small 


Appliances


   a. Recovery efficiency. EPA is proposing somewhat less stringent



recovery efficiency standards for household refrigerators,
household 


freezers, and other small appliances containing less than one 


pound of refrigerant, such as vending machines, dehumidifiers, 


and water coolers. In this sector charge sizes are small and 


servicing is rare, making total emissions during servicing low 


relative to those in other sectors. High recovery efficiencies 


in the home refrigerator sector are accordingly less likely 


to justify the cost of highly efficient recovery equipment. 


In many cases, service shops perform service requiring entrance 


into a sealed system of a refrigerator only once or twice a 


year. For these shops, investment in a several thousand dollar 


recovery machine with a 99% total efficiency rather than a recovery



system costing hundreds of dollars (or less) with a 90% efficiency 


would avoid the emissions of less than two ounces of refrigerant 


per year, or less than ten ounces of refrigerant over the five 


year lifetime of typical recovery equipment. EPA does not believe 


that the environmental impact of these emissions would justify 


the expense of the more efficient machine.


   There are several different recovery devices designed
specifically 


for use with household refrigerators and freezers. These designs 


can be divided into two main types: active and passive. Active 


equipment, like most recovery equipment intended for use on 


larger systems, has its own compressor to pump refrigerant out 


of the refrigerator system. Passive equipment relies upon the 


compressor in the refrigerator and/or the pressure of the
refrigerant 


to recover the refrigerant. Passive equipment usually requires 


a smaller capital investment than active equipment, but it is 


also usually less efficient. While a pump can consistently deliver 


efficiencies above 90%, passive technologies generally have 


efficiencies of approximately 90% when they are used with an 


operating refrigerator compressor, and between 60-80% when they 


are used with a non-operating compressor.


   EPA has analyzed the cost-effectiveness of four different 


recovery systems, one active and three passive (RIA). These 


are the GE Pump (active), and the Whirlpool Bag, the Amana Carbon 


Adsorption System, and the chilled cylinder (passive). EPA
investigated 


both the private and social costs of each system, considering 


equipment costs (both capital and operating), technician time, 


and equipment efficiencies. Private and social costs are expressed 


respectively in $/job and $/kg of CFC recovered. For most of 


the recovery technologies, these costs decline as the number 


of jobs a shop performs per year rises, because fixed capital 


costs are spread out over a larger volume.


   EPA's analysis shows that for shops performing less than 


20 jobs per year, passive technologies are the most cost-effective 


from both private and social perspectives. On the other hand, 


for shops performing more than 50 jobs per year, the active 


technology is the most cost effective from both perspectives. 


This is because one-time capital costs make up a relatively 


large percentage of total costs for the pump, and these capital 


costs do not increase with the number of jobs. Because efficiency 


is a factor in determining social costs, the more efficient 


pump is the also most cost-effective from a social perspective 


for shops performing between 20 and 50 jobs per year. For a 


private perspective, passive technologies are less expensive 


in this range, but only marginally so. For instance, the least 


expensive technology for shops performing 20 jobs per year (the 


Whirlpool Bag) was estimated to cost approximately $11.00 per 


job, while the GE pump was estimated to cost approximately $14.00 


per job.


   This analysis suggests that more efficient active systems 


should be mandated for shops servicing more than 20 systems 


a year. However, this result is sensitive to initial assumptions 


regarding (1) the efficiency of the equipment, which, especially 


for passive systems, can vary considerably depending upon the 


conscientiousness of the technician, (2) the price of the
equipment, 


which is likely to change, (3) servicing times, which may vary 


considerably between technologies (EPA's analysis assumed that 


servicing times were roughly equal for all systems but the chilled 


cylinder), and (4) the utilization rate of the equipment, which 


may vary according to not only the number of jobs a shop performs 


per year but the ability of each shop's personnel, trucks, and 


other equipment to specialize in sealed system service. Relatively 


small changes in any of these parameters could alter the outcome 


of the analysis, and the most likely changes in the last two 


parameters would tend to reverse the conclusions. Thus, EPA 


is proposing to allow shops servicing small appliances to use 


either active or passive recovery devices, as long as those 


devices meets the minimum standards set forth in the paragraph 


below, and as long as the technician adheres to the servicing 


procedures specified for that equipment. However, EPA requests 


comment on the option of requiring that shops performing service 


on more than 20 (or some other appropriate figure) sealed systems 


per year use a pump rather than one of the passive systems to 


recover refrigerant. EPA also requests comment on the proposed 


one-pound limitation, on this analysis, and on the other regulatory



options presented here.


   EPA is proposing that minimum standards for total recovery 


efficiency for passive systems be set at 90% when used with 


an operating refrigerator compressor and 80% when used with 


a nonoperating refrigerator compressor. As noted previously, 


passive equipment is generally capable of meeting these standards. 


The conditions under which the recovery device achieves these 


efficiencies in the test situation must reflect those that can 


be realistically implemented in the field.


   EPA has some special concerns regarding carbon adsorption 


as a recovery technology. EPA's information indicates that it 


is difficult to recover adsorbed CFCs in a form suitable for 


reclamation, implying that adsorbed CFCs may seldom be recovered 


or reused. If CFCs remain bound to the carbon, they do not pose 


any immediate environmental concerns, but they are no longer 


available to a market where they will soon be in great demand. 


If CFCs escape from the carbon over time, they also pose an 


environmental threat. In either of these cases, the value of 


the adsorbed CFCs is considerably less than that of CFCs that 


are recovered in a manner that allows them to be reclaimed, 


indicating that carbon adsorption should be discouraged. EPA 


requests comment on the practicality of reclaiming adsorbed 


CFCs, on the fate of adsorbed CFCs that are not recovered and 


reclaimed, and on whether carbon adsorption should be permitted 


as a recovery technology.


3. Possible Standards for Recycling and Recovery Machines Used 


With Equipment Identical to MVACs


   Some of the air conditioners that would be covered by this 


proposed rule are identical to MVACs, but they are not covered 


by the MVACs rule under section 609 of the Act because they 


are used in vehicles that are not defined as "motor vehicles." 


These air conditioners include many systems used in boats,
airplanes, 


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 currently written, 


today's proposed rule would apply the standards discussed above 


for recovery and recycling equipment used with small high pressure 


systems to recovery and recycling equipment used with these 


MVAC-type air conditioners. EPA believes, however, that the 


standards for recycling and recovery equipment that EPA has 


adopted in its section 609 regulations (57 FR 31241, July 14, 


1992) could be applied instead to recycling and recovery equipment 


used with MVAC-type air conditioners. EPA believes that the 


regulations under section 609, which are discussed in 57 FR 


31241, satisfy the statutory standards of section 608 regarding 


the maximization of recycling and reduction of emissions. Were 


EPA to adopt these standards (and the accompanying certification 


program) in its section 608 regulations, manufacturers of equipment



that is intended specifically for use with MVAC-type air
conditioners 


and that is certified under the section 609 regulations would 


not have to recertify that equipment under the ARI Standard 


740 in order to market it for use with MVAC-type equipment covered 


by section 608. In other respects, the servicing of MVAC-type 


equipment in vehicles that are not defined as "motor vehicles" 


would be covered by these regulations rather than EPA's section 


609 regulations. EPA requests comment on this alternative.


4. Testing of Recycling and Recovery Equipment Intended for 


Use on Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Equipment Except Small 


Appliances


   EPA is proposing to require testing of recovery and recycling 


equipment for the above performance characteristics by a third 


party approved by EPA. At present, EPA is aware of two major 


equipment testing programs underway: The ARI certification program 


under ARI Standard 740 (Appendix B to the proposed 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 is proposing a modified version of these 


programs as the one that approved recovery and recycling equipment 


testing organizations would have to use. 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 be certified only if it could 


achieve the vacuums specified, limited purge losses to 5% (or 


other percentage that EPA adopted in the final rule), and was 


equipped with positive shut-off 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's proposed program 


would 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.)


   If previously certified equipment failed a follow-up test 


or inspection, the approved equipment testing organization would 


be required to inform EPA of this fact, and the certification 


for that equipment would 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 certification, the affected model of recycling 


or recovery equipment could no longer be manufactured, and the 


affected technician, owner of recycling or recovery equipment, 


or reclaimer could no longer do business.


   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 would be willing to 


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-740-1988 (Appendix B), (2) possesses 


the equipment described in ARI-740-1988 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 would be required to submit lists of approved 


equipment to EPA annually. They would also be 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.


   EPA is proposing third-party certification because it represents



the most reliable method of obtaining an accurate and objective 


evaluation of equipment performance. Third-party certification 


is more likely than self-certification to yield consistent results 


across brands, and third-party certifiers have the opportunity 


to refine their test methods. Third-party certification is also 


likely to be reasonably priced; given the array of respected 


testing organizations that have expressed an interest in certifying



recovery and recycling machines, EPA expects the certification 


market to be competitive.


   EPA has considered two other options for implementing its 


equipment performance requirements. One option would be to require 


manufacturers to test their own equipment according to ARI Standard



740 or another EPA-approved testing protocol. Like third-party 


certification, this self-certification would have to statistically 


verify the performance of equipment manufactured over the long 


term. Manufacturers would retain the option of having their 


equipment certified by a third party if this were more cost-


effective or attractive for some other reason. Self-certification 


could save manufacturers money in some cases (though the need 


to develop and maintain laboratory facilities would seem to 


put this option out of reach of all but the largest companies). 


However, EPA is not proposing self-certification as its lead 


option because third-party certification offers a more objective 


and still practical alternative. EPA requests comment on the 


option of self-certification by equipment manufacturers.


   Another option would be to eliminate pre-market testing programs



altogether but to hold manufacturers and contractors legally 


responsible if inspections show that recovery and recycling 


machines are not performing to EPA specifications. The chief 


attraction of this option is that it eliminates the costs of 


equipment testing, lowering manufacturers' prices and enabling 


technicians to cut costs further by building their own equipment. 


However, it does so at the considerable risk of allowing inadequate



and/or leaky equipment onto the market. EPA requests comment 


on the no-certification option.


   In order to inform practical purchasers of the certification 


status of recovery or recycling equipment, EPA proposes to maintain



a list of approved equipment that will be made available to 


interested persons.


5. Testing of Recycling and Recovery Equipment Intended for 


Use on Small Appliances


   The ARI 740 test method, which is designed to simulate recovery 


from larger air conditioning and refrigeration equipment, is 


not applicable to most of the technologies (both passive and 


active) that have been developed for recovering CFCs from small 


appliances. This is because the mixing chamber intended to simulate



the refrigeration system in ARI 740 is much larger than the 


systems on small appliances and therefore could be only partially 


evacuated by systems that could fully evacuate a small appliance. 


Thus, if recovery and recycling machines intended for use on 


small appliances are to be evaluated, a different test method 


must be devised.


   The main purpose of this test method would be to provide 


an accurate measure of the recovery efficiency of both passive 


and active recovery devices in conjunction with both operating 


and nonoperating refrigerator compressors. General Electric 


has developed such a method, which could calculate the percentage 


of a known charge of CFC refrigerant removed and captured from 


a test stand refrigeration system and delivered to a container 


suitable for shipment to a CFC reclaimer. The test involves 


weighing the test stand, the recovery device, and the shipping 


containers before and after recovery. Each recovery system would 


be tested following the manufacturer's written directions for 


use of that system in the field. (In this sense, recovery
procedures 


would be certified along with recovery equipment, and failure 


to observe these procedures in the field would constitute a 


violation of this regulation.) EPA is proposing to adopt this 


test method as appendix C to this proposed rule. EPA requests 


comment on the accuracy and reliability of this method. 


   As would be the case for recovery and recycling machines 


intended for use with other air conditioning and refrigeration 


equipment, recovery devices intended for refrigerators would 


be certified by a third party. An organization interested in 


becoming an EPA-approved certifier would have to demonstrate 


that it (1) consistently followed appendix C to test performance 


in the area of concern, recovery efficiency, (2) possessed the 


facilities to verify the performance of long-term production, 


and (3) was not financially or otherwise interested in the outcome 


of the testing. Organizations seeking approval to be equipment 


certifiers are encouraged to contact EPA as soon as possible. 


The Agency requests comment on this option.


6. Effective Dates and Granfathering Provisions.


   EPA is proposing that, while manufacturers would begin to 


certify recovery and recycling equipment to the new standards 


as of July 1, 1992, the statutory effective date, manufacturers 


will have until [6 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 believes that this lead time is sufficient. 


EPA requests comment on making certification mandatory for all 


equipment manufactured six months after publication of the final 


rule.


   EPA also proposes to "grandfather" recycling and recovery 


equipment sold before [6 months after publication of the final 


rule], it meets certain minimum requirements. Equipment intended 


for use with high-pressure refrigerants (except for refrigerants 


in small appliances) would have to be able to evacuate systems 


to four inches of vacuum; equipment intended for use with low-


pressure refrigerants would have to be able to evacuate systems 


to 25 inches. (Equipment intended for use with very high pressure 


refrigerants would have to be 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]). Depending upon the refrigerant, these evacuation 


levels are equivalent to total recovery efficiencies of between 


97 and 99 percent. EPA's surveys of equipment manufacturers 


indicate that most recycling and recovery equipment in use is 


capable of achieving, but not exceeding, these levels. Although 


owners of recovery and recycling equipment purchased before 


[6 months after publication of the final rule], would not have 


to certify their equipment, EPA reserves the right to test the 


equipment using a pressure gauge.





      Table 3.-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]             
          


      Manufactured Before [6 Months After Publication of the Final
Rule]      


                                                                   
          


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ


 Type of air conditioning or refrigeration equipment with which
³ Inches of   


      recovery or recycling machine is intended to be used     
³   vacuum    


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ


                                                               
³             


High Pressure Equipment with a Charge of Less than 50 Pounds...
³         4   


High Pressure Equipment with a Charge of More than 50 Pounds...
³         4   


Very High Pressure Equipment...................................
³         0   


Intermediate Pressure Equipment................................
³        25   


Low-pressure Equipment.........................................
³        25   


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ





   Recovery devices intended for use with small appliances would 


have to be able to recover 80% of the refrigerant in the small 


appliance in order to be grandfathered. This standard would 


apply to both active and passive devices. As above, EPA reserves 


the right to verify performance of grandfathered recovery devices, 


in this case using the test protocol set forth in appendix C.


   EPA is proposing to grandfather equipment for two reasons. 


First, the Agency does not wish to penalize those who have taken 


the initiative to begin recycling before it is required by law. 


Second, EPA recognizes that certified equipment will probably 


not be available for all those interested in purchasing it until 


after the July 1, 1992 prohibition on venting goes into effect. 


Thus, requiring technicians to purchase certified equipment 


in addition to equipment that they purchase to meet the prohibition



on venting would impose an unfair burden on those who made a 


good-faith effort to comply with the prohibition and, in fact, 


would tend to delay purchase of recovery and recycling equipment. 


EPA's analysis indicates that the benefits of beginning to recycle 


a few months sooner outweigh small differences in the efficiency 


of recycling and recovery equipment over the typical five-year 


lifetime of the equipment. For instance, if a technician began 


using recovery equipment with a capture efficiency of 97 percent 


in April, 1992, his refrigerant emissions between April of 1992 


and April of 1997 would be half as great than they would be 


if he waited until July, 1992 to purchase recovery equipment 


with a capture efficiency of 99 percent. (See "Analysis of Benefits



of Early Purchase of Recycling or Recovery Equipment" in the 


public docket.)


