Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Supplemental Rule To Amend
Leak Repair Provisions Under Section 608 of the Clean Air Act
[Federal Register: January 19, 1995]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-5140-2]
RIN 2060-AE92
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Supplemental Rule To Amend
Leak Repair Provisions Under Section 608 of the Clean Air Act
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: Through this action EPA is proposing to amend the Refrigerant
Recycling Regulations promulgated under section 608 of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990. This proposal is being undertaken to address
specific concerns regarding the leak repair requirements for industrial
process refrigeration systems, pursuant to a settlement agreement with
the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA). This proposal will affect
the owners and operators of industrial process refrigeration with
regard to leak repair provisions. Minor aspects of this proposal will
also affect federal owners and operators of commercial and comfortcooling
refrigeration with charges of 50 pounds refrigerant or greater.
This action proposes to provide greater flexibility to owners and
operators of industrial process sources and to some federally-owned
commercial and comfort-cooling refrigerant sources with regard to leak
repair provisions. Such proposed flexibility can be provided without
compromising the goals of protecting public health and the environment.
DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received by February 21, 1995,
at the address below. A public hearing, if requested, will be held in
Washington, DC. If such a hearing is requested, it will be held on
February 3, 1995, and the comment period would then be extended to
March 6, 1995. Anyone who wishes to request a hearing should call Sue
Stendebach at 202/233-9117 by January 26, 1995. Interested persons may
contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 to see
if a hearing will be held and to obtain the date and location of any
hearing. Any hearing will be strictly limited to the subject matter of
this proposal, the scope of which is discussed below.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal must be submitted to the Air
Docket Office, Public Docket No. A-92-01 VIIID, Waterside Mall (Ground
Floor) Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20460 in room M-1500. Additional comments and materials supporting
this rulemaking are contained in Public Docket No. A-92-01. Dockets may
be inspected from 8 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Newberg, Regulatory Development
Section, Program Implementation Branch, Stratospheric Protection
Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation
(6205-J), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, (202)233-9729. The
Stratospheric Ozone Information Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 can also be
contacted for further information.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of this preamble are listed in
the following outline:
I. Refrigerant Recycling Regulations
II. Proposed Revisions to the Refrigerant Recycling Regulations
A. Need for Separate Leak Repair Requirements
B. Additional Time to Complete Repairs
C. Repairs Requiring a Process Shutdown
D. Determining the Full Charge of an Industrial Process
Refrigerant System
E. Static and Dynamic Tests
Soap Bubble Test
Electronic Leak Detectors
Ultrasonic Detectors
F. Failed Verification Tests
Requirement to Retrofit or Retire the Leaking Equipment
Option for Second Repair Attempt
Option to Reduce Other Equipment Leaks
G. Clarification of Levels to Which Leaks Must be Repaired Leak
Rate
H. Extension for Retrofitting a Facility
Additional Time Based on Regulatory Delays and/or the Need
for a Suitable Replacement
Additional Time Based on the Unavailability of Necessary
Parts
Additional Time Beyond the one Additional Year
I. Allowing Appliances to be Pressurized Above 0 psig
J. Treatment of Purged Refrigerant
K. Temporarily Shutting Down Equipment Prior to Repairing Leaks
L. Possible Need for an Extension for Federally Owned Chillers
III. Summary of Supporting Analysis
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Refrigerant Recycling Regulations
Final regulations promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under section 608 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(the Act) published on May 14, 1993 (58 FR 28660), establish a
recycling program for ozone-depleting refrigerants recovered during the
servicing and disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment.
Together with the prohibition on venting during the maintenance,
service, repair, and disposal of class I and class II substances (see
the listing notice January 22, 1991; 56 FR 2420) that took effect on
July 1, 1992, these regulations are intended to substantially reduce
the emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. These regulations were
subsequently revised in the final regulations published August 19, 1994
(59 FR 42950) and November 9, 1994 (59 FR 55912).
The current regulations require that persons servicing airconditioning
and refrigeration equipment observe certain service
practices to reduce emissions, establish equipment and reclamation
certification requirements, and comply with a technician certification
requirement. The regulations also require that ozone-depleting
compounds contained in appliances be removed prior to disposal of the
appliances, and that all air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment,
except for small appliances, be provided with a servicing aperture that
will facilitate recovery of refrigerant.
In addition, the regulations restrict the sale of refrigerant and
establish a leak repair requirement for equipment that normally holds a
refrigerant charge of fifty pounds or more. An annual leak rate of 35
was established for industrial process sources and commercial chillers,
while an annual leak rate of 15was established for comfort-cooling.
If a leak rate is exceeded, the equipment must be repaired to bring the
system to below the annual leak rate, within 30 days. An alternative is
to submit a retrofit or replacement plan within 30 days, outlining
action to retrofit or replace equipment within one year from the
exceedance.
