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
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Ozone Layer Protection - Regulatory Programs
- You are here: EPA Home
- Ozone Layer Protection
- Regulatory Programs
- 57 FR 58644