   One additional requirement that EPA is considering for
grandfathered 


equipment is possession of low-loss fittings. EPA requiests 


comment on whether most equipment currently in use is equipped 


with low-loss fittings and on the cost of retrofitting equipment 


with such fittings.


   Because the environmental benefits of using grandfathered 


as opposed to certified recovery or recycling equipment decrease 


and ultimately become environmental costs if the equipment is 


used much longer than five years, EPA is considering the option 


of requiring that grandfathered equipment be retired on or before 


July 1, 1997. After that date, all technicians would have to 


use equipment that had been tested by an approved equipment 


testing organization to meet the stricter requirements that 


go into effect on [6 months after publication of the final rule]. 


Manufacturers of recycling and recovery equipment indicate that 


most recycling and recovery machines will wear out in approximately



five years in any event. EPA requests comment on this option. 


EPA also requests comment on its grandfathering proposal generally.


H. EPA Promotion of Service Technician Competence


   EPA considers an educated technician workforce to be important 


to a successful recycling and recovery program. Proper education 


can reduce refrigerant emissions during equipment servicing 


and disposal in two ways. First, technicians aware of legal 


requirements and of the environmental impact of CFC and HCFC 


emissions are more likely to recycle, and second, technicians 


aware of correct recycling techniques are more likely to recycle 


properly, avoiding unnecessary refrigerant emissions. EPA
recognizes 


that technicians and their employers have strong private incentives



to obtain proper education and training, including increased 


productivity and conservation of (valuable) refrigerant, and 


decreased likelihood of equipment damage, refrigerant
contamination, 


and legal penalties. However, EPA is asking for comment on whether 


it should promote, assist, or require demonstration of competence 


of technicians in refrigerant recycling and recovery.


   The air conditioning and refrigeration industry has affirmed 


the value of training in reducing refrigerant emissions. The 


ASHRAE Guideline 2, Reducing Emission of Fully Chlorofluorocarbon 


(CFC) Refrigerants in Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Equipment 


and Applications, states, "training of operators and mechanics 


is the first line of defense for minimizing refrigerant loss," 


and notes, " for service technicians, the required practices 


are of such significant importance that persons in these segments 


of the industry should have some additional education, training, 


or both." Members of the STOPAC Subcommittee on Recycling have 


repeatedly emphasized the importance of training to an effective 


recycling program. In response to these concerns, a number of 


industry, organizations have already established training programs 


in refrigerant recycling and recovery. 


   EPA's research indicates that the majority of technicians 


servicing air conditioning and refrigeration equipment today 


have little experience working with recovery and recycling
equipment. 


Although recycling has been common for several years in sectors 


with large charge sizes, such as chillers and industrial process 


refrigeration, must technicians in the household refrigeration 


and household air conditioning sectors had not recycled CFCs 


or HCFCs until very recently, when the venting prohibition went 


into effect. The total quantity of refrigerant that can potentially



be recycled in these sectors represents 25% of the total of 


the sectors in this rule. For technicians in these sectors, 


technician education is important because it informs them of 


the legal requirements of the venting prohibition and of these 


regulations and introduces them to appropriate procedures for 


recycling and recovery. These procedures include connecting 


recycling and recovery equipment correctly, avoiding mixture 


and subsequent release of refrigerants, storing refrigerant 


safely, and choosing effective leak-testing methodologies. 


   In addition to its environmental benefits, proper technician 


education in recycling and recovery has a number of private 


benefits for technicians, contractors, and/or equipment owners. 


It encourages conservation of refrigerant, a valuable and
increasingly 


scarce material, and it helps to protect air conditioning and 


refrigeration equipment by reducing improper servicing techniques 


and refrigerant contamination. It is also likely to increase 


technicians' speed and productivity. Moreover, training in legal 


requirements and safe handling of refrigerants may reduce costs 


from fines and on-the-job injury. Finally, less tangible but 


essential to firms with a high public profile, proper technician 


education can enhance the image of a firm as a professional 


and environmentally responsible organization. 


   EPA has not conducted an independent study of the benefits 


and costs of technician training; however, the Program Director 


for the CFC recovery and recycling education program at Ferris 


State University, a leading national vocational technical
university, 


noted that thorough training can result in significant private 


savings. Specifically, Ferris State estimated training can:


    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 2 to 3 


hours per job;


    Avoid improper piping/soldering techniques (trained technician 


would be less likely to create hazardous conditions resulting 


in a loss of refrigerant and 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 residential system containing 


3 lbs of refrigerant, mixing would result in one hour of lost 


labor, refrigerant loss, and the cost 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;


    Preserve equipment by training in proper oil application 


(using inappropriate oils would require that a technician flush 


out the system, requiring 8 to 10 hours of work and $460 to 


$560 in costs for a residential system).


   Thus, there are significant incentives for private entities 


to ensure that technicians are properly educated in refrigerant 


recycling and recovery. A number of organizations have begun 


to respond to these incentives by establishing and/or participating



in private training programs. Many of these organizations are 


nationally known manufacturers of equipment that employ or license 


technicians to service equipment under warranty; others are 


independent training organizations such as vocational schools 


and industry trade organizations. Organizations that have developed



training programs in refrigerant recycling and recovery include 


the Trane Company, York, Lennox, the Air Conditioning Contractors 


of America (ACCA, with Ferris University), the Refrigeration 


Service Engineers Society (RSES), and the United Association 


of Plumbers and Pipefitters (UA). These groups are part of an 


extensive industry training infrastructure; ARI estimates that 


there are approximately 1,200 training programs for HVAC/R
technicians 


in the U.S. A large number of these programs have begun to train 


their students in proper methods for refrigerant conservation, 


including recovery and recycling, and ARI itself has incorporated 


a unit on environmental safety principles into its curriculum 


guide for HVACR instructors.


   EPA is not proposing a mandatory training or certification 


requirement as its lead option. However, as discussed in section 


d. below, the Agency is requesting comment on this option. In 


the absence of a mandatory program, the Agency believes that 


it may play an important role through a voluntary program that 


recognizes those who provide and participate in training that 


meets certain minimum standards. Thus, the Agency plans to
establish 


a voluntary certification program whereby private sector
certification 


programs could request EPA review and approval based on the 


minimum qualifications described below.


   The core elements EPA is considering for its voluntary
certification 


program include the following:


   1. Curriculum or Test Content. Certification tests should 


include certain basic elements, such as the environmental impact 


of CFCs and HCFCs, safety guidelines regarding their handling, 


legal requirements regarding their use and disposal, and
appropriate 


techniques of recycling and recovery. Because different recycling 


and recovery techniques are appropriate for different types 


of air conditioning and refrigeration equipment, EPA is considering



a program with four types of certification: one for technicians 


servicing small appliances with a charge of less than one pound 


(refigerators, freezers, dehumidifiers, etc.), one for technicians 


servicing high-pressure equipment with a charge between 1 pound 


and 50 pounds, one for technicians servicing high-pressure
equipment 


with a charge of more than 50 pounds, and one for technicians 


servicing low-pressure equipment. EPA requests comment on this 


approach.


   2. Administration. a. Test Development. EPA requests comment 


on two options for defining minimum test requirements. Under 


the first option, EPA would work with industry representatives 


to develop a bank of test questions. Approved technician
certification 


programs would then assemble tests by choosing subsets of the 


questions (e.g., 50 from 200 total). Used the second option, 


each organization interested in becoming an EPA-approved certifier 


would develop a test (or tests) that covered the required material 


and would submit the test along with its administrative information



to EPA for approval.


   b. Technician Certification Program Approval. Organizations 


seeking to participate in EPA's voluntary certification program 


would arrange for the administration of tests under controlled 


conditions, collect and objectively grade tests, issue certificates



and keep records of certification. In order to qualify for EPA's 


voluntary program, the organization would have to demonstrate 


to EPA that it met the criteria outlined below. If EPA approved 


the organization, its name would be added to a list of EPA-approved



certifying organizations that would be published regularly.


   Although any organization would be able to apply to become 


an approved certifier, EPA plans to give priority in its review 


process to national organizations able to reach large numbers 


of people. Any group, such as a union shop or vocational school, 


could perform training. The Agency encourages smaller training 


organizations to develop their own training programs but to 


obtain tests from national groups, setting up an infrastructure 


similar to that used for administering other standardized tests.


   i. Test Preparation, Grading and Evaluation. Private
organizations 


seeking EPA approval of their technician certification programs 


would have to be able to demonstrate the ability to generate, 


track, and grade tests. In order to minimize cheating and ensure 


objective grading, EPA would require certification organizations 


to produce multiple versions of examinations and to ensure that 


tests are graded by an entity or individual who receives no 


benefit from the outcome of the testing. Some industry
representatives 


have suggested that EPA require certifiers to possess that
evaluation 


software and automated grading equipment; EPA requests comment 


on whether such requirements are necessary. 


   ii. Proctoring. EPA believes that proctoring would be
appropriate 


for testing of technicians working on all but the smallest
equipment 


(e.g., small appliances with less than one pound of refrigerant). 


Certifying organizations would be required to designate at least 


one proctor registered and approved by the program for each 


testing event. The proctor would have to take measures to verify 


the identity of technicians taking tests and to ensure that 


tests are completed honestly by each technician. The proctor 


could not receive any benefit from the outcome of the testing 


other than a fee for proctoring.


   For technicians servicing small appliances, mail-in tests 


similar to those permitted under the MVACs program could be 


administered. EPA requests comment on its proctoring requirements 


and on its plan to exempt technicians servicing small appliances 


from those requirements.


   iii. Test Security. To qualify for EPA's voluntary certification



program, an organization would also have to demonstrate the 


ability to ensure the confidentiality and security of the test.


   iv. Proof of Certification. Finally, to obtain EPA's approval 


for the voluntary program, certifying organizations would be 


required to issue some type of proof that a technician had
successfully 


passed the relevant levels in an EPA-approved test. Such proof 


would enable technicians to prove and employers or customers 


to verify certification.


   EPA would reserve the right to revoke certification privileges 


if an organization failed to meet any of the other requirements 


for approval as a certifier.


   c. Grandfathering. As mentioned above, some organizations 


have already begun to train, test, and unofficially "certify" 


technicians. Under its planned voluntary program, EPA will endeavor



to establish guidelines that allow grandfathering of program 


participants at the request of the testing organization so long 


as the organization obtains approval of its program and supplies 


past participants with any supplementary materials needed to 


bring their training into conformance with final requirements.


   3. Possible Need for Mandatory Certification. EPA is concerned 


that in some cases, private incentives may not be sufficient 


to bring about the socially desirable level of training of
technicians. 


In evaluating whether a requirement for mandatory training is 


necessary, it is appropriate to compare the anticipated costs 


of such a requirement with its anticipated benefits, remembering 


that some training will occur without a requirement. The costs 


of a training or testing requirement include the lost time as 


well as the instruction and testing costs of those who would 


not have pursued training or testing without the requirement. 


The benefits of a training or testing requirement include the 


private benefits (cited above) that accrue to those who would 


not have pursued training or testing without the requirement, 


and the net public benefits that result from increased or more 


effective compliance with recycling requirements. These public 


benefits consist chiefly of avoided damage to human health and 


the environment (e.g., avoided cataracts and skin cancers), 


less the costs of recycling and recovery (e.g., recycling equipment



and labor). If a training requirement would bring about an increase



in compliance whose net benefits outweighed the costs of the 


requirement, then it should be required.


   The value of recovered refrigerant on the market is a clear 


and immediate private incentive to recover and recycle. However, 


even this incentive is not likely by itself to be sufficient 


to achieve the socially desirable levels of recycling and training.



First, particularly in the short run, some technicians will 


not be aware that there are techniques that can cost-effectively 


increase the efficiency of recycling. Thus, they will neither 


seek training in these techniques nor recapture enough refrigerant 


to realize the full potential private profits of refrigerant 


recovery. Second, although the price of refrigerant is rising, 


that price still does not reflect the full social cost (i.e., 


damage to human health and the environment) associated with 


refrigerant release. Thus, if the private benefits of refrigerant 


recovery are limited to the value of the refrigerant, those 


benefits fall short of the social benefits of recovering
refrigerant, 


and technicians will not be willing to spend as much to capture 


refrigerant as it will cost society to release it. Technicians, 


therefore, are not likely to capture the socially desirable 


quantity of refrigerant without some type of additional incentive 


(e.g., regulation). Where charge sizes are large enough to make 


recovery cost-effective from a private perspective, recovery 


will be less than socially optimal, and where charge sizes are 


too small to make recovery cost effective from a private
perspective, 


recovery will not occur at all.


   As discussed above, however, the value of recovered refrigerant 


is not the only private incentive to recycle or to obtain training.



Other private incentives include avoidance of fines for breaking 


the law, avoidance of damage to equipment, avoidance of injury, 


avoidance of damage to the environment (to some extent), and 


avoidance of negative publicity (or desire for positive publicity).



The importance of the legal incentive depends upon knowledge 


of legal requirements, the perceived likelihood of enforcement 


action in the event of a violation, and the perceived likely 


severity of that action. EPA's experience with implementing 


the venting prohibition has shown that legal requirements and 


enforcement efforts are both frequently misinterpreted to be 


more lax than they are, a misimpression that certification could 


correct. Although the Agency is engaged in an extensive outreach 


effort to clarify the current and possible future requirements 


of section 608, this may or may not be sufficient to inform 


the regulated community fully of its responsibilities and potential



liabilities under the law.


   Avoiding injury or damage to equipment can be powerful private 


incentives for training. Once again, however, their effectiveness 


depends upon perceived risk. Because recycling is a new activity 


in some of the most populous sectors, many technicians and their 


employers may not be aware of the risks of overfilling recovery 


cylinders (explosion) or of mixing the refrigerants in them 


(equipment damage). Thus, they may not seek training intended 


to help them to avoid these risks. At the same time, the nature 


of these risks makes training essential; because the consequences 


of overfilling cylinders and mixing refrigerants seldom appear 


immediately, a great deal of damage can be done by the time 


there is any sign of it to discourage repetition of the error.


   The relationship between action and consequence is even less 


direct for the impact of refrigerant release on the environment. 


To the extent that a technician perceives that environmental 


change affects himself and his family, environmental concerns 


can also become private incentives. Unfortunately, the negative 


effect of CFCs and HCFCs is a relatively difficult environmental 


concept to convey. Unlike many other pollutants, refrigerants 


neither smell nor look unpleasant; indeed, stratospheric ozone, 


its depleters, and ultraviolet radiation are all invisible. 


The health and environmental impacts of ozone depletion, such 


as skin cancer and cataracts, manifest themselves only slowly, 


and the greatest expected impacts lie decades in the future. 


While EPA and other Federal agencies are involved in a massive 


effort to convey the risks of refrigerant release and ozone 


depletion, pamphlets and advertisements alone do not guarantee 


that this information is being absorbed and retained by all 


or even most technicians.


   Related to all of the above incentives is the incentive of 


public image. For instance, to the extent that a company (or 


technician) underestimates the probability of enforcement or 


equipment damage in the event of negligent recycling, it
underestimates 


the impact of these consequences on its reputation. However, 


the importance of public image as an incentive probably varies 


with the visibility of the firm. Positive or negative publicity 


is more likely to occur when a company's name is well-known 


in the first place, and larger companies have more resources 


to devote to maintaining a reputation. For a two-man company 


that operates marginally and that relies upon a clientele for 


whom price is paramount, a positive public image may simply 


not yield enough immediate benefits to justify the costs of 


recycling or training.