II. Proposed Revisions to the Refrigerant Recycling Regulations
EPA proposes revisions to the leak repair provisions in response to
a settlement agreement reached by the Agency and the Chemical
Manufacturers Association (CMA) relative to industrial process sources.
In that agreement, EPA agreed to propose changes to the leak repair
requirements that provide additional time to repair and/or retrofit
industrial process refrigeration equipment based on the uniqueness of
the industrial process sector and on new information provided by CMA.
EPA also proposes to revise portions of the leak repair requirements
[[Page 3993]]
that address evacuation requirements relative to oil changes and
destruction of purged emissions.Under section 608 of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990, regulations were required to establish
standards and requirements regarding the use and disposal of class I
and class II substances during the service, repair, or disposal of
appliances and industrial process refrigeration. The regulations were
required to reduce the use and emission of class I and class II
substances to the lowest achievable levels and to maximize the
recapture and recycling of such substances. Regulations published on
May 14, 1993 set out comprehensive requirements for recovery and
reclamation of refrigerants from stationary sources. These regulations
also establish leak repair requirements to further minimize emissions
of class I and class II substances. The new information received from
CMA indicates that under certain circumstances the timelines within
which to repair industrial process refrigeration system leaks or
retrofit such systems are not achievable. Today's proposed rulemaking
seeks to respond to those circumstances by proposing the shortest
timeframes possible, yet still achievable. EPA believes that today's
proposal meets the standards set forth by Congress in the Clean Air Act
Amendments. EPA requests comment on the legal basis under which EPA is
proposing these revisions.
In today's action, EPA also proposes to allow additional time for
repairs and retrofits and replacements of federally-owned or operated
commercial or comfort-cooling systems where procurement requirements
prevent timely acquisition of parts or services. This issue was not
part of the settlement agreement, but was brought to EPA's attention by
the U.S. Department of Energy. EPA also proposes to clarify that leaks
exceeding the annual leak rate need only be brought to a level below
that applicable annual leak rate, not to zero. Although this issue was
not part of the settlement agreement, such clarification is necessary
to be consistent with the terms of settlement, relative to the 35
annual leak rate and repair requirements. This clarification affects
owners and operators of commercial refrigeration systems and comfortcooling
systems containing more than 50 pounds of refrigerant. The
recycling rule, 40 CFR part 82, subpart F, is only being re-opened for
purposes of reconsidering these specific provisions outlined in this
paragraph and the paragraph above, and discussed in today's proposed
rule. EPA is not inviting comment on any other provisions of the
recycling rule.
A. Need for Separate Leak Repair Requirements
Three main refrigeration sectors are affected by the leak repair
provisions promulgated under section 608 of the Act: commercial
refrigeration, comfort-cooling, and industrial process refrigeration.
While many different commercial refrigeration and comfort-cooling
systems are similar in design and function, EPA has received new
information from CMA illustrating the uniqueness of industrial process
refrigeration systems. Industrial process refrigeration units are
custom-designed and assembled in-place at a process location. Thus,
each of these industrial units has unique operating characteristics.
Industrial process refrigeration is defined in Sec. 82.152 as:
* * complex customized appliances used in the chemical,
pharmaceutical, petrochemical and manufacturing industries. This
sector also includes industrial ice machines and ice rinks.
There are several apparent differences between industrial process
refrigeration equipment and other types of equipment affected by the
leak repair provisions. Industrial process refrigeration systems are
larger and more complex than hermetically-sealed consumer units. Most
comfort-cooling systems have hermetically-sealed or semi-hermeticallysealed
refrigerant loops. By contrast, industrial process refrigeration
systems often have compressor shaft seals, gasketed flange seals, and
valves with packing gland seals. All of these are potential leak
points. For example, an industrial process system can include 17
different evaporators, located at distances up to half a mile from the
compressor. Another example is that of a system that has a 5,000-
horsepower compressor moving nearly 200,000 pounds of refrigerant. A
system that size cannot be a ``sealed'' unit. This complexity makes
leak detection and leak rate calculations more difficult than for other
sectors affected by the leak repair provisions.
Industrial process refrigeration systems are also frequently
designed to provide refrigeration to more than one industrial process
and at more than one location within the same facility. These
distributed refrigeration systems have multiple refrigerant reservoirs
and evaporators and may be connected by pipe runs of half a mile or
more, as mentioned above. Piping, valves and even evaporators in
industrial process refrigeration systems are likely to be less
accessible than the potential leak sources normally found in the other
systems.
Industrial process equipment, particularly that used in the
chemical manufacturing industry, is frequently located in plant areas
near high pressure/temperature piping and equipment and where leaks/
spills of flammable or otherwise hazardous chemicals may occur. A heat
exchanger in which a class I or class II refrigerant is cooling a
hazardous process fluid at high pressure poses different safety risks
than those normally encountered in the commercial refrigeration sector
or the comfort-cooling sector. Many industrial process sources are
manufacturing or handling acutely toxic, corrosive, or carcinogenic
chemicals that need to be handled in an extremely cautious manner. It
is imperative that they be cooled properly to avoid fire, explosion, or
emissions.
In order to perform certain types of repair work on industrial
process systems, a shutdown of the facility may be necessary to avoid
such hazards. Shutting down industrial process refrigeration equipment
means curtailing production or shutting a plant down completely, which
can incur enormous costs in terms of time and money. In some cases, the
size and complexity of a plant may require hours or days to completely
shut down all the process equipment to avoid any unwanted chemical
reactions that could lead to fires, explosions, or other immediate
hazards. Such a costly and complex shutdown is not required to repair
commercial or comfort-cooling systems that can sustain a short shutdown
without significant added cost or consequence.
Because of the new information that illustrates the substantial
differences between the industrial process refrigeration sector and the
other sectors affected by the leak repair provisions, EPA is proposing
to revise the leak repair provisions promulgated under Sec. 82.156(i)
to establish separate provisions for the industrial process
refrigeration sector. EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of
establishing separate repair provisions for industrial process
refrigeration.
B. Additional Time To Complete Repairs
Section 82.156(i)(1) of the current rule requires that owners of
commercial and industrial process refrigeration equipment must have all
leaks repaired if the equipment is leaking at a rate such that over 35
of the refrigerant is released within a 12-month period. Under
Sec. 82.156(i)(3), owners are not required to repair such leaks if,
within
[[Page 3994]]
30 days, they develop a one-year retrofit or retirement plan for the
leaking equipment. Due to differences between the industrial process
refrigeration sector and other sectors affected by the leak repair
provisions, EPA recognizes that the potential for reasonable delays in
repairing leaks is great in the industrial process sector. Thus, EPA
proposes to allow the owners and operators of industrial process
refrigeration equipment more than 30 days to repair leaks when the
necessary parts are unavailable, or if requirements of other federal,
state or local regulations make a repair within 30 days impossible.
Additional time to receive delivery of any necessary parts or comply
with any applicable regulations would be allowed.Although EPA
proposes to allow this additional time when necessary, EPA proposes
that the owner or operator of the industrial process refrigeration
equipment must exert best efforts to repair leaks within the 30-day
time period. If the equipment cannot be repaired within the 30-day
requirement, the owner or operator must document repair efforts, notify
EPA of the inability to comply with this 30-day repair requirement,
provide appropriate information concerning the reason for the inability
to complete repair efforts and submit to EPA a one-year retrofit,
replacement or retirement plan for the leaking equipment.
Generally, EPA believes that most leaks can be repaired within 30
days. For example, a leak caused by a ruptured tube would normally be
repaired within several days to a few weeks, depending on the size and
complexity of the system. Another example of a leak that could normally
be repaired within the 30-day timeframe would be a leaking gasket. If
refrigerant is leaking from the gasket between the flanges where two
pieces of pipe come together, a repair can often be accomplished by
merely tightening the bolts that hold the flanges together. Assuming
that the piping is accessible, this might take only a few minutes.
However, EPA recognizes that under certain circumstances it may not
be possible for the owners and operators of industrial process
refrigeration equipment to complete all necessary repairs within the
thirty-day timeframe, or complete retrofit activities within one year,
as established by the final regulations. Such necessary repairs may not
be able to be completed within 30 days due to the need for the owners
and operators of industrial process refrigeration equipment to comply
with all other applicable federal, state, and local regulations. For
example, if the piping for the industrial process equipment is covered
with asbestos-containing insulation, the insulation for the affected
portions of the system will have to be removed to detect and repair the
leaks. Depending on the amount of piping affected, EPA regulations may
require a ten working day notice before any asbestos-handling
activities may begin. Only once the process of removing the insulation
is complete can work begin on the refrigeration system.\1\
\1\See 40 CFR 61.145(a)(5) and 40 CFR Sec. section 61.145(b).
Other types of regulatory requirements that may impact the ability
of a facility to either complete the necessary repairs within 30 days
or retrofit the facility within one year include the need to obtain
appropriate state or local permits. For example, one company planning
to replace its ozone-depleting component with an ammonia refrigeration
component in California encountered many unavoidable delays because
ammonia is treated as a hazardous substance under the California Risk
Management Prevention Plan (RMPP) program. As a result, the company had
to prepare a risk management plan that met the approval of the local
fire department before ammonia could be brought to the site. It took a
total of six months to write and receive approval of the plan from the
State. A similar situation could be encountered by any facility in
California that decided to replace its ozone-depleting system with an
ammonia system. Since most companies are unlikely to commit significant
investment to a project until it is clear that the project can be
approved, this requirement could, in effect, delay other necessary
retrofit activities by up to six months. This may limit the ability of
the company to complete retrofitting the system within one year.