   As the above discussion shows, the effectiveness of these 


incentives depends upon the extent to which they are perceived 


as costs or benefits by technicians or their employers. That, 


in turn, depends upon the information that the technicians and 


employers already possess and upon the priorities of the firm. 


Because they have fewer resources to begin with, small firms 


and in-house technicians are likely to devote fewer resources 


to monitoring industry trends and requirements than large
manufacturing 


or service firms. Thus, they may be relatively isolated and 


poorly informed. As a consequence, some smaller firms may not 


surpass the critical informational threshold that enables them 


to perceive the benefits of recycling and training without
intervention.


   The training programs in recycling of which EPA has become 


aware have generally been developed by large manufacturers and 


by national educational and trade associations. The participation 


of technicians from smaller companies in these programs is
difficult 


to estimate. However, many of the industry representatives of 


the STOPAC Subcommittee for Recycling expressed concern that 


without a mandatory certification requirement, many technicians 


working in-house or for small service firms would neither receive 


appropriate training nor comply with these regulations. The 


Trane Company estimated that only 35 to 55 percent of these 


technicians would comply with recycling requirements if
certification 


were not required. Trane also estimated that at present, between 


50 and 70 percent of the air conditioning servicing industry 


is not sufficiently trained. Moreover, although numerous training 


programs have arisen over the last year to address refrigerant 


recycling, it could be argued that many of these programs have 


arisen in anticipation of an EPA requirement for technician 


certification, especially since the MVACs regulation under section 


609 of the Act has such a requirement. If EPA does not pursue 


a training requirement, participation in these programs may 


decline.


   EPA requests comment on whether mandatory certification of 


technicians is necessary or desirable. A mandatory certification 


program could be very similar in form to the voluntary program 


described above. In addition, EPA could restrict sales of
refrigerant 


to certified technicians in order to encourage full participation 


in training programs and ensure that only qualified individuals 


handled refrigerant. (Alternatively, a sales restriction could 


be tied to some other qualification, such as state or local 


licensing or an employer ID number.)


I. Certification by Owners of Recycling or Recovery Equipment


   EPA is proposing to require 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 nearest EPA Regional office 


by [90 days after publication of the final rule], that they 


possess sufficient certified recovery and recycling equipment 


to perform on-site recycling or recovery. In addition to the 


name and address of the contractor, the statement would have 


to include the manufacturer, date of purchase, model number, 


and serial number of the equipment. EPA anticipates that forms 


for this certification will be frequently provided by equipment 


manufacturers.


   In addition to the self-certification outlined above, EPA 


has considered several options for administering equipment owner 


certification. One option would be direct certification by EPA, 


which would require the equipment owner to submit substantiating 


documentation of equipment certification. EPA would then mail 


a certificate to the equipment owner. While this option might 


result in somewhat greater assurance of compliance with the 


regulations, the Agency is not proposing this option because 


the large number of equipment owners and other business entities 


that would have to be reviewed and sent certificates make it 


impractical. (Estimates of the number of contractors in the 


U.S. range from 22,000 to 45,000.) Another, similar option would 


be to require the equipment owner to submit such documentation 


to an approved third-party certifier, but EPA is not aware of 


any potentially interested organizations. Thus, although EPA 


recognizes that self-certification is not the most reliable 


method for insuring equipment owner compliance with these
regulations, 


other methods do not appear practical. EPA believes that its 


proposed approach, involving a signed statement, will nonetheless 


provide a useful mechanism for increasing compliance with these 


rules.


J. Certification of Reclaimers


   In order to provide some assurance of the quality of reclaimed 


refrigerant on the market, EPA proposes to certify reclaimers. 


Similar to the proposed certification of recycling and recovery 


equipment owners, reclaimer certification would involve a signed 


statement from the reclaimer stating that it (1) returns
refrigerant 


to at least the standard of purity set forth in the ARI Standard 


700, (2) verifies this purity using the methods set forth in 


ARI Standard 700, (3) disposes of wastes from the reclamation 


process proposed in accordance with applicable laws and
regulations. 


In order to limit potential emissions during reclamation,
reclaimers 


could release no more than 1.5 percent of the refrigerant during 


the reclamation process.


   These proposed requirements have emerged from meetings with 


reclaimers and other interested parties. As discussed in section 


III, the ARI 700 standard 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. The requirement to dispose of wastes 


properly is important because in some instances, the reclamation 


process can generate hazardous wastes.


   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 of refrigerant received



by the reclaimer. One reclaimer measured these losses and found 


them to be 1.2 percent of original quantity. According to
reclaimers 


on the STOPAC, 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 they fall well under one percent of the quantity of
refrigerant 


that enters the reclamation process. Based on this information 


EPA is proposing 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 


would be released during transfers of refrigerant to and from 


reclamation devices, and approximately one-half of one percent 


would be released during the reclamation process itself. EPA 


requests comment on its proposal to limit emissions from reclaimers



to 1.5 percent of the refrigerant received by them and on its 


supporting analysis.


   In addition to the signed statement, the reclaimer would 


have to submit its name and address and a list of the equipment 


it employed to analyze the refrigerant. Reclaimers would also 


be 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 would be 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. The Agency requests comment on this conclusion. 


If some of the proposed records are not typically kept already, 


EPA requests comment on the burden that the proposed additional 


recordkeeping would entail. EPA also requests comment on its 


proposed requirements for reclaimer certification in general.


   EPA is considering another option for administering reclaimer 


certification: site inspections and/or sampling of refrigerant 


by EPA-approved parties. Such a third-party certification would 


be more reliable than the self-certification proposed above. 


At this time, no potential third-party certifier has established 


a reclaimer certification program; however, ARI has begun to 


develop one. EPA applauds and encourages these efforts, and 


in the future, could replace its reclaimer self-certification 


program with a requirement that reclaimers be certified by an 


approved third-party certifier, such as ARI. EPA requests comment 


on this alternative.


K. Recordkeeping Requirements


   EPA has proposed the following recordkeeping requirements: 


   1. Equipment Certification Programs. EPA is proposing to 


require 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 would be 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.I, reclaimers 


would be 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 would be 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. 


Information on the material sent to the reclaimer, the mass 


of refrigerant reclaimed, and the mass of waste products would 


have to be reported annually.


   4. Equipment Owners. Aside from equipment owner certification, 


EPA is not proposing any recordkeeping or reporting requirements 


for technicians or contractors in its lead option. However, 


the Agency requests comment on the need for and burden of three 


possible additional recordkeeping requirements.


   The first would require persons servicing or disposing of 


air conditioning and refrigeration equipment to keep invoices 


of service calls, including information on the quantity of
refrigerant 


sold, the type of equipment serviced, the procedure performed, 


the date, and the name, address, and telephone number of the 


equipment owner and the name of the technician who performed 


the service. This information could be useful in monitoring 


compliance with and enforcing the rule. However, because EPA 


believes that invoices already contain most of this information 


and are already kept for tax purposes, the Agency does not consider



a special recordkeeping requirement necessary. Moreover, it 


is not clear that such a requirement would enable EPA inspectors 


to identify (1) service technicians who make no effort to recover 


or recycle or (2) service technicians who fail to fully recover 


or recycle refrigerant in accordance with these regulations. 


The one piece of information that may not always be included 


on invoices already is identification of the procedure performed. 


Identification of the procedure performed may be important because 


it may enable EPA inspectors to determine whether a procedure 


necessitated entrance into the air conditioning or refrigeration 


system. EPA requests comment on the usefulness of this information 


and the other information discussed above to EPA's compliance 


monitoring and enforcement efforts. EPA also requests comment 


on the extent to which invoices currently contain all of the 


above information and on the burden that a special recordkeeping 


requirement would entail.


   The second recordkeeping provision would require service 


establishments to keep records of the quantity of refrigerant 


that is sent off-site for reclamation. If the service establishment



acquires recover only equipment, the refrigerant must be reclaimed 


off-site. Records of the quantity sent off-site and the name 


and address of the reclamation facility would help EPA to verify 


that the refrigerant is reclaimed at an off-site reclamation 


facility and not vented to the atmosphere. However, EPA believes 


that service establishments are already likely to keep records 


of the quantity of refrigerant sent off-site for reclamation 


because used refrigerant is a valuable material. In addition, 


EPA is proposing to require reclaimers to keep records of material 


received. EPA requests comment on the usefulness of a requirement 


that service establishments keep records of the quantity of 


refrigerant sent for reclamation and on the incremental burden 


that such a recordkeeping requirement would involve.


   The third provision would require businesses to maintain 


a record of the amount of refrigerant purchased and consumed 


each month. Together with the invoices and reclamation records, 


these records would help EPA to monitor the amount of refrigerant 


that is being lost the atmosphere (either through leakage during 


use or venting during servicing) by the equipment serviced. 


A large quantity is unlikely to be accounted for by leakage 


alone. Once again, however, EPA believes that businesses already 


keep such records, and wholesalers would be required to keep 


records of the names and addresses of persons purchasing
refrigerant 


and the quantity of refrigerant sold. 


   In sum, EPA is not proposing that these records be kept because 


EPA has not determined that the utility of the information would 


outweigh the burden of keeping it. In general, EPA requests 


comment on the usefulness of the above records to enforcement 


and compliance monitoring efforts, on the extent to which these 


records are already kept, and on the burden that these records 


would impose if they are not already kept. All business entities 


servicing, repairing or disposing of appliances must allow an 


authorized EPA representative entry onto the premises to inspect 


for compliance with these regulations.


L. Safe Disposal Program





1. Background


   In the ANPRM published May 1, 1991 (55 FR 18256), the Agency 


requested comment on the feasibility of requiring recovery of 


ozone depleting substances from equipment at disposal. The Agency 


distinguished between the type of equipment that enters the 


waste stream with its refrigerant charge intact (refrigerators, 


home air conditioners, or automobiles) and equipment that typically



is partially dismantled on-site by service technicians (large 


chillers, industrial process equipment). The Agency was concerned 


that disposal technicians (landfill operators, waste haulers) 


may be more difficult to monitor and less familiar with the 


needs and requirements of a recycling program than service
technicians. 


The Agency also stated that recovery of refrigerant from obsolete 


equipment may provide a significant source of used refrigerant 


that could be re-used to service existing capital equipment.


   Several comments on the ANPRM supported the idea of recovering 


these compounds. One commenter suggested appliance manufacturers 


incorporate recovery procedures that could be used when their 


technicians install new equipment and replace old equipment. 


A technician licensing or certification system coupled with 


a certification procedure to scrap processors was suggested 


by two commenters. Several commenters supported requiring the 


removal of CFCs from junked automobiles, although the state 


of New Jersey suggested that the financial feasibility of
requirements 


on disposers be considered when designing the program.


   On July 14, 1992 (57 FR 31242), the Agency published a final 


rule establishing requirements under section 609 of the Act 


for the servicing of motor vehicle air conditioners. In that 


notice, the Agency stated that the definition of service of 


motor vehicles did not extend to the removal of refrigerant 


from junked automobiles and that the Agency would develop
requirements 


for removal of refrigerant under section 608 requirements. As 


noted in section III.a., the quantity of refrigerant in motor 


vehicle air conditioners junked each year is estimated to be 


9000 metric tons, which makes up approximately 25 percent of 


the total quantity of refrigerant that is currently or could 


be recycled in all the sectors affected by this rule.


2. Scope


   The proposed regulations in this section will focus upon 


the safe disposal of class I and class II refrigerants from 


equipment that enters the waste stream with the charge intact, 


i.e., equipment containing class I and class II refrigerant 


"in bulk." The Agency understands 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.


   Section 608(b)(3) states that the Agency is to develop
requirements 


"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." 


The Agency is aware that ozone depleting substances are present 


as an inherent element in the insulation foam used in buildings 


and appliances. At this time, however, EPA is not proposing 


requirements for either foam insulation used in buildings or 


insulation used in appliances.


   With respect to foam that is an inherent element in buildings, 


EPA believes that such regulations are not required by section 


608 of the Act at this time. In as much as the section 608(b) 


regulations are simply part of the section 608(a) regulations, 


they 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. Consequently, even if building 


insulation were within the scope of the regulations at this 


time, EPA would not propose regulations requiring its removal 


because its removal is not currently practicable.


   With respect to foam insulation in appliances, which are 


items covered by the subsection in section 608(a) requiring 


the regulations proposed today, the Agency is aware that the 


amount of ozone depleting substances that could be recovered 


from insulation in appliances may be generally equivalent to 


the amount of refrigerant in the equipment. For example, the 


Agency estimates that in 1990, over 10 million appliances entered 


the waste stream and approximately 1.21 to 2.93 MKg of CFC-11 


in insulation could be recoverable, as compared to .4 to 2.0 


Mkg of available CFC-12 refrigerant (these figures represent 


0.6 to 1.9 percent of the total weighted CFR emissions in the 


U.S. in 1990). There are, however, significant technical and 


practical problems in attempting to retrieve CFC-11 from foam. 


The Agency is aware of the development and limited use of CFR-


11 foam retrieval technology for appliances in Germany. However, 


this technology is prohibitively expensive ($1.5 million per 


retrieval machine) for widespread use in this country. As a 


consequence, the Agency does not believe the retrieval of CFCs 


from foam insulation in appliances is practicable at this time 


and, therefore, the Agency is not proposing any regulations 


today. The Agency, however, will continue to monitor the
development 


of technology in this area. The Agency requests comment on the 


need and feasibility of retrieving CFCs from insulation.


3. Regulatory Approach


   Traditionally, state and municipal authorities have designed 


and implemented waste management programs, including disposal 


and recycling systems for used appliances and motor vehicles. 


The EPA would like to develop regulations to insure that the 


maximum amount of ozone depleting compounds are recovered before 


recycling or disposal of the used equipment by building on the 


waste disposal networks that currently exist. The Agency feels 


that regulatory flexibility in this area is essential for the 


success of the Safe Disposal Program. Thus, EPA is proposing 


a general requirement that refrigerant be recovered before disposal



of equipment, but is not placing a requirement solely on one 


specific entity in the disposal chain. While the proposed
regulations 


require refrigerant to be recovered prior to disposal, they 


contemplate that the entities that would be required at disposal 


may differ in different situations. Ultimately, however, it 


would be the responsibility of the final link in the chain to 


assure that the refrigerant has been removed.


   The proposed regulations would also establish minimum program 


criteria to ensure that ozone depleting substances are not released



during the disposal process. State and local governments may 


establish more stringent requirements than the federal program, 


if they wish.


4. Entities Covered


   The nature of the waste disposal industry is such that a 


product is often handled by several different entities before 


reaching the final stage of disposal. Once a consumer has decided 


to dispose of an appliance or motor vehicle, the product enters 


the waste stream through a variety of collection systems. Often, 


municipal governments contract with waste haulers or companies 


to have appliances collected from residences. For appliances, 


the collectors bring the items to a storage facility such as 


a municipal landfill or waste transfer station. The declining 


space available at municipal landfills has caused most landfills 


to separate large white goods such as appliances from the landfill 


disposal stream. Many landfills may remove the capacitors from 


refrigerators or have them removed by a contractor or intermediate 


processor because of the concern for PCB contamination. The 


Agency believes that the entities which remove the capacitors 


could remove the refrigerant efficiently. Intermediate processors 


include appliance recycling firms and some municipal transfer 


stations.


   For motor vehicles, the collectors often bring the machines 


to an intermediate processor where the valuable parts are salvaged.



The Agency anticipates that these intermediate processors will 


remove the majority of ozone depleting substances from motor 


vehicles.


   After all the useful parts are removed from an appliance 


or a motor vehicle by an intermediate processor, the remaining 


material is sold to a scrap recycling facility. Typically, a 


scrap recycler shreds and compacts the items. If the items still 


contain ozone depleting chemicals, then the shredding process 


will result in the venting of these compounds to the atmosphere.


   Because of the variability in the disposal routes of these 


goods, the Agency considered the option of requiring recovery 


to occur without identifying the specific entities that would 


be held accountable for refrigerant recovery. From both a
compliance 


and an enforcement perspective, however, not identifying any 


responsible party would create confusion and would not foster 


the recovery of ozone depleting substances.


   Alternately, the Agency also considered the option of
determining 


the specific entities that would be held responsible for recovery 


of refrigerant from specific types of equipment. For example, 


EPA could require that specific types of intermediate processors 


be held responsible for recovering refrigerant from refrigerators. 


While determining the specific entities would enhance the clarity 


of the Safe Disposal Program, the existing diversity of state 


and municipal waste disposal programs would mean that placing 


responsibility on certain links in the chain would disrupt existing



practices in many instances. Also, specific requirements may 


result in inefficiency if a certain entity is required to remove 


refrigerant due to Federal requirements, while local circumstances 


result in more efficient refrigerant removal being possible 


by another entity in the waste disposal chain.


   The Agency proposes today a program that accommodates the 


flexibility that is required due to the diversity of the disposal 


sector but nevertheless identifies the final link in the chain 


as the entity ultimately responsible for assuring that refrigerant 


has been removed. In this system the final processor of the 


motor vehicle or appliance (e.g., the scrap recycler) would 


be ultimately responsible for the removal of refrigerant. If 


these ultimate processors choose not to remove refrigerant or 


are unable to remove refrigerant because of the condition of 


the goods when they receive it (i.e., flattened automobiles), 


the processor would require that all appliances, machines and 


goods it accepts have already had refrigerant removed. Suppliers 


of the goods to the final processors would then remove the
refrigerant 


or undertake the responsibility to assure that refrigerant is 


removed by an entity that precedes it in the disposal chain. 


Examples of suppliers that may be interested in removing the 


refrigerant include municipalities delivering appliances for 


recycling, automotive dismantlers salvaging valuable parts from 


automobiles, or large appliance dealers that remove used appliances



when installing new appliances. The goal of this system 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. 


   The Agency wishes to stress that refrigerant is a valuable 


commodity and retrieving it from used goods and machines, if 


done efficiently, may be an economically profitable opportunity. 


As the venting of refrigerant during the disposal process and 


the sale of used refrigerant that is not reclaimed are prohibited, 


whomever recovers the refrigerant will need to sell the recovered 


refrigerant. Refrigerant should be sold to reclamation facilities 


to be purified to the ARI-700 purity level required before resale 


for use in refrigeration equipment. As the price for used
refrigerant 


will only increase overtime due to the decreasing suppliers 


of new CFCs, the Agency believes that entities involved in disposal



activities will have ample incentive to undertake CFC recovery 


activities.


5. Registration of Entities.


   In order to assure compliance with the requirement that
refrigerant 


recovery occurs before the ultimate disposal of appliances and 


motor vehicles, the Agency considered several options for the 


registration or establishments that perform the refrigerant 


removal activity. The first option considered would require 


no registration or certification of establishments performing 


the activity to the EPA. This option would provide no information 


about whether or not the activities are occurring, and no
identification 


of the entities undertaking the activities so that the Agency 


would more readily track compliance. 


   A one-time equipment registration system similar to the
contractor 


certification system proposed for the servicing requirements 


was considered as a second option. This registration would generate



the information on the entities performing recovery and the 


type of equipment they initially use.


   Finally, the Agency considered an annual registration
requirement 


similar to the business registration or licensing requirements 


that currently exist in many states. The annual requirement 


would include only equipment information and an estimate of 


the amount of refrigerant recovered in the previous year by 


establishments that perform refrigerant removal. If a state 


already required this information as part of annual licensing 


requirements that it had established for the types of entities 


that undertake disposal activities, such as scrap metal recyclers, 


landfill operators, or waste haulers, or as part of its own 


safe disposal program, EPA would not require separate reporting 


from entities in that state, but it would instead collect the 


information from the state programs. The third option would 


provide information to the Agency on the entities recovering 


CFCs and the amounts recovered. Such annual reporting for the 


disposal sector might be unduly burdensome, especially when 


compared to the one-time registration proposed for the servicing 


sector.


   The Agency believes that the second option, requiring one 


time reporting to the Agency, is adequate for compliance purposes 


and does not place an undue burden on the disposal sector. When 


combined with the annual reporting by reclamation facilities 


on the amounts of refrigerant they purchase from service
establishments 


and salvagers (section III.K.), the Agency will have adequate 


information on the volumes of refrigerant being recovered.


6. Certification to Final Processors


   If the establishment responsible for the ultimate disposal 


of the equipment chooses not to remove refrigerant or is unable 


to remove it (for example, many scrap recyclers only receive 


crushed cars), the Agency proposes the option of a certification 


procedure between the final processor and the suppliers of the 


goods or machines stating that the ozone depleting chemical 


have been properly removed. The certification may be combined 


with a symbol or mark made on each piece of equipment that has 


had the refrigerant removed by the supplier. The Agency believes 


that this certification allows the final processors to continue 


to accept goods and machines for scrap recycling while assuring 


that their suppliers have removed refrigerant. The Agency is 


aware that this type of certification already exists in other 


contexts where scrap recyclers refuse to accept an appliance 


unless they also receive a certification that the appliance 


does not contain a capacitor. The certification would not be 


sent to the Agency.


   The elements of the certification could vary based on the 


individual establishments involved. However, the Agency proposes 


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. The Agency suggests that 


final processors require marks indicating that each good or 


machine had been processed. The final processors should
periodically 


inspect goods or machines to assure the supplier's certification 


has been made in good faith.


   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 the company must then 


assure, through an accompanying certification, that refrigerant 


has been removed earlier in the disposal chain.


7. Technician Training


   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. 


While the concepts of recycling refrigerant and the purity
standards 


that are appropriate for equipment are of vital importance to 


maintaining equipment, they are not necessary for the disposal 


of equipment. The disposal sector also differs from the servicing 


sector in that no trade associations or groups exist which
represent 


the wide variety of technicians that may perform the refrigerant 


removal activity. The technicians involved in the removal of 


refrigerant may only perform this activity occasionally. Thus, 


training resources may not be as available to the disposal sector 


as they are to the servicing sector.


   The Agency believes that the most appropriate training method 


for technicians in this case may be guidance documents developed 


by the Agency with the assistance of industry groups familiar 


with the methods of removing refrigerant from appliances and 


motor vehicles. This guidance would contain information on 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. Successful refrigerant 


removal programs that already exist could be profiled as examples 


of how municipal governments and others could implement programs. 


The Agency would distribute the documents, as would scrap metal 


recyclers and other processors who do not remove refrigerant 


themselves. Municipal governments would be both a target for 


the guidance document and a distributor of the document in their 


areas. EPA has had initial discussions with trade groups such 


as the Automobile Dismantlers Recycling Association (ADRA) and 


the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) concerning 


the development of guidance documents. The Agency believes that 


a guidance document provided through the scrap metal recyclers 


will raise the awareness of the financial and environmental 


benefits of recovering ozone depleting substances and the guidance 


document can accommodate the variety of affected entities.


8. Performance Standards for Recovery Equipment


   When developing options for the equipment that must be used 


in recovering refrigerant at disposal, the Agency considered 


extending the recovery equipment certification program for the 


servicing sector (see section III.G.1). The Agency is aware 


that the equipment that is currently available has been developed 


for the servicing sector and as a result, may not be appropriate 


for salvage. This is because, unlike the servicing sector,
operations 


in the disposal sector frequently involve the evacuation of 


several pieces of equipment simultaneously. Moreover, entities 


involved in disposal are more likely than those involved in 


servicing to build equipment suitable for their specific
circumstances. 


The Agency has knowledge of one firm, The Appliance Recycling 


Centers of America (ARCA), that has built equipment capable 


of retrieving refrigerant from ten appliances at one time and 


this allows the company to perform its salvage operations quickly 


and efficiently.


   In order to provide assurance that recovery equipment used 


in disposal activities achieves a satisfactory level of performance



without imposing a certification requirement unsuitable for 


this sector, the Agency proposes to require that the equipment 


used to recover refrigerant from appliances and motor vehicles 


meet the same performance standards as those required for servicing



equipment, except that passive systems would not be necessarily 


permitted for use with appliances at disposal. EPA is not, however,



proposing to require certification of that equipment. This proposal



allows individuals to develop their own equipment while setting 


requirements for the efficiency the Agency expects the equipment 


to meet. Any equipment intended for sale for use in salvaging 


operations must meet the efficiency standards and the Agency 


recommends 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 service.


   While the efficiency standard for appliances does allow for 


servicing use of passive equipment, (defined as equipment that 


does not use a compressor and is not itself capable of creating 


a vacuum), the standards proposed for recovery equipment under 


the safe disposal program do not include passive systems. The 


Agency does not believe that passive equipment has a large role 


for salvage because of the increased time needed to recover 


the substance. In addition, EPA is concerned that passive recovery 


would generally be less efficient at disposal than at servicing 


for two reasons. First, EPA believes that the compressors of 


refrigerators (and other small appliances) that are disposed 


of are generally less likely to be functioning than the compressors



of refrigerators that are serviced (if only because it may be 


difficult to connect each disposed refrigerator to a power source),



and passive recovery without a functioning refrigerator compressor 


is significantly less efficient than passive recovery with a 


functioning compressor. Second, recovery at disposal is far 


more likely than recovery at servicing to take place in low 


ambient temperatures, which could particularly affect passive 


systems relying solely on system pressure for their effectiveness 


(discussed below). However, EPA is also concerned that a
requirement 


to use only active equipment for refrigerator disposal may make 


compliance more difficult and therefore less likely in some 


instances. The Agency requests comment on these concerns and 


on its proposal not to allow use of passive systems at disposal 


of small appliances.


   An individual who tests refrigerant recovery methodologies 


under different conditions in Massachusetts reported to EPA 


that refrigerant recovery from systems using R-12 drops off 


sharply when the ambient temperature falls below 60 degrees 


F. At 32 degrees, typical recovery machines can recover only 


ten percent of the refrigerant, and at 0 degrees F, recovery 


efficiency drops essentially to 0. Thus, unless systems are 


heated, outdoor recovery during the winter months in most of 


the U.S. will recover only a tiny percentage of the refrigerant 


in the system. Methods that could raise recovery efficiency 


include applying heat to the system while it is outdoors or 


moving the system (e.g., the refrigerator) into a building whose 


ambient temperature is 60 degrees or more and allowing the system 


to come to temperature over some period of time (e.g., 24 hours). 


EPS requests comment on the practicality of these and other 


possible methods and on whether the Agency should prescribe 


one or more of these methods to guarantee 90 percent refrigerant 


recovery from disposing appliances during winter months.


M. 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 proposing to require that all air 


conditioning and refrigeration equipment containing more than 


one pound of refrigerant and manufactured after [6 months after 


publication of the final rule] be provided with a servicing 


aperture. All equipment containing less than one pound of
refrigerant 


(e.g., household refrigerators and water coolers) and manufactured 


after [6 months after publication of the final rule] would have 


to be provided with the "equally effective design feature" of 


a process stub or "pigtail" from which refrigerant can be removed 


using a puncture valve.


   Information from industry representatives on the STOPAC
Subcommittee 


indicates that most if not all air conditioning and refrigeration 


equipment with more than one pound of charge is already provided 


with a servicing aperture. Similarly, refrigerators and other 


appliances containing less than one pound of refrigerant are 


already generally provided with stubs for refrigerant recovery. 


EPA expects that manufacturers will incorporate the required 


features of any other equipment by [6 months after publication 


of the final rule].


   EPA considered requiring that refrigerators and other small 


appliances be equipped with a servicing aperture; however, an 


analysis submitted by appliance manufacturers indicated that 


the aperture and additional solder joints that would have to 


be installed along with it would significantly increase the 


likelihood of refrigerant leakage, canceling out any benefits 


gained by making the system slightly more accessible at servicing. 


(At present, both leaks and repairs requiring entrance into 


the sealed system are quite rare.) Moreover, in recognition 


of the unique situation posed by small appliances, ASHRAE
recommends 


against installing servicing valves on refrigerators in its 


Guideline 3. The importance of minimizing potential leak points 


in small appliances is also supported by the current practice 


for removing refrigerant from them. This involves puncturing 


a specially designed protruding stub with a valve that attaches 


temporarily, facilitating refrigerant recovery and recharging. 


Instead of leaving the valve for potential future use after 


repairs are complete, the servicer removes the valve and reseals 


the system using a brazing torch. The servicing aperture analysis 


and supporting comments are available in the public docket (AHAM, 


July 2, 1991). EPA requests comment on this analysis and on 


its proposal to consider servicing stubs an "equally effective 


design feature."


   Some industry representatives have noted that the present 


design and location of servicing apertures frequently makes 


recovery of refrigerant unnecessarily complicated. For instance, 


although the fastest method of recovering refrigerant is to 


remove as much as possible in the liquid state, the common location



of servicing apertures at the compressor either prevents this 


or necessitates entry into the system at another point (e.g., 


the condenser outlet). An inconvenient design feature of many 


servicing apertures is the presence of a schrader valve, which 


must be removed before recovery begins or it will considerably 


slow the process.


   EPA is considering requiring that servicing apertures be 


designed and located to maximize the ease of recovery. This 


might involve requiring the installation of servicing apertures 


at both the evaporator and the condenser outlet (or the lowest 


point on the system) and/or prohibiting the installation of 


schrader valves. EPA requests comment on these options.


N. Possible Exemption From Regulatory Requirements for Refrigerant 


Uses for Which No High-Efficiency Recovery Technology Exists


   Over the past several months, EPA has been contacted by
individuals 


servicing specialized air conditioning and refrigeration equipment 


who state that no high-efficiency recovery technology exists 


for the equipment that they service. For instance, one technician 


states that he repairs very high pressure refrigeration equipment 


used in quarantined laboratories and on hospital ships. According 


to this technician, the only active recovery device developed 


for use with very high pressure refrigerants requires the use 


of an air compressor that is too large to be moved into these 


areas. At the same time, it is impossible to remove equipment 


from these areas to be repaired in the technician's shop.


   In order to avoid violating the prohibition on venting, the 


technician could use a passive technology (evacuated cylinders) 


to recover the refrigerant. EPA calculated that three evacuated, 


chilled, 45-pound cylinders are sufficient to capture approximately



87 percent of a 15 pound charge of R-503. However, the quantity 


of refrigerant that can be captured by each cylinder drops sharply 


after the third cylinder; a fourth cylinder captures approximately 


an additional nine percent of the refrigerant, a fifth, three 


percent, and a sixth, one percent. Achieving 99 percent efficiency,



therefore, would add considerably to the time and difficulty 


of the job and may not be worthwhile. Moreover, as currently 


proposed, the certification program for recycling and recovery 


equipment used on systems with more than one pound of refrigerant 


precludes the use of passive equipment. Thus, although the
technician 


could comply with the prohibition on venting, he would not be 


able to comply with the rule as proposed.