In some cases, industrial process refrigeration systems,
particularly refrigerated condensers, serve as emission control devices
for chemicals that could otherwise be released. For example, a
refrigeration system may be used to cool and condense vapors, allowing
recovery rather than venting to the atmosphere. Federal or state
emission control requirements will typically specify that the condenser
must be in operation whenever the manufacturing process is running.
Limited periods of down time for maintenance on the condenser may be
allowed. However, companies may not have unlimited freedom to shut down
the system that controls emissions.
Repairing leaks and retrofitting systems may be delayed because of
the unavailability of needed parts. Many parts in an industrial process
refrigeration system are custom-built. This is different from the
commercial and comfort-cooling sectors, where parts tend to be more
uniform, more widely available, and may often be purchased ``off the
shelf.'' In order to repair or replace a leak source in an industrial
process facility, the needed part may have to be custom-built. The
process of building the part and shipping it to the facility may cause
a delay that makes it impossible for the owner or operator of the
industrial process facility to repair the leaks within 30 days.
Although EPA recognizes these potential difficulties and delays,
EPA proposes that the owner or operator of the industrial process
refrigeration equipment must exert best efforts to repair leaks within
the 30-day time period. EPA believes that best efforts on the part of
the owner or operator of the industrial process refrigeration system
implies that a methodology for repair that is reasonably expected to be
effective based on past experience has been used. A best efforts
approach used to repair leaks should first consider the experience of
the individual or individuals charged with performing the repairs.
However, for repairs that are less common or have not been performed in
the past, best efforts on the part of the owner or operator of the
industrial process system may imply appropriate consultation by the
technician with manuals or colleagues, both within and outside of the
company. If the owners or operators of the industrial process system
followed the methodology discussed above, and are unable to repair all
necessary leaks within thirty days, EPA proposes to grant extra time.
EPA requests comments on this repair methodology. While EPA believes
that a best efforts approach that incorporates the information above is
important, EPA is concerned about the lack of formal protocols referred
to in this definition.
The owners or operators of the industrial process facility would be
required to maintain records of their actions and submit information to
EPA that details the need for additional time to complete all repair
work. EPA believes the following information should be maintained by
the owners or operators of the affected system and reported to EPA:
(1) Identification of the industrial process facility;
(2) Leak rate;
(3) Method used to determine the leak rate and full charge;
(4) Date a leak rate of 35 percent or greater was discovered;
[[Page 3995]]
(5) Location of leaks(s) to the extent determined to date;
(6) Any repair work that has been completed thus far and the date
that work was completed;
(7) Plan to fix other outstanding leaks to achieve a rate below the
applicable allowable annual leak rate;
(8) Reasons why more than 30 days are needed;
(9) Estimate of when repair work will be completed;
(10) If time changes for original estimates, documented reason for
changes;
(11) Dates and types of static and dynamic tests performed; and
(12) Test results for both the static and dynamic tests.
All the above information would be maintained by the industrial
process refrigeration facility on-site. Information discussed in (1)
through (9) would be submitted as part of the original notification to
the Agency. This information would be submitted within thirty days from
the time the leak was detected. The information requested in item (10)
would only be submitted as necessary. The information in items (11) and
(12) would be submitted within thirty days of completing repairs on all
appropriate leaks. EPA does not believe that these reporting or
recordkeeping procedures place undue burden on the affected community.
EPA believes that documenting the services performed by repair
personnel is normally kept by the owners and operators of industrial
process refrigeration equipment. However, EPA requests comment on these
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
C. Repairs Requiring a Process Shutdown
In order to complete many types of repairs, an industrial process
refrigeration system may be required to shut down. EPA proposes to
define a process shutdown as when, for purposes such as maintenance or
repair, a process temporarily ceases to operate or manufacture whatever
is being produced at the particular facility. A typical manufacturing
process may consist of the coordination and integration of a chemical
reaction, separation, and heating or cooling activities. Since many
facilities do not have back-up refrigeration systems, a shutdown of the
refrigeration unit in order to facilitate the repair of leaks could
require the curtailing or cessation of production. For the purposes of
this proposal, EPA does not believe a process shutdown occurs when a
system is temporarily taken off-line for reasons such as a power
outage. Nor does it constitute a system mothballing of a facility
discussed in II. K.