   For refrigerant uses for which no high-efficiency recovery 


technology exists or is applicable, EPA believes that it may 


be appropriate to grant very limited exemptions to its regulatory 


requirements. In general, EPA believes that at least a passive 


recovery technology will be available for these refrigerant 


uses. However, the Agency could also consider granting exemptions 


to the prohibition on venting if no recovery technology at all 


was applicable to a certain refrigerant use.


   The Agency could establish a procedure that would require 


individuals seeking exemptions to demonstrate that no
high-efficiency 


technology (or no technology at all) was available to recover 


refrigerant from the equipment that they owned or serviced and 


that no existing high-efficiency technology could be adapted 


to this purpose. The burden of proof would lie on the person 


seeking the exemption. The Agency would also require information 


regarding the total quantity of refrigerant that would be released 


annually if an exemption were granted, including information 


on typical equipment charge sizes and total stock. Upon receipt 


of all required information, EPA would make its decision,
considering 


the availability of technology and the quantity of refrigerant 


to be released. Exemptions might also be granted only for a 


limited period of time, subject to the continuing unavailability 


of a recovery technology.


   EPA requests comment on the need for such an exemption
procedure, 


on the general structure of the procedure described here, and 


on the Agency's legal authority to establish such a procedure. 


In particular, EPA requests comment on whether exemptions from 


the prohibition on venting would fall within the de minimis 


exemption provided in section 608(c) for de minimis releases 


associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle 


refrigerants or whether EPA could grant such exemptions pursuant 


to its general authority to exempt de minimis situations from 


statutory commands. See Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F. 


2d 323, 360-61 (D.C. Cir. 1979).


IV. Possible Future Rulemakings To Implement Section 608


   EPA has focused in this proposal on requirements concerning 


refrigerant recycling and recovery during servicing and disposal 


because of the significant near-term potential for emission 


reductions from improved servicing and disposal practices. However,



as discussed earlier, the scope of section 608 extends beyond 


the servicing and disposal of equipment to encompass all life 


cycle stages, including manufacture and use.


   In developing additional regulations aimed at achieving the 


"lowest achievable level" of emissions, the Agency will consider 


actions that facilitate an orderly transition out of first, 


class I compounds and then, class II compounds, consistent with 


achieving the goal of reducing emissions to the lowest achievable 


level. The Agency will examine the necessity of these regulations 


and, if necessary, will develop these regulations taking into 


account its on-going regulatory program (accelerated phaseout, 


nonessential product bans, recycling and recovery, and warning 


labels, and the safe alternatives program), the impact of the 


current excise tax on the use of these chemicals, and the
incremental 


costs and benefits of regulations. (The President called for 


accelerating the phaseout of ozone-depleting compounds to the 


year 1996, and the Agency has developed a proposal that will 


end the production of these chemicals by the end of 1995. This 


proposal will appear in the Federal Register shortly.)


   EPA is considering in the near-term using section 608 to 


address a number of potential problems that could slow transition 


away from class I substances used in refrigeration and air
conditioning 


applications. Potential actions related to other class I
applications 


and all class II substances are not required until November 


1994 and therefore will be discussed in a notice EPA will publish 


at a later date. These additional regulations will be reviewed 


in light of the accelerated phaseout. A number of these issues 


have been raised during discussions held at past meetings of 


EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Protection Advisory Committee.


   Additional near-term regulations under section 608 might 


be useful in the following contexts: (a) To expedite the transition



from equipment that now uses class I substance as its refrigerant 


to new equipment that does not rely on class I substances; (b) 


to reduce emissions from existing refrigeration equipment that 


uses a class I substance; (c) to encourage timely retrofitting 


of existing equipment; and (d) to establish engineering controls 


to ensure that multiple refrigerants introduced into the
marketplace 


to service existing equipment are not mixed. The following sections



describe the rationale behind these possible actions and the 


sectors that might be affected.


a. New Equipment Phase-out Dates


   In some applications, equipment that uses CFC alternatives 


may now or will soon be available but may be more expensive 


or require the use of higher priced alternatives. EPA expects 


that firms will continue to buy the equipment that uses the 


class I substance instead of the alternative as long as the 


alternative is more expensive.


   To give a more concrete example of the above situation, EPA 


is aware that some equipment being sold today has been designed 


to use both CFCs and an HCFC or HFC alternative. However, because 


the price of CFCs (including the excise tax) is still considerably 


below the price of the alternatives, firms are continuing to 


use the CFCs to operate this equipment.


   Section 608(a)(3) gives EPA the authority to "minimize use 


of class I or class II substances" and to require "use [of] 


alternative substances." EPA is considering proposing a rule 


under section 608 stating that the use of certain alternatives 


that have become available in the marketplace constitutes the 


"lowest achievable level" of emissions. Such a rule could prohibit 


the continued sale of equipment that requires a class I refrigerant



and/or prohibit the use of a class I refrigerant in equipment 


that is compatible with an alternative. EPA is especially
interested 


in whether a requirement to use alternatives should be used 


in the case of commercial and industrial air conditioning and 


chiller equipment. The Agency will consider both the costs and 


benefits of replacing class I refrigerants in specific uses 


before undertaking regulation. As noted above, EPA will also 


consider the effects of its ongoing regulatory program (including 


the latest phaseout schedule) and the latest excise tax in deciding



whether further regulation is necessary.


b. Near-Term Emission Reduction Controls


   EPA is also concerned about specific refrigeration and air 


conditioning applications where emissions of class I substances 


represent a significant source of total emissions for that sector. 


Commercial chillers and commercial refrigeration are two such 


sectors where technologies exist and service practices can be 


modified that would substantially reduce total emissions, thereby 


satisfying the requirements of section 608 to reduce emissions 


in these sectors to their "lowest achievable level." To some 


extent, the rising price of class I substances (driven both 


by the diminishing supply and by the increasing excise tax) 


will encourage equipment owners to undertake conservation measures 


without further regulations. However, actions to reduce emissions 


in these areas under section 608 could achieve important additional



near-term reductions in emissions and also substantially reduce 


emissions over the longer-term. This would have economic as 


well as environmental benefits, postponing the retirement of 


existing equipment by conserving the limited supply of refrigerant.


   In the case of commercial centrifugal chillers, the average 


refrigerant charge has been estimated to be 1250 pounds of CFC-


11. Approximately 80,000 units are currently in use in the United 


States. Average emissions from a chiller have been estimated 


to be 24 percent of the charge per year, or roughly 312 pounds 


per year. Of this amount, EPA estimates that 15 percent or close 


to 50 pounds per year are emitted when non-condensable gases 


are purged from the system. (In all existing systems, CFC-11 


is purged from the system along with the non-condensable gas.) 


With the addition of equipment that captures the CFCs from the 


outflow during the purge or reduces the amount of CFCs released 


as part of the purge, CFC losses from this source can be reduced 


by 95-99 percent. This equipment is now commercially available 


and in use.


   Another source of emissions from chillers occurs during system 


start-up. During the system down-time, usually in winter months, 


air infiltrates the system. Upon start-up, it is necessary to 


vent the air. If this purge is performed improperly, large
quantities 


of refrigerant can be released that can amount to as much as 


25 percent of total annual emissions from this source. Equipment 


is now available that keeps the chillers pressurized during 


the time they are inactive and therefore eliminates the
infiltration 


of air and the need to purge the system. Used in combination, 


both a more efficient purge and elimination of infiltration 


of non-condensable gases during down-time could achieve significant



reductions in total emissions and demand for servicing chillers.


   Commercial refrigeration (e.g., refrigeration units in
supermarkets) 


is a second use application where emissions from existing capital 


equipment is significant. Supermarket systems are extremely 


susceptible to leaks, with losses of 30% of their charge annually 


not uncommon. One reason that leaks occur at this high rate 


is because refrigerant is typically piped around the store from 


the equipment room to the display cases. This requires long 


refrigerant lines with many valves and joints throughout the 


store. To reduce emissions during system use, the Agency will 


need to evaluate the costs and potential benefits of requiring 


leak detection equipment and other engineering means to reduce 


the leaks from fitting and pipe connections. In addition,
improvements 


in servicing procedures can also have a large impact in reducing 


emissions in this sector and therefore future demand to service 


existing capital equipment.


   EPA is seeking comments on the potential costs and benefits 


of requiring some or all of the above actions to reduce emissions 


from this sector.


c. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment Retrofit


   The possible need to retrofit existing equipment to utilize 


an alternative refrigerant is another area where actions under 


section 608 may be required in order to ensure an orderly phase-


out of class I substances consistent with achieving the lowest 


achievable level of emissions. Operators of existing capital 


equipment that requires a class I substance for servicing (e.g., 


chillers, commercial refrigeration, car air conditioners, etc.) 


will face a number of choices for servicing their equipment 


following the date of a production phase-out. They can either 


rely on class I substances that are made available from recycling 


or recovery at disposal, take steps to reduce emissions and 


therefore servicing needs of their existing equipment, retrofit 


their existing equipment to use an alternative, or replace their 


equipment with new equipment that utilizes an alternative. The 


choice (or combinations) among these options will depend on 


a number of factors, including the expected useful life of the 


capital equipment, the costs and benefits of steps to reduce 


emissions, the costs of retrofit options, and the price and 


continued availability of the class I substance. 


   If the existing equipment has a long expected useful life 


and can be made compatible with an alternative refrigerant through 


relatively minor modifications, then retrofitting the equipment 


may be the most economical method of adjusting to the phaseout. 


However, like equipment purchasing decisions, decisions on when 


to retrofit will be heavily influenced by the relative prices 


of the class I refrigerant and its alternative. As long as the 


alternative is more expensive than the CFC, there will be a 


disincentive to retrofit. Since the availability of a retrofit 


could qualify as a "lowest achievable level" of emissions under 


section 608, EPA will consider whether to utilize this section 


to accelerate retrofit of some types of equipment, reducing 


CFC emissions.


   This requirement may have applicability in the following 


areas: the retrofit of CFC-11 centrifugal chillers to utilize 


HCFC-123 where exposure limits can be satisfied; the retrofit 


of CFC-12 auto air conditioners to use HFC-134a or an HCFC/HFC 


blend (e.g., HCFC-22, HFC-152a and HCFC-124); and the conversion 


of CFC-12 commercial refrigeration to use HCFC-22. EPA is seeking 


comment on the need for such a rule and whether it should apply 


to any or all of these applications or others not described 


in this notice.


d. Requirements for Use of a Service Refrigerant


   Another issue that has been raised concerns potential problems 


with the use of alternative refrigerants either to service
equipment 


as a near "drop-in" (an alternative refrigerant that could be 


used in HVAC/R equipment with only minor modifications) or to 


service equipment that has undergone a retrofit. As class I 


substances are phased out, the requirements to service existing 


equipment with a non-class I alternative has led many companies 


to begin examining a wide range of "service refrigerants." EPA 


wants to encourage the development of alternatives that can 


be used to service existing equipment and intends to work closely 


with the affected industries to take steps to minimize any
potential 


adverse effects of such alternatives.


   In particular, concerns have been raised that in some cases 


an alternative for the service market may directly result in 


increased emissions of class I substances by interfering or 


disrupting recycling or recovery efforts. Furthermore, if
appropriate 


safeguards are not taken, the mixing of different refrigerants 


could damage or destroy recycling or capital equipment, thereby 


resulting in release of refrigerant and substantial private 


economic losses. This would undermine the effectiveness of
recycling 


efforts. As a result, unless proper safeguards are taken, the 


use of this "service refrigerant" could interfere with achieving 


the "lowest achievable level" of emissions and EPA could consider 


taking action under section 608 to ensure that appropriate measures



are taken that allow for the effective use of any service
refrigerant. 


EPA could also consider taking action under section 612 (safe 


alternatives) and under section 609 (motor vehicle recycling) 


to minimize or avoid any harmful environmental and economic 


impacts that could occur from the introduction of an alternative 


to servicing existing equipment that increases the risk of
refrigerant 


release and subsequent environmental damage. 


   EPA requests comment on the need to regulate servicing
refrigerants 


to minimize emissions, the potential costs and benefits of such 


a regulation, and the use of section 608 as the basis for such 


a regulation. 


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 proposal, $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, April 


8, 1992) 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 proposed 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, and industrial process refrigeration. In 


this analysis, both market penetration and efficiency of equipment 


are expected to reach about 95% in these sectors under the
phaseout. 


Various market inefficiencies and information shortfalls are 


assumed to prevent 100% market penetration; for instance, not 


recognizing the long-term economic benefits of recycling, some 


technicians may choose not to invest in recycling and recovery 


equipment. 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.


   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 or compliance in the household
refrigeration, 


residential air conditioning, and transport refrigeration sectors 


would be estimated to reach approximately 80% under the prohibition



alone, and efficiencies are estimated to range between 75 and 


95% for these sectors.


   Under the requirements of this recycling rule, recovery
efficiencies 


are expected to range between 95 and 99%, depending upon the 


equipment requirements for each sector. Rates of compliance 


are expected to range between 95 and 99 percent in some sectors, 


and between 80 and 99 percent in others. EPA has calculated 


a range of costs and benefits for the rule depending upon the 


extent to which the rate of compliance rises relative to that 


under the venting prohibition. The lower bound costs and benefits 


assume that compliance rates remain the same as under the venting 


prohibition; the upper bound costs and benefits assume that 


compliance rates rise to 99%.


2. Costs


   The costs of the phaseout and the prohibition on venting 


consist of the cost of the additional labor required to recycle 


or recover, the capital and operating costs of recovery and 


recycling equipment, and refrigerant storage costs. EPA estimates 


that the prohibition on venting will cost a total of approximately 


$4.8 billion over the 25-year period of the analysis. The costs 


of the recycling rule consist of the costs of certifying recycling 


and recovery equipment, recordkeeping costs, and refrigerant 


storage costs. To the extent that the recycling rule increases 


recycling rates, its costs also consist of the labor, capital, 


operating, and refrigerant storage costs associated with the 


increased recycling. If the recycling rule is not assumed to 


increase recycling rates, its cost is estimated to be $29 million 


over the 25-year period of the analysis. If the rule is assumed 


to increase recycling rates, its cost is estimated to be $1.4 


billion over the 25-year period.


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.


   Emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants drop when recycling 


rates or recycling efficiencies increase. Under the prohibition 


on venting, recycling rates are assumed to increase because 


recycling begins in the household refrigeration, residential 


air conditioning, and transport refrigeration sectors. Under 


the recycling rule, recycling efficiencies are assumed to increase 


because certification of recycling and recovery equipment increases



the average efficiency of this equipment. In addition, recycling 


rates may increase under the recycling rule, decreasing emissions 


still further.


   EPA estimates that the prohibition on venting alone will 


result in benefits that could be valued between $5.2 and $14.2 


billion, depending upon whether each life saved is valued at 


$3 or $12 million. The additional benefits of the recycling 



rule range between $1 billion and $4 billion (depending upon 


recycling rates) if each life saved is valued at $3 million, 


and between $4 billion and $18 billion if each life saved is 


valued at $12 million.


   These estimates of costs and benefits are based upon a discount 


rate of two percent for costs and benefits. EPA is revising 


the RIA to take into account a number of issues, including the 


possibility of using alternative discount rates for costs and 


benefits. The revised RIA will be available in the public docket.


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 alternatives 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 make up 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 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 2,500 small businesses. These 


2,500 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 proposed 


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 has 


been prepared by EPA and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, 


Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M St., 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 1 to 40 hours per response with an 


average of 2.3 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 St., 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." The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments



on the information collection requirements contained in this 


proposal.


List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82


   Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 


Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.


   Dated: November 30, 1992.


William K. Reilly,


Administrator.


   For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 82, title 40 


of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 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.


82.162 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


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 


at 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, 


repairing or disposing of appliances except for persons servicing 


motor vehicle air conditioners. This subpart also applies to 


the disposal of motor vehicle air conditioners.


82.152  Definitions.


   (a) Active Recovery Device means a device that uses its own 


pump or compressor to pump refrigerant out of an appliance and 


into an external container.


   (b) 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.


   (c) Approved Equipment Testing Organization means any
organization 


which has applied for and received approval from the Administrator 


pursuant to 82.160.


   (d) 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) or equipment
manufactured 


before [6 months after publication of the final rule] that meets 


the standards in 82.158 (c) or (e).


   (e) Disposal means:


   (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 0 degrees 


Centigrade at atmospheric pressure (29.9 inches of mercury). 


This definition includes but is not limited to appliances using 


refrigerants 12, 22, 500, or 502.


   (g) Intermediate Pressure Appliance means an appliance that 


uses a refrigerant with a boiling point between 0 to 10 degrees 


Centigrade at atmospheric pressure (29.9 inches of mercury). 


This definition includes but is not limited to appliances using 


CFC-114. 


   (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 


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) Motor Vehicle Air Conditioner (MVAC) means any motor 


vehicle air conditioner as defined in 40 CFR part 82 subpart 


B.


   (k) 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. 


   (l) Passive Recovery Device means a device that relies solely 


upon the compressor in a small appliance and/or upon the pressure 


of the refrigerant inside a small appliance to remove the
refrigerant 


into an external container. 


   (m) 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. 


   (n) 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. 


   (o) 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. 


   (p) Recover refrigerant means to remove refrigerant in any 


condition from an appliance without necessarily testing or
processing 


it in any way. 


   (q) 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. 


   (r) Small appliance, means any appliance containing one pound 


of refrigerant or less during normal operation, including but 


not limited to household refrigerators, household freezers, 


dehumidifiers, vending machines, or water coolers.


   (s) 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 and room air conditioners. 


   (t) 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 July 1, 1992, 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 [30 days after publication of the final rule], 


no person may open appliances except MVACs for maintenance, 


service, or repair, and no person may dispose of appliances 


except for small appliances, room air conditioners, and MVACs:


   (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 [6 months after publication of the final rule], 


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, room air conditioners, and MVACs, unless 


the equipment is certified pursuant to 82.158 (b) or (d).


   (d) Effective [6 months after publication of the final rule], 


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.


   (e) Effective [90 days after publication of the final rule], 


no person may open appliances except MVACs for maintenance, 


service, or repair, and no person may dispose of appliances 


except for small appliances, room air conditioners, and MVACs, 


unless such person has certified to the Administrator pursuant 


to 82.164 that such person has acquired, and is properly using, 


certified recovery or recycling equipment.


   (f) Effective [90 days after publication of the final rule], 


no person may recover refrigerant from small appliances, room 


air conditioners, and MVACs for purposes of disposal of these 


appliances unless such person has certified to the Administrator 


pursuant to 82.164 that such person has acquired, and is properly 


using, recovery equipment that meets the standards set forth 



in 82.158 (i) and/or (j), as applicable.


   (g) Effective [30 days after publication of the final rule], 


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 analyzed using the methods set forth in ARI 700-1988, 


Specifications for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants, and has been found 


to meet the standard of purity set forth in the same standard.


   (h) Effective [90 days after publication of the final rule], 


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 


82.166.


   (i) Effective [30 days after publication of the final rule], 


no person reclaiming refrigerant may release more than 1.5% 


of the refrigerant received by them. 


   (j) Effective [six months after publication of the final 


rule], no person may sell or distribute, or offer for sale or 


distribution, any appliances, except small appliances and room 


air conditioners unless such equipment is equipped with a servicing



aperture to facilitate the removal of refrigerant at servicing 


and disposal.


   (k) Effective [six months after publication of the final 


rule], no person may sell or distribute, or offer for sale or 


distribution, any small appliance or room air conditioner unless 


such equipment is equipped with a process stub to facilitate 


the removal of refrigerant at servicing and disposal.


   (l) Effective [30 days after publication of the final rule], 


no person may dispose of small appliances, room air conditioners, 


and MVACs without removing the refrigerant before they are disposed



of, unless the refrigerant has been removed previously.


82.156  Required practices.


   (a) Effective [30 days after publication of the final rule], 


all persons opening appliances 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, room air conditioners, and MVACs 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 


and MVACs for maintenance, service, or repair, and persons
disposing 


of appliances except for small appliances, room air conditioners, 


and MVACs, must evacuate to the levels in Table 1, which depend 


upon the date of manufacture of the recovery or recycling machine 


and the type of appliance being evacuated.





    Table 1.-Required Levels of Evacuation for Appliances Except
for Small    


                                  Appliances                       
          


                                                                   
          


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ


                                                ³    Inches of
Hg vaccum      


                                               
ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ


                                                ³    Using   
³    Using      


                                                ³ recovery or
³ recovery or   


                                                ³  recycling 
³  recycling    


                                                ³  equipment 
³  equipment    


                                                ³ manufactur
³ manufactur   


               Type of appliance                ³    ed or  
³    ed or     


                                                ³   imported 
³ imported on   


                                                ³ before [six
³  or after [   


                                                ³    months  
³  six months   


                                                ³    after   
³    after      


                                                ³ publication
³ publication   


                                                ³    of the  
³    of the     


                                                ³ final rule]
³ final rule]   


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ


                                                ³            
³               


High pressure equipment with a charge of less   ³           4
³          10   


 than 50 pounds.                                ³            
³               


High pressure equipment with a charge of more   ³           4
³          20   


 than 50 pounds.                                ³            
³               


Very high pressure equipment................... ³           0
³           0   


Intermediate pressure equipment................ ³          25
³          25   


Low pressure equipment......................... ³          25
³    25 mm Hg   


                                                ³            
³    absolute   


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ





   (2) Persons opening small appliances for maintenance, service, 


or repair must evacuate the refrigerant from these systems using 


a certified recovery device in accordance with the manufacturer's 


directions.


   (b) The evacuation requirements in 82.156(a) apply to leaking 


appliances except for high pressure appliances that contain 


a leak large enough to have reduced the equipment pressure to 


two atmospheres or less. In this case, the equipment must be 


evacuated to 0 psig.


   (c) All recovery or recycling equipment shall be used in 


accordance with the manufacturer's directions.


   (d) Effective [30 days after publication of the final rule], 


persons selling or offering for sale for use as a refrigerant 


any class I or class II substance consisting wholly or in part 


of used refrigerant must analyze the class I or class II substance 


using the methods set forth in ARI 700-1988, Specifications 


for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants, and verify that the class I or 


class II substance meets the standard of purity set forth in 


the same standard.


   (e) Refrigerant may be returned to the equipment from which 


it is recovered or to other equipment owned by the same person 


without being recycled or reclaimed.


   (f) Effective [30 days after publication of the final rule], 


persons disposing of small appliances, room air conditioning, 


or MVACs 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 previously. Such verification must include a signed 


statement from the person from whom the appliance is obtained 


that all refrigerant that had not leaked previously has been 


recovered from the appliance in accordance with paragraph (g) 


or (h) below, as applicable. This statement must include the 


name and address of the person who recovered the refrigerant 


and the date the refrigerant was recovered. The signed statement 


does not relieve the disposer of responsibility for recovering 


any refrigerant that remains in the appliance.


   (g) All persons recovering refrigerant from MVACs 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(j).


   (h) All persons recovering the refrigerant from small appliances



and room air conditioners for purposes of disposal of these 


appliances must recover at least 90% of the refrigerant in the 


system, using equipment that meets the standards set forth in 


82.158(k).


82.158  Standards for recycling and recovery equipment.


   (a) Effective July 1, 1992, all manufacturers and importers 


of recycling and recovery equipment intended for use during 


the maintenance, service, or repair of appliances except MVACs 


or during the disposal of appliances except small appliances, 


room air conditioners, and MVACs shall begin to have such equipment



certified by an approved equipment testing organization to meet 


the applicable requirement in paragraph (b) or (d) of this section.



All recycling and recovery equipment manufactured or imported 


on or after [6 months after publication of the final rule] must 


be certified to meet these requirements.


   (b) Equipment manufactured or imported on or after [6 months 


after publication of the final rule] for use during the
maintenance, 


service, or repair of appliances except small appliances and 


MVACs or during the disposal of appliances except small appliances,



room air conditioners, and MVACs 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 below 


under the conditions of the ARI Standard 740-1991, Performance 


of Refrigerant Recovery, Recycling and/or Reclaim Equipment 


(ARI 740-1991) (Appendix B to this subpart):





      Table 2.-Levels of Evacuation Which Must Be Achieved by
Recovery or     


     Recycling Machines Intended for Use With Appliances (Except
for Small    


    Appliances) Manufactured on or After [6 months after
publication of the   


                                  final rule]                      
          


                                                                   
          


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ


Type of appliance with which recovery or recycling machine is
³  Inches of    


                     intended to be used                     
³  Hg vacuum    


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ


                                                             
³               


High Pressure Equipment with a Charge of Less than 50 Pounds.
³          10   


High Pressure Equipment with a Charge of More than 50 Pounds.
³          20   


Very High Pressure Equipment.................................
³           0   


Intermediate Pressure Equipment..............................
³          25   


Low-pressure Equipment.......................................
³    25 mm Hg   


                                                             
³    absolute   


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ





The vacuums specified in inches of Hg vacuum must be achieved 


relative to an atmospheric pressure of 29.9 inches of Hg.


   (2) The equipment must meet the minimum requirements for 


ARI certification under ARI 740-1991.


   (3) The equipment must be equipped with positive shutoff 


connections on all hoses.


   (4) If the equipment is equipped with a noncondensables purge 


device, the equipment must not release more than five percent 


of the quantity of refrigerant being recycled through
noncondensables 


purging under the conditions of ARI 740-1991.


   (c) Equipment manufactured or imported before [6 months after 


publication of the final rule] for use during the maintenance, 


service, or repair of appliances except small appliances and 


MVACs or during the disposal of appliances except small appliances,



room air conditioners, and MVACs will be considered certified 


if it is capable of achieving the level of evacuation specified 


in Table 3 below 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 (Except
for Small    


   Appliances) Manufactured Before [6 months after publication of
the final   


                                     rule]                         
          


                                                                   
          


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ


Type of appliance with which recovery or recycling machine is
³  Inches of    


                     intended to be used                     
³  Hg vacuum    


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ


                                                             
³               


High Pressure Equipment with a Charge of Less than 50 Pounds 
³           4   


High Pressure Equipment with a Charge of More than 50 Pounds 
³           4   


Very High Pressure Equipment ................................
³           0   


Intermediate Pressure Equipment .............................
³          25   


Low-pressure Equipment ......................................
³          25   


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ





   (d) Equipment manufactured or imported after [6 months after 


publication of the final rule] for use during the maintenance, 


service, or repair of small appliances must be certified by 


an approved equipment testing organization to meet the following 


requirements when used in accordance with the manufacturer's 


instructions under the conditions of appendix C of this subpart, 


Proposed Method for Testing Recovery Devices for Use with Small 


Appliances:


   (1) Active equipment must be capable of recovering 90% of 


the refrigerant in the test stand whether or not the compressor 


of the test stand is operating.


   (2) Passive equipment must be capable of 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.


   (e) Equipment manufactured or imported before [6 months after 


publication of the final rule] for use with small appliances 


will be considered certified if it is capable of 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 of this subpart, Proposed Method for Testing Recovery Devices 


for Use with Small Appliances.


   (f) 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. 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.


   (g) The Administrator will maintain a list of equipment
certified 


pursuant to paragraphs (b) and (d) 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) 


of this subpart.


   (h) Manufacturers or importers of recycling or recovery
equipment 


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.


   (i) 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 his designated representative shall 


give notice to the manufacturer or importer setting forth the 


basis for his determination. The manufacturer or importer shall 


have 90 days from receipt of the notice to request in writing 


reconsideration of the determination. The administrator or his 


designated representative shall respond to this request within 


60 days.


   (j) Equipment used to evacuate refrigerant from MVACs 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).


   (k) Equipment used to evacuate refrigerant from small appliances



and room air conditioners before they are disposed of must be 


capable of removing 90% of the refrigerant, 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 to this subpart, Proposed Method for Testing Recovery 


Devices for Use with Small Appliances.


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 and C of this subpart. The application 


shall be sent to:


608 Recycling Program Manager, Stratospheric Ozone Protection 


   Branch, ANR-445, 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) If approval is denied under this section, the Administrator 


or his designated representative shall give written notice to 


the organization setting forth the basis for 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 his designated representative shall 


give notice to the organization setting forth the basis for 


his determination. The organization shall have 90 days from 


receipt of the notice to request in writing reconsideration 


of the determination. The Administrator or his designated
representative 


shall respond to this request within 60 days.


82.162   Certification by owners of recovery and recycling 


equipment.


   (a) No later than [90 days after publication of the final 


rule], persons maintaining, servicing, or repairing appliances 


except for MVACs, and persons disposing of appliances except 


for small appliances, room air conditioners, and MVACs must 


certify to the Administrator that such person has acquired, 


and is properly using, certified recovery or recycling equipment. 


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;


   (2) The name and address of the establishment where each 


piece of equipment is or will be located;


   (3) The manufacturer name and model number, the date of
manufacture, 


and the serial number of the equipment; and


   (4) 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.


   (i) 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.


   (ii) 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.


   (iii) 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.


   (iv) 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.


   (v) 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.


   (vi) 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-AG, 


First Interstate Tower at Fountain Place, 1445 Ross Ave., Suite 


1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733.


   (vii) 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.


   (viii) 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.


   (ix) 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.


   (x) 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, 


room air conditioners, and MVACs, 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 [90 days after publication of the final 


rule], persons recovering refrigerant from small appliances, 


room air conditioners, and MVACs for purposes of disposal of 


these appliances must certify to the Administrator that such 


person has acquired, and is properly using, recovery equipment 


that meets the standards set forth in 82.158(i) and/or (j), 


as applicable. 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, 


   (2) The name and address of the establishment where each 


piece of equipment is or will be located, and 


   (3) The manufacturer name and model number, the date of
manufacture, 


and the serial number of the equipment.


   (4) 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 


paragraphs (a) or (c) of this section.


82.164  Reclaimer certification.


   Effective [90 days after publication of the final rule], 


persons processing 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% 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% 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: 608 


Recycling Program Manager, Stratospheric Ozone Protection Branch 


(ANR-445), 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. 


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) 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 annually, beginning [60 days after 


publication of the final rule]. 


   (c) Approved equipment testing organizations shall submit 


to EPA within 30 days of the certification of a new model line 


of recyling or recovery equipment the name of the manufacturer 


and the name and/or serial number of the model line. 


   (d) Approved equipment testing organizations shall notify 


EPA if retests of equipment or inspections of manufacturing 


facilities conducted pursuant to 82.158(h) 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. 


   (e) 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. 


   (f) 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. 