The costs of a shutdown can be enormous. During the time when the
process is shut down, no product will be produced. This results in lost
sales. For example, one company estimates that the cost of a three-day
shutdown of a particular process facility was $137,000. This estimate
included lost profits due to products that either would not be made at
all, or would be off-grade during the start-up and shutdown, plus
maintenance charges incurred by the facility. Another facility
estimated that to complete all necessary leak repair work should take
two days, but could reasonably be expected to take as many as six days
depending on the number or type of additional leaks discovered during
the repair operations. The lost profits could be as much as $171,000
per day for that facility.
In most cases shutting down a process cannot be done in an instant.
It may require hours or days to completely shut down all the process
equipment while avoiding any runaway chemical reactions that could lead
to fires, explosions, or other immediate hazards to human health and
the environment. It may take several days to release or control
hazardous energy and clean out pipes, storage tanks, and other
appropriate equipment to allow for a safe working environment.
Therefore, EPA believes it is necessary to propose additional time to
complete all necessary leak repair work for an industrial process
refrigeration facility where a process shutdown is necessary.
EPA is proposing a 120-day repair period, rather than a 30-day
repair period, in instances where an industrial process shutdown is
needed to repair a leak or leaks from industrial process refrigeration
equipment. EPA believes that the need to plan a process shutdown,
ensure appropriate personnel are available, lessen environmental
impacts and risks to human health, and to the extent possible, lessen
the economic impact, warrant the proposal of such additional time.
Although the system itself may not need to be shut down for the entire
120 days in order to make the repairs, the actual timing of beginning
the shutdown may be longer in order to avoid safety hazards and severe
economic disruptions. EPA believes that facilities have every incentive
to make repairs expeditiously, both because leaking refrigerant is very
costly and because production, once off-line, is severely curtailed or
halted until the system comes back up. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
allow 120 days for the owners or operators of industrial process
refrigeration facilities in instances where an industrial process
shutdown is needed to repair a leak or leaks from industrial process
refrigeration equipment. EPA requests comments on the appropriateness
of this proposed provision.
D. Determining the Full Charge of an Industrial Process Refrigerant
System
Section 82.156(i) requires that leaks be repaired if the equipment
is leaking at a specified rate in relation to the total charge of the
equipment. In order to ensure that additional time to repair leaks is
warranted and to ensure that the leaks are fully repaired, EPA believes
it is necessary to establish the correct full charge of refrigerant for
industrial process refrigeration systems prior to determining the leak
rate for the equipment. Refrigerant is contained as a liquid, gas, or
two-phase mixture in reservoirs, equipment, and various amounts of
piping. The equipment vendors may calculate the refrigerant capacity
for the devices they sell; however, such calculations may not include
all of the piping the system contains, as well as any piping that may
be added by the owner or operator that may differ from the original
engineering designed, and therefore increase the full charge of the
equipment.
One company recently completed construction and installation of an
industrial process refrigeration unit that was supposed to hold 70,000
pounds of refrigerant. In this case, the owner suspected a problem and
performed its own calculations, estimating a full charge of 96,000
pounds of refrigerant. When the company filled the system for the first
time, the system took 150,000 pounds of refrigerant. Had the owner
filled the system to the manufacturer's specifications, the system
would not have functioned well and the owner may have added
refrigerant, presumably attributing the need for additional refrigerant
to leaks.
For older refrigeration systems, the full charge may not have been
generally known. When those systems were built there were no regulatory
requirements that stipulated that owners or operators should know
exactly how much refrigerant constituted a full charge. Many
refrigerants were inexpensive to add or replace. Therefore, the owner
or operator may not have required that the full charge be recorded
routinely. Since the full charge was performance-based, it may have
varied with season, ambient temperature, or production rate.
EPA proposes the following methods for owners and operators of
industrial process refrigeration systems to determine the full charge
and requests comments on a methods. EPA has
[[Page 3996]]
received information indicating that there are at least five possible
methods for determining the full charge of a system. Each of these
methods has limitations. However, EPA believes that the alternative to
these methods would be to require the operators of industrial process
refrigeration equipment to evacuate the systems and add refrigerant a
little at a time while checking the effect on cooling. EPA believes
that an attempt to proceed in that manner would cause an unreasonable
burden on the affected community.The first method for determining
the full charge of the system is to rely on the manufacturers'
determinations. The benefit of this system is that typically the
manufacturer provides a single number rather than a range. The
limitations include the infrequency with which the manufacturer may
actually provide this information and the occasion to question the
number's accuracy. Questions concerning the accuracy of the number will
reflect the fact that industrial process refrigeration equipment is
often custom-built; therefore, a particular system may be a one-of-kind
appliance for which the manufacturer's determinations may only be an
estimate. Furthermore, the owner or operator of a particular system may
have made subsequent modifications, which would adjust the full charge
of the system. Moreover, even where the manufacturer's estimates may
initially appear reasonable, experience with actual use of the
equipment may indicate the need to revise the estimate.