   (g) Persons disposing of small appliances, room air
conditioners, 


and MVACs must maintain copies of signed statements obtained 


pursuant to 82.156(f)(ii). 


   (h) 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. 


Appendix A to Subpart F-Specification 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 this standard includes all appliances defined in 82.152(b).


   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 temperature,
noncondensable 


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 be known standards. Listed below 


are some readily available GC methods.





                            Alternate Gas Chromatography Test
Methods                            


                             [See Appendix A for titles and
sources]                             


                                                                   
                             


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ


 Refrigerant ³               ICI               ³         
  Dupont            ³     Allied       


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ


             ³                                 ³         
                    ³                  


R11......... ³ RSV/ALAB/CM3 and RSV/ALAB/CM4   ³
F3205.165.01CW               ³ G-11-7A          


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         


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ


  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 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 Genesolve(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. duPont 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-condensable 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                    


                                                                   
                                                             


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ


                   ³                                          
     Refrigerants                                                 


                  
ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ


                   ³    R11    ³    R12    ³    R13 
  ³    R22    ³    R113   ³    R114   ³    R500
  ³    R502   ³    R503     


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ


                   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 point..... 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    


F @ 29.92 in. Hg.. 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]   


Boiling range øF   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    


 for 5% to 85% by  ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


 volume distilled. ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


VAPOR PHASE        ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


 CONTAMINANTS:     ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


Air and other non- ³ ......... ³      1.5  ³     
1.5  ³      1.5  ³ ......... ³      1.5  ³     
1.5  ³      1.5  ³      1.5    


 condensables (in  ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


 filled container) ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


 Max. % by volume. ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


LIQUID PHASE       ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


 CONTAMINANTS:     ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


Water-ppm by       ³     10    ³     10    ³     10 
  ³     10    ³     10    ³     10    ³     10 
  ³     10    ³     10      


 weight.           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


Chloride ion-no    ³   pass    ³   pass    ³   pass 
  ³   pass    ³   pass    ³   pass    ³   pass 
  ³   pass    ³   pass      


 turbidity to pass ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


 by test.          ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


Acidity-Max. ppm   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    


 by weight.        ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


High boiling       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   


 residues-Max. %   ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


 by volume.        ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


Particulates/      ³   pass    ³   pass    ³   pass 
  ³   pass    ³   pass    ³   pass    ³   pass 
  ³   pass    ³   pass      


 Solids-visually   ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


 clean to pass.    ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


Other refrigerants 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    


 -Max. % by weight ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


                   ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ





Attachment 1 to Appendix A to Subpart F





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"





                                                                   
          


                                                                   
          


Refrige                     Method Number                        
Title      


  rant                                                             
         


                                                                   
          


R11       RSV/ALAB/CM3 and RSV/ALAB/CM4                       
Arcton 11.     


R12       RSV/ALAB/CM5                                        
Arcton 12.     


R13       RSV/ALAB/CM20                                         -- 
          


R22       RSV/ALAB/CM8                                        
Arcton 22.     


R113      RSV/ALAB/CM6                                        
Arcton 113.    


R114      RSV/ALAB/CM21                                       
Arcton 114.    


R500      RSV/ALAB/CM5                                          -- 
          


R502      RSV/ALAB/CM8                                          -- 
          


R503      RSV/ALAB/CM20                                         -- 
          


  (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





                                                                   
          


                                                                   
          


Refrige      Method Number                         Title           
         


  rant                                                             
         


                                                                   
          


R11       F3205.165.01CW         Determination of Purity by Gas    
          


                                  Chromatography "Freon" 11
Fluorocarbon.     


R12       F3227.165.01CW(P)      "Freon" 12 Determination of
Purity.          


R13       F3275.165.01CC(P)      Determination of Composition
"Freon" 13      


                                  Fluorocarbon.                    
          


R22       F3290.165.01LV(P)      "Freon" 22 Determination of Purity
by Gas    


                                  Chromatography.                  
          


R113      F3297.165.01CC         "Freon" 113 Determination of
Purity by Gas   


                                  Chromatography.                  
          


R114      F3305.165.01CC(P)      "Freon" 114
Fluorocarbon-Determination of    


                                  Composition.                     
          


R500      F3327.165.01CW(P)      "Freon" 500 Determination of
Composition by  


                                  Gas Chromatography.              
          


R502      F3333.165.01CC         "Freon" 502 Determination of
Composition by  


                                  Gas Chromatography.              
          


R503      F3337.165.01CW(P)      "Freon" 503 Determination of
Composition.    


  (Note: Used with permission of the source.)                      
          


Allied: Allied-Signal, Inc., Engineered Material Sector, P.O. 


   Box 1139R, Morristown, New Jersey 07960





                                                                   
          


                                                                   
          


Refrige   Method Number                         Title              
         


  rant                                                             
         


                                                                   
          


R11       G-11-7A         Determination of Genetron(R) 11
Fluorocarbon        


                           (Assay) Fluorocarbon 12, Carbon
Tetrachloride,     


                           and Non-Specified Fluorocarbons in
Genetron(R) 11  


                           Fluorcarbon.                            
          


R12       G-12-7A         Determination of Genetron(R) 12
Fluorocarbon        


                           (Assay), Fluorocarbons 11, 13, 22 and
Non-         


                           Specified Fluorocarbons in Genetron(R)
12          


                           Fluorocarbons.                          
          


R13       --              --                                       
          


R22       G-22-7A         Determination of Genetron(R) 22
Fluorocarbons       


                           (Assay), Fluorocarbons 12, 21, 23 and
Non-         


                           Specified Fluorocarbons in Genetron(R)
22          


                           Fluorocarbons.                          
          


R113      GSVD-1A         Determination of Genesolv(R) D (Assay),  
          


                           Fluorocarbons 112, 114, 122, 123 and
1112a In      


                           Genesolv(R) D.                          
          


R114      G-114-7A        Determination of Genetron(R) 114
Fluorocarbon       


                           (Assay), Fluorocarbons 113, 115, 123,
and Non-     


                           Specified Fluorocarbons in Genetron(R)
114         


                           Fluorocarbon.                           
          


R500      G-500-7A        Determination of Fluorocarbon 12,
Fluorocarbon      


                           152a and Non-Specified Fluorocarbons in
Genetron   


                           (R) 500 Fluorocarbon.                   
          


R502      G-502-7A        Determination of Fluorocarbon 22 and
Fluorocarbon   


                           115, and Non-Specified Fluorocarbons in
Genetron   


                           (R) 502 Fluorocarbon.                   
          


R503      G-503-7A        Determination of Fluorocarbon 13, 23, 12,
22 and    


                           Non-Specified Fluorocarbons in
Genetron(R) 503     


                           Fluorocarbon.                           
          


  (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 Refrigeration 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" Refrigeration 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.


Section 1. Purpose


   1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to establish 


methods of testing for rating and evaluating performance of 


refrigerant recovery, recycle, and/or reclaim equipment (herein 


referred to as equipment) for contaminant 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, repackagers, 


distributors, installers, servicemen, contractors and for
consumers. 


   1.2 This standard is subject to review and amendment as the 


technology advances.  


Section 2. Scope


   2.1 Scope. This standard defines the test apparatus, test 


mixtures, sampling and analysis techniques that will be used 


to determine the performance ratings of recovery, recycling, 


and/or reclaim equipment for various refrigerants. It is not 


intended to guide the industry in defining required levels of 


contaminants of recycled/reclaim refrigerants used in various 


applications. These refrigerants are R 11: R 12; R 13; R 22; 


R 113; R 114; R 500; R 502; and R 503 as referenced in the
ANSI/ASHRAE 


Standard "Number Designation of Refrigerants" (American Society 


of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 


Standard 34-89).


Section 3. Definitions


   3.1 Recovered fluorocarbon 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 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 at 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 will be required 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. 


   3.5 Standard Contaminated Refrigerant Sample. A mixture of 


pure 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 Motor Burnout is the final result of hermetic insulation 


failure during which high temperatures and arc discharges produce 


large amounts of carbonaceous sludge, acid, water and other 


contaminants, and some deterioration of the refrigerant and 


oil. This can normally be detected by a characteristic burnt 


smell, and by an acid level in the oil exceeding 0.05 acid number 


[milligrams KOH per gram refrigerant].


   3.7 "Shall," "Should," "Recommended," or "It is Recommended." 


"Shall," "should," "recommended," or "it is recommended" shall 


be interpreted as follows:


   3.7.1 Shall.  Where "shall" or "shall not" is used for a 


provision specified, that provision is mandatory if compliance 


with the standard is claimed. 


   3.7.2 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. 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 reliably indicate when the
filter/drier(s) 


needs replacement if this method is used. 


   4.3 The equipment shall either automatically purge
non-condensables 


if the acceptable level is exceeded or alert the operator that 


the non-condensable level has been exceeded.


   4.3.1 The equipment's refrigerant loss due to non-condensable 


purging shall not exceed 5% by weight of total recovered
refrigerant. 


(See Section 9.4)


   4.4 Internal hose assemblies shall not exceed a permeation 


rate of 12 pounds mass per square foot [5.8g/cm2] of internal 


surface per year at a temperature of 120 øF [48.8 øC] for
any 


designated refrigerant.





                                        Table 1.-Standard
Contaminated Refrigerant Sample                                    
   


                                                                   
                                                             


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ


                   ³    R11    ³    R12    ³    R13 
  ³    R22    ³    R113   ³    R114   ³    R500
  ³    R502   ³    R503     


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ


                   ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


Moisture Content:  ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


  PPM by Weight of ³       100 ³        80 ³       
30 ³       200 ³       100 ³        85 ³      
200 ³       200 ³        30   


   Pure            ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


   Refrigerant.    ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


Particulate        ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


 Content:          ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


  PPM by Weight of ³        80 ³        80 ³       
80 ³        80 ³        80 ³        80 ³       
80 ³        80 ³        80   


   Pure            ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


   Refrigerant     ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


   (Characterized  ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


   by{1}).         ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


Acid Content:      ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


  PPM by Weight of ³       500 ³       100 ³      
N/A ³       500 ³       400 ³       200 ³      
100 ³       100 ³       N/A   


   Pure            ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


   Refrigerant-mg  ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


   KOH per kg      ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


   Refrig.         ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


   (Characterized  ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


   by{2}).         ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


Mineral Oil        ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


 Content:          ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


  % by Weight of   ³        20 ³         5 ³      
N/A ³         5 ³        20 ³        20 ³      
  5 ³         5 ³       N/A   


   Pure            ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


   Refrigerant.    ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


  Viscosity (SUS). ³       300 ³       150 ³      
300 ³       300 ³       300 ³       300 ³      
150 ³       150 ³       300   


Non Condensable    ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


 Gases             ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


  Air Content (%   ³       N/A ³         3 ³        
3 ³         3 ³       N/A ³         3 ³        
3 ³         3 ³         3   


   Volume).        ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³           ³           ³        
  ³           ³             


ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ


  {1}Particulate content shall consist of inert material and shall
comply with particulate requirements in ASHRAE Standard 63.2. 


   "Method of Testing the Filtration Capacity of Refrigerant Liquid
Line Filters and Filter Driers."                             


  {2}Acid consists of 60% oleic and 40% hydrochloric acid on a
total acid number basis.                                          


   4.5 The equipment shall be capable of operation to the
specifications 


in ambient temperatures of 50 øF to 104 øF [10øC to
40øC].


   4.5.1 Equipment specified to operate within a controlled 


temperature range will be evaluated only within that range.


   4.6 Exemptions:


   4.6.1 Equipment intended for a single professional operator 


and backed by chemical analysis shall be exempt from sections 


4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 but not 4.3.1.


   4.6.2 Equipment intended for recovery only shall be exempt 


from sections 4.2 and 4.3.


Section 5. Contaminated Refrigerants


   5.1 The standard contaminated refrigerant sample shall have 


the contents as specified in Table 1.


Section 6. Apparatus


   6.1 The apparatus as shown in Figure 1, consists of a 3 cubic 


ft. [0.085 m3 ] mixing chamber with a conical-shaped bottom 


although a larger mixing chamber is permissible. 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 mixing chamber would contain various ports for receiving 


liquid refrigerant, oil, and contaminants as required. A
recirculating 


line connected from the bottom outlet through a recirculating 


pump and then to a top vapor port would provide for stirring 


of the mixture. Isolation valves may be required for the pump.


   6.2 For liquid refrigerant feed, the liquid valve would be 


opened. For vapor refrigerant feed, the vapor valve would be 


opened and refrigerant would pass through an evaporator coil. 


Flow would be controlled by a thermostatic expansion valve to 


create 5 F [2.8øC] superheat. The evaporator coil must either 


be sized large enough to handle the largest system or be sized 


for each system as required.


   6.3 An alternative method for vapor refrigerant feed would 


be to pass through a boiler and then an automatic pressure
regulating 


valve set at refrigerant saturation pressure at 75 øF ñ 2
øF 


[23.9ø C ñ 1.1 øC].





>>>>  See the accompanying hardcopy volume for
non-machine-readable


data that appears at this point. <<<<





Section 7. Performance Testing


   7.1 Contaminants removal and performance testing shall be 


conducted at 75 øF ñ 2 øF [23.9 øC ñ
1.1øC].


   7.1.1 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 will 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 


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 flow rate when 85% of refrigerant 


remains in the mixing chamber and continue for a period of 2 


minutes. If liquid feed is not elected, complete Step 7.1.2.3.1.


   7.1.2.3 Liquid refrigerant feed testing, if elected, shall 


be processed. After the equipment reaches stabilized conditions, 


the liquid feed recovery rate shall be measured. One method 


would be to wait 1 minute after starting liquid feed and continue 


for a period of 2 minutes.


   7.1.2.3.1 The liquid refrigerant feed test (vapor feed if 


vapor feed only is selected) shall continue until all the liquid 


is gone and the equipment shuts down per automatic means or 


operating instructions. The liquid (or vapor) valve of the
apparatus 


shall be closed and the mixing chamber pressure recorded after 


1 minute.


   7.1.3 Recycle or reclaim as called for in the equipment
operating 


instructions. Determine processing rate by appropriate means.


   7.1.4 Repeat steps 7.1.2.1, 7.1.2.2 (alternately if both 


elected), and 7.1.3 until equipment indicator(s) show need to 


change filter(s).


   7.1.4.1 For equipment with multiple pass recirculating filter 


system, change filter(s) and complete recycle or reclaim. Analyze 


previous batch and current batch after completion of recycle 


or reclaim.


   7.1.4.2 For equipment with single pass filter system, analyze 


the current batch portion in the 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)


   7.1.6 Equipment intended for recovery only shall be exempt 


from Section 7.1.4.


Section 8. Sampling and Chemical Analysis Methods


   8.1 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.


   8.2 Refrigerant Sampling.


   8.2.1 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



procedures. The stainless steel test cylinder (approximately 


30.5 cu. inches [500 ml] capacity with valves at each end) shall 


be prepared as follows for obtaining gas and liquid phase samples.


   a. Clean test cylinder (with valves) with 0.16-0.67 oz [5-


20 ml] portions of reagent grade 1.1.1-trichloroethane or suitable 


solvents.


   b. Blow out test cylinder with dry nitrogen containing not 


more than 3 PPM of water.


   c. With valves open, place test cylinder and connecting tubing 


in oven at approximately 230 F [110 øC] for one hour.


   d. When heated, connect clean copper tubing to storage container



and test cylinder. Connect immediately to an evacuation system 


and evacuate to less than 1 mm mercury [0.133 kPa] (1000 microns).