The second method for determining the full charge of a system is to
require the owner or operator to do calculations. In some cases the
owners or operators of a system should be able to estimate a full
charge by calculations based on component sizes, flow rates, pressures,
and other considerations. Of course, these calculations may become very
complex due to the number of individual pipes, tubes, and other parts
the system contains. Additionally, each measurement or assumption that
goes into the total calculation will have a margin of error.
Consequently, although this method has the benefit of being based on
objective criteria and methods, the resulting number may be subject to
change as methods are refined or experience with the system increases.
The third method is to rely on actual measurements of the amount of
refrigerant added or evacuated from an industrial process refrigeration
system. Although this may be a more accurate method and would provide a
single number rather than a range of the full charge, evacuating a
system is not always practical. For example, evacuating the entire
charge may require a process shutdown and a place to store that
refrigerant. In addition, the exact measurement may only represent the
amount of refrigerant evacuated. Since the system could have been below
or above full charge when the evacuation was performed or some
refrigerant may have been lost during evacuation, the amount of
refrigerant evacuated may not be an accurate measure of the full charge
of the system.
A fourth method for determining the full charge of a system is to
choose a number from within an established range based on the best data
currently available. In situations where the refrigerant system
functions properly within a range of quantities, the owner or operator
may choose a number from within the range based on the data and
consider that number to be the full charge. Once a number is selected
that number would be considered the full charge. Over time the owner or
operator of the system may adjust this number based on new or revised
information concerning the performance of the system, thereby
potentially increasing the accuracy of the full charge estimate.
However, the drawback to this method is that there is no clarity
regarding the circumstances under which a change in the number could be
justified. An ever-changing estimate of the full charge defeats the
purpose of creating such a baseline. Therefore, the Agency proposes
that this method not be included in the list of method options from
which owners and operators can determine full charge.
The last method for determining the full charge of a system is to
establish a definition of full charge that is based on maximum cooling
performance. One possible approach is to define the full charge as the
minimum amount of refrigerant necessary for a system to achieve its
maximum refrigerant performance during times of maximum process heat
load. This would include consideration of the production process and
the most adverse ambient conditions normally encountered. This
definition has a major drawback. Because it is based on cooling
performance, it does not give a number in the context of pounds of
refrigerant in the system. Several other factors could affect cooling
performance, severely skewing the calculation of full charge.
EPA believes that it is appropriate to use any of the first three
methods to establish the full charge for an industrial process
refrigeration system; however, EPA believes that the last two methods
would not be appropriate. EPA is concerned with the last two methods
because of the lack of objectivity and the possibility for frequent
adjustments. Furthermore, EPA believes it is critical that the owners
or operators of a particular system use both a consistent and accurate
approach for determining the full refrigerant charge. Such an approach
may include one of the first three methods, or a combination of them to
establish the full charge of a system. For example, the owners or
operators may wish to consider the manufacturer's estimates in
conjunction with its own calculations. Once the full charge is
established, a leak rate can be based upon this number. However,
constantly changing the methodology for establishing the full charge
could alter the determination of the leak rate for the system. Within
reason, EPA could allow for a particular facility to adjust its method
for determining the full charge where a change would lead to a more
accurate estimate of the full charge; however, EPA would also take
consistency into account.
In today's action, EPA proposes that the first three methods, or a
combination of them, may be used to determine the full charge. EPA
requests comments on the five methods for determining the full charge
of a system discussed above, and the appropriateness of the methods
proposed. In addition, EPA requests comments on other potential methods
for establishing the full charge of an industrial process refrigeration
appliance.
E. Static and Dynamic Tests
EPA is proposing that the repair efforts required for industrial
process refrigeration equipment be those that sound engineering
judgment indicates will be sufficient to bring the leak rates below a
35 percent annual rate, that a static test be conducted at the
conclusion of the repairs to determine whether the repairs undertaken
were successfully completed, and that a dynamic test be conducted
within 30 days of bringing the system back on-line (if taken off-line)
or of completing the actual repairs, but no sooner than when the system
has achieved steady-state operating characteristics. EPA is also
proposing that the system not be brought back on-line, in the case
where it was taken off-line, until a static test indicates that the
repairs undertaken have been successfully completed. If the dynamic
test indicates that the repairs have not been successfully completed,
EPA proposes that the owner would be subject to a requirement to
retrofit or replace the equipment within one year of the failure to
verify that the repairs had been successfully completed or
[[Page 3997]]
such longer time period as may be granted under this proposal. A
retrofit plan would need to be submitted to EPA as discussed in F.1 of
this preamble and outlined in the proposed reporting requirements of
this proposed rulemaking. Moreover, EPA is proposing that the owner or
operator notify EPA of the failure within 30 days of the failed dynamic
verification test.To ensure that the leak repair work conducted on
industrial process refrigeration equipment, where additional repair
time has been granted, has been successful and that leaks have been
brought to below 35 percent per year, parties to the settlement agreed
that it is desirable and beneficial to perform leak checking tests
after the owners or operators of the facility have completed the
necessary work. The owners or operators of the industrial process
refrigeration system will be relying on sound engineering judgment to
determine the leak rate and to determine the type of leak tests to
perform. With regard to this rulemaking, EPA proposes to interpret
sound engineering or professional judgement to represent a combination
of the use of logic and operational experience, with methods of
calculation that are practical, based on training, experience and
education. As mentioned above, EPA believes two types of tests should
be conducted to ensure that the leak rates have been brought
successfully below 35 percent per year--a static test and dynamic test.
EPA is proposing to define static tests as those tests that take
place before the refrigeration system has been started again, in cases
where the system has been shut down. A static test, with regard to the
leak repairs that require the evacuation of the equipment or parts of
the equipment, is a test conducted prior to the replacement of the full
refrigerant charge and before the appliance or portion of the appliance
has reached operation at normal working conditions of temperature and
pressure. However, not all repairs require the evacuation of the
system. Often, systems are not evacuated to perform repairs. For
example, it is not necessary to evacuate the system to repair leaks for
piping or tubing connections such as flanges, unions, flare fittings,
and compression joints, leaks from gauges or control lines, leaks from
valve packing, or leaks from tubes in the heat exchanger if the leak is
at the tube sheet or the tube can be re-rolled or plugged. With respect
to repairs conducted without the evacuation of the refrigerant charge
or without a shutdown, a static test would mean a test conducted as
soon as practical after the conclusion of the repair work. In
situations where a system has been evacuated, the system may not be
brought back on-line until a static test indicates that the repairs
undertaken have been successfully completed.
EPA is proposing to define a dynamic test as a leak test, performed
using sound engineering judgment, that involves checking the repairs
within 30 days of returning to steady-state operating characteristics,
or where steady-state has been maintained, within 30 days after the
repairs have been completed. Steady-state operating characteristics
refer to the conditions present when operating at temperatures,
pressures, fluid flows, speeds and other characteristics that would
normally be expected for a given process load and ambient condition.
Steady-state operating characteristics are marked by the absence of
atypical conditions affecting the operation of the refrigeration
system. Dynamic tests for equipment from which the refrigerant charge
has been evacuated would mean a test conducted after the appliance or
portion of the appliance has resumed operation at steady-state or
normal operating conditions of temperature and pressure.
With respect to repairs conducted without evacuation of the
refrigerant charge, dynamic tests would mean a reverification test
conducted after the static test. Since the system was not evacuated, it
would only be necessary to conclude any required changes in pressure,
temperature or other conditions to return the system to a steady-state
for operations. This test would be performed within 30 days of return
to steady-state operation.
EPA is further considering an alternative of allowing the dynamic
test to be conducted prior to achieving steady-state operations where
the system was evacuated if reassembly and operation will make the
testing more difficult and less reliable. In these circumstances the
dynamic test could be conducted without resuming steady-state
operations, but with a standard operation pressure or temperature for
the appliance. EPA is also concerned about how to judge whether such a
test actually is more reliable than a test conducted after the system
has been completely returned to steady-state operations. Therefore, EPA
is not proposing to allow for this type of dynamic test alternative,
but requests comments on the need for such an alternative and under
what conditions it would be reasonable to accept such an approach.
If the dynamic test indicates that the repairs have not been
successfully completed, the owner or operator of the system would be
required to retrofit or replace the equipment within one year of the
failure to verify that the repairs had been successfully completed or
within such longer time period as may be granted under this proposal. A
retrofit plan would need to be submitted to EPA as discussed in F.1 of
this preamble and outlined in the proposed reporting requirements of
this rule. In addition, EPA is proposing that the owner or operator
notify the Agency of failure within 30 days of the failed dynamic
verification test. The Agency believes that in most cases the
industrial process facility will already be subject to the reporting
requirements discussed in today's action, since most of these repairs
will take longer than 30 days to complete. Therefore, this information
will be reported as part of the requirements contained in the
discussion for allowing more than 30 days to complete repairs. However,
if there is a case where a failed dynamic test could in fact occur as
part of a method of completing all repairs within 30 days, the
industrial process facility would need to submit information as part of
its submittal of a retrofit or replacement plan.
The above definitions of static and dynamic tests would allow the
same test methodologies in certain circumstances to be categorized as
both a static test or a dynamic test, depending upon when and under
what conditions the tests are performed. Furthermore, this definition
does not specify which type of static or dynamic test should be used
under which circumstances. Due to the unique situations faced by each
industrial process facility, EPA believes it is important for that
decision to be based upon sound engineering or professional judgment.
EPA requests comment on the proposed definitions of static and dynamic
tests, including the need to perform a static test as soon as is
practical after completing repairs, and the need to conduct a dynamic
test within 30 days of returning to normal operating conditions. In
addition, EPA requests comments on the associated recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.
Below are examples of various test methods that EPA believes
represent acceptable forms of static and dynamic tests. EPA wishes to
clarify that other types of tests may exist. Today's proposal, however,
does not identify any particular type of test that must be used. EPA
requests comments on the appropriateness of these tests as well as
others not specified in this proposal.
[[Page 3998]]
Soap Bubble Test
A simple leak test method can be performed by applying a soap
bubble solution to potential leak sources and seeing if bubbles form.
This is an inexpensive method that should not pose any explosion hazard
and can provide a qualitative estimate of a leak rate. This method
cannot work as a dynamic test for systems under vacuum, leak points
cold enough to freeze the solution, or points that are inaccessible
because of insulation, tightness of space, or some other constraining
factor. However, a soap bubble test could be used as a dynamic test in
other circumstances. It can also serve as a static test if the
insulation is removed, and the system is at an acceptable temperature
and under pressure.
Electronic Leak Detectors
Electronic leak detectors identify the presence of specific
refrigerants and give a reading on the degree of a leak within a range
allowed by the detector, usually by an audible alarm that may be
accompanied by lights. These detectors have movable probes that can be
put into some places where a soap bubble test would be difficult. For
example, an electronic detector can be used for the underside of a
fitting. However, the effectiveness of electronic leak detectors can be
reduced by the presence of insulation, particularly if the insulation
was blown with an ozone-depleting substance. Other limitations include
the potential for false readings due to previously leaked refrigerants
soaking the insulation. Also, the usefulness of these detectors is
limited because the point at which a leak is shown may not be the
actual spot at which the leak occurred. In some instances, a space
between the insulation and the pipe is caused by irregularities in the
outer configuration of a pipe, such as flanges or valves. Some
electronic detectors heat the sampled gases before analyzing them.
Therefore, there could be a risk of explosion under certain conditions.
Despite these limitations, in many circumstances, electronic leak
detection represents a useful static or dynamic test option.
Ultrasonic Detectors
Ultrasonic detectors respond to the high frequency noise generated
by a leak. In some instances, these detectors may be appropriate for
static or dynamic tests. One major advantage of these detectors is the
ability to detect leaks from several feet away. This is particularly
useful for leaks that may occur in otherwise inaccessible locations.
However, facilities may often generate background noise that could
interfere with the effectiveness of the ultrasonic detectors. Where
appropriate, these detectors can be used to perform either static or
dynamic tests.
F. Failed Verification Tests
Through this action, EPA is proposing that an industrial process
refrigeration system, if taken off-line, not be brought back on-line
until a static test indicates that the repairs undertaken have been
successfully completed. EPA is further proposing that a dynamic test be
performed within 30 days to verify that the leaks have been
successfully completed. Since a static test typically does not occur
during steady-state operations, test results may not be consistent with
the results of the more reliable dynamic test. EPA has considered the
possibility of a system failing the dynamic test after the system has
been brought back on-line or after the repairs have been made. EPA
believes that if a system fails a dynamic test, appropriate action must
be taken. EPA is proposing to allow the owners or operators of the
system to attempt repairs a second time or take other corrective action
that will result in an overall leak rate that does not exceed 35
percent per year. If none of these approaches is successful, then
owners or operators of the system would be required to retrofit or
retire the facility.
Requirement to Retrofit or Retire the Leaking Equipment
EPA is proposing that if the dynamic test indicates that the
repairs have not been successfully completed, the owner would be
required to retrofit or replace the equipment within one year of the
failure to verify that the repairs had been successfully completed or
within such longer time period as may be granted under this proposal.
EPA believes that where the leak rates for industrial process
refrigeration equipment continue to exceed 35 percent per year, it is
necessary to retrofit or retire the facility, which could include
replacing the existing equipment. Furthermore, within 30 days of a
failed dynamic test, the owners or operators of the industrial process
refrigeration facility would be required to submit to EPA a plan for
retrofitting or retiring the leaking equipment. This requirement would
be similar in scope to that described in Sec. 82.156(i)(3) of the final
rule published May 14, 1993. However, in this case, a copy of a
retrofit/replace/ retire plan would be submitted to EPA, rather than
just be available to EPA upon request. In addition, the plan would
include information concerning the repairs attempted to date, and the
parameters used for the unsuccessful dynamic test.
Option for Second Repair Attempt
EPA recognizes that in some cases the industrial process facility
may discover, through its failed repair efforts and verification tests,
another means for repairing