   8.2.2 Gas Phase Sample. A gas phase sample shall be obtained 


for determining the non-condensables. The sample content shall 


be the minimum required for analysis. Since R 11 and R 113 have 


normal boiling points at or above room temperature, non-condensable



determination is not required for these refrigerants.


   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. 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 130 F [54.4 


øC]. When the desired amount of refrigerant has been
collected, 


close the valve(s) and disconnect the sample cylinder immediately.


   8.2.3.1 Check the sample cylinder for leaks and record the 


gross weight.


   8.3 Water Content.


   8.3.1 A liquid refrigerant sample is required. The Karl Fischer 


Analytical Test Method may be used for determining the water 


content of refrigerant. This method is described in ASTM standard 


for "Water In Gases Using Karl Fischer 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 


R 11 and R 113. An alternate method, Quantitative Determination 


of Moisture by Karl Fischer Coulometer Titration, may be used. 


Refrigerants that are a gas at room temperatures with weighed 


amounts from 1.07 oz to 4.64 oz [30 to 130 grams], of liquid 


refrigerant shall be allowed to vaporize, and be introduced 


directly into the anolyte of a Karl Fischer Coulometer.


   Refrigerants that are liquid at room temperature with weighed 


amounts from 1.07 oz to 4.64 oz [30 to 130 grams] of liquid 


are to be introduced directly into the anolyte of a Karl Fischer 


Coulometer. 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 and instrumental method 


requires special equipment, Karl Fischer Reagents, solvents, 


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 Water is a harmful contaminant in refrigerants because 


it causes freeze up, corrosion and promotes unfavorable chemical 


breakdown. Report the moisture level in parts per million by 


weight if sample is required.


   8.4 Chloride Ions. The refrigerant shall be tested for chloride 


as an indication of the presence of hydrochloride or similar 


acids.


   8.4.1 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 


CL- and other halogens and requires only a 0.16 oz [5 ml] sample. 


The test will show noticeable turbidity at equivalent halogen 


levels of about 25 ppm by weight [milligram KOH per Kilogram].


   8.4.2 The results of the test shall not exhibit any sign 


of turbidity. Report the results as "pass" or "fail."


   8.5 Acidity.


   8.5.1 The acidity test uses the titration principle to detect 


any compound that ionizes as an acid. The test requires about 


0.220 lbs. [100 grams] to 0.265 lbs. [120 grams] sample and 


has a lower detection limit of 0.1 ppm [milligram KOH per Kilogram]



by weight.


   8.5.2 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).


   8.5.3 Report the acidity in ppm by weight [milligram KOH 


per Kilogram].


   8.6 High Boiling Residue.


   8.6.1 High boiling residue will be determined by measuring 


the residue after evaporation of a standard volume of refrigerant 


at a temperature 50 F [10.0øC], above the boiling point of the



sample. A Goetz tube as specified in the Federal Specification 


for "Fluorocarbon Refrigerants," BB-F-1421B dated March 5, 1982 


may be used. Oils and 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 liquid refrigerant sample is required. During the 


Boiling Range test, a measured amount of sample is evaporated 


from a Goetz bulb under 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."


   8.7.2 For details of the above test method, refer to the 


E. I. du Pont de Nemours method for "Determination of Boiling 


Range, Residue, Particulates" F3200.037.01CW(P) (used by permission



of Freon Products Division, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., 


Inc.).


   8.8 Non-Condensables.


   8.8.1 A vapor refrigerant sample is required. 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 Known volumes of refrigerant vapors are to be injected 


for separation and analysis by means of gas chromatograph. A 


Parapak Q column at 266 F [130øC] and a hot wire detector are 


to be used for the analysis.


   8.8.2.1 The Federal Specification for "Fluorocarbon
Refrigerants," 


BB-F-1421B, dated March 5, 1982, section 4.4.2 (perchloroethylene 


method) is an acceptable alternate test method.


   8.8.3 Report the level of non-condensables as percent by 


volume.


Section 9. Performance Calculation and Rating


   9.1 The liquid refrigerant recovery rate shall be expressed 


in lbs. per minute [k/m] and measured by weight change at the 


mixing chamber (see Figure 1) divided by elapsed time to an 


accuracy within .02 lbs/min. [0.008 k/m].


   9.2 The vapor refrigerant recovery rate shall be expressed 


in lbs. per minute [k/m] and measured by weight change at the 


mixing chamber (see Figure 1) divided by elapsed time to an 


accuracy within .02 lbs/min. [0.008 k/m].


   9.3 The recycling rate shall be expressed in lbs. per minute 


[k/m] of flow and shall be as per ASHRAE 41.7-84 "Procedure 


for Fluid Measurement of Gases" or ASHRAE 41.8-89 "Standard 


Method of Flow of Fluids-liquids." If no separate recycling 


loop is used, the rate shall be the higher of the vapor refrigerant



recovery rate or the liquid refrigerant recovery rate.


   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 the purged gases, or an
equivalent 


method.


   9.5 The vapor recovery efficiency shall be expressed in percent 


and shall be calculated as follows:


E=vapor recovery efficiency (percent)


Psat=refrigerant saturation pressure at 75 F (psia) [23.9øC, 


    kPa]


P=mixing chamber pressure (psia) [kPa] determined in 7.1.2.3.1


E=100. (Psat-P)/Psat


   9.6 The contaminant levels remaining after testing shall 


be published as follows:


Moisture content, PPM by weight


Chloride ions, PPM by weight


Acidity, PPM by weight


High boiling residue, percentage by volume


Particulates/solid, visual examination


Non-condensables, % by volume


Section 10. Tolerances


   10.1 Any machine tested shall produce contaminant levels 


not higher than the published ratings. The liquid refrigerant 


recovery rate, vapor refrigerant recovery rate, vapor recovery 


efficiency and recycle rate shall not be less than the published 


ratings.


Section 11. Product Labelling


   11.1 Type of equipment: (Recovery, Recovery/Recycle,
Recovery/Reclaim, 


Recycle, or Reclaim).


   11.2 Designated refrigerants and the following as applicable 


for each:


   11.2.1 Liquid refrigerant recovery rate


   11.2.2 Vapor refrigerant recovery rate


   11.2.3 Vapor recovery efficiency


   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 standard.


Appendix C to Subpart F-Method for Testing Recovery Devices 


for Use With Small Appliances


Refrigerators and Freezers


   The following test procedure is utilized to evaluate the 


efficiency of equipment designed to recover CFC refrigerants 


from household refrigerators and freezers when service of those 


appliances requires entry into the sealed refrigeration system. 


This procedure is designed to calculate on a weight or mass 


basis the percentage of a known charge of CFC refrigerant removed 


and captured from a test stand refrigeration system and delivered 


to a container suitable for shipment to a CFC reclaimer. 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 the 


recovered refrigerant by 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. High side case compressor which can operate with an
approximate 


9 oz. R 12 charge, or


   5. Low side case compressor that can operate with an appropriate



6 oz. R 12 charge.


II. Test Conditions


   Tests are to be conducted at 75 degrees F, plus or minus 


2 degrees F (23.9 øCñ 1.1 øC). 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 CFC
reclaimer. 


The test stands are to be equipped with access valves located 


at the points where the recovery system vendor's operating
instructions 


indicate that a piercing saddle valve should be connected to 


perform the recovery operation. Piercing saddle valves are not 


used in the test because of the numerous recovery operations 


that must be run on a test stand.


   A series of ten (10) recovery operations are to be performed 


for each compressor scenario. 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 CFC to a reclaimer (eg. carbon desorption equipment) 


and it is not possible to have that equipment evaluated under 


this procedure, the system's vendor shall obtain engineering 


data on the performance of that large scale equipment that will 


reasonably demonstrate the percentage CFC 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 R-12 recovered from a test stand and delivered to a container 


for shipment to the large process equipment for further processing,



and to subtract any oil contamination included in that weight.


   Weighing steps are conducted with precision and accuracy 


of plus or minus 0.1 gram.


   The following are definitions of symbols used in the test 


procedure.


   "TSO" means an original test stand weight.


   "TSC" means a charged test stand weight.


   "TSF" means a final test stand weight.


   "SCO" means the original or empty weight of shipping containers.


   "SCF" means the final or full weight of shipping containers.


   "RSO" means the original weight of a recovery/transfer system.


   "RSF" maeans the final weight of a recovery/transfer system.


   "OPL" means the weight of oil purged from any recovery or 


transfer device.


III. Test Procedure


   1. Evacuate the test stand to 20 microns vacuum for 24 hours.


   2. Weigh the test stand (TSO)


   3. If this is the first of the ten (10) recovery operations 


being performed for a compressor scenario, then weigh all devices 


containing oil (i.e. devices containing compressors) used in 


the recovery system to deliver recovered R-12 to a container 


suitable for shipment or delivery to a CFC reclaimer (RSO).


   4. Weigh the final shipping containers (SCO). These must 


be the type of container that will be used to ship or otherwise 


deliver recovered refrigerant to a CFC reclaimer. Weigh enough 


containers to hold refrigerant recovered during ten (10) recovery 


operations.


   5. Charge the test stand with an appropriate R-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 R-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 the system allows for 


multiple recovery operations to be performed before transferring 


recovered refrigerant to a shipping container, do not transfer 


recovered refrigerant to the shipping container until either 


the maximum number of recovery operations allowed have been 


performed or the last of the ten (10) recovery operations has 


been performed.


   10. Perform any oil purge operation needed to properly maintain 


the devices used for recovery or transfer operations capturing 


the oil purged during the operation. Weigh the oil captured 


during the oil purge operation (OPL).


   11. Evacuate the test stand to 20 microns vacuum for 24 hours.


   12. Weigh the test stand (TSF).


   13. Add compressor oil if needed to maintain the compressor 


in the test stand. (If oil is added, evacuate the test stand 


again to 20 microns for 24 hours.)


   14. Return to step 2 unless ten (10) recovery operations 


have been performed.


   15. Weigh all final shipping containers that received recovered 


refrigerant (SCF).


   16. Weigh the equipment weighed in step three (3) above (RSF).


IV. Calculations


   CFC Recoverable equals the summation of charged test stand 


weights minus original test stand weights.





                                                                   
          


                                                                   
          


                           10                                      
          


                            ä                                 
               


    CFC Recoverable=       i=1                   (TSCi-TSOi)       
          


                                                                   
          


                                                                   
          


   CFC Recovered equals the final weight of shipping containers 


minus the initial weight of final shipping containers, minus 


the summation of (original test stand weights minus final test 


stand weights), plus final recovery system weight, minus original 


recovery system weight, plus the weight of any oil purged from 


recovery or transfer devices.





                                                                   
          


                                                                   
          


                            n                                      
          


                            ä                                 
               


     CFC Recovered=        i=1                  (SCFi-SCOi)-       
          


                                                                   
          


                                                                   
          





                                                                   
          


                                                                   
          


   10                                                              
          


   ä                                                          
               


  j=1                          (TSOj-TSFj)+RSF-RSO+OPL             
          


                                                                   
          


                                                                   
          


n=number of shipping containers used.


   Recovery Efficiency equals CFC Recovered divided by CFC
Recoverable 


times 100%.                                                        
               


                                                                   
         


                                            CFC Recovered          
         


     Recovery Efficiency=      100%  


                                           CFC Recoverable         
                                                                   
              


                                                                   
         


   Where the recovery system utilizes multiple recovery operations 


(e.g., additional CFC removal from a compressor after the
compressor 


is returned to a service shop), tests must include all such 


recovery operations. Some recovery and transfer devices retain 


CFC refrigerant within the device at all times (i.e., dissolved 


in the compressor oil of the recovery device). When devices 


of this nature are being evaluated by this test procedure, they 


should first have been used in enough recovery or transfer
operations 


to make sure the device will not retain portions of the refrigerant



handled by that device during the test procedure.





  See the accompanying hardcopy volume for non-machine-readable


data that appears at this point. 





Instructions


   Part 1: Please provide the name, address, and telephone number 


of the establishment where the refrigerant recovery or recycling 


device(s) is (are) located. Please complete one form for each 


location.


   Part 2: For each recovery or recycling device acquired and 


intended to be used, please list the name of the manufacturer 


of the device, its model number, and (if applicable) its serial 


number. If more than 7 devices have been acquired, please fill 


out an additional form and attach it to this one.


   Part 3: This form must be signed by either the owner of the 


establishment or another responsible officer. The person who 


signs is certifying that the establishment has acquired the 


equipment and that the information provided is true and correct.


   Part 4: If one or more of the devices listed in part 2 is 


a passive device, the owner of the establishment or another 


responsible officer must also sign the statement in part 4. 


A passive device is defined as a device that relies solely on 


the compressor and/or the pressure of the refrigerant in the 


refrigeration or air conditioning equipment to remove the
refrigerant 


into an external container. The person who signs is certifying 


that the device(s) is (are) intended for the recovery of
refrigerant 


from refrigeration or air conditioning equipment that contains 


less than one pound of refrigerant.


   Please send this form to the EPA Regional Office responsible 


for the state or territory in which the establishment is located.


EPA Regional Offices





                                                                   
          


                                                                   
          


                                                                   
          


                                                                   
          


CAA 608 Enforcement Contact: EPA       Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts,     


 Region I, Mail Code APC, JFK Federal   New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, Vermont. 


 Building, One Congress Street,                                    
          


 Boston, MA 02203.                                                 
          


CAA 608 Enforcement Contact: EPA       New York, New Jersey, Puerto
Rico,     


 Region II, Jacob K. Javits Federal.    Virgin Islands.            
          


 Building, Room 5000, 26 Federal                                   
          


 Plaza, New York, NY 10278.                                        
          


CAA 608 Enforcement Contact: EPA       Delaware, District of
Columbia,        


 Region III, Mail Code 3AT21, 841       Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia,     


 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA.   West Virginia.             
          


 19107.                                                            
          


CAA 608 Enforcement Contact: EPA       Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky,   


 Region IV, Mail Code APT-AE, 345       Mississippi, North
Carolina, South    


 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, GA.     Carolina, Tennessee.       
          


 30365.                                                            
          


CAA 608 Enforcement Contact: EPA       Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
          


 Region V, Mail Code AT18J, 77 W.       Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin.
          


 Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.                                 
          


CAA 608 Enforcement Contact: EPA       Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico,       


 Region VI, Mail Code 6T-AG, First.     Oklahoma, Texas.           
          


 Interstate Tower at Fountain Place,                               
          


 1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200, Dallas,                               
          


 TX 75202.                                                         
          


CAA 608 Enforcement Contact: EPA       Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska.      


 Region VII, Mail Code ARTX/ARBR, 726                              
          


 Minnesota Ave., Kansas City, KS                                   
          


 66101.                                                            
          


CAA 608 Enforcement Contact: EPA       Colorado, Montana, North
Dakota,       


 Region VIII, Mail Code 8AT-AP, 999.    South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming.          


 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO                                
          


 80202.                                                            
          


CAA 608 Enforcement Contact: EPA       American Samoa, Arizona,
California,   


 Region IX, Mail Code A-3, 75.          Guam, Hawaii, Nevada.      
          


 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA                               
          


 94105.                                                            
          


CAA 608 Enforcement Contact: EPA       Alaska, Idaho, Oregon,
Washington.     


 Region X, Mail Code AT-082, 1200                                  
          


 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101.                                    
          





[FR Doc. 92-29538 Filed 12-9-92; 8:45 am]


BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

Top of page


Local Navigation




Jump to main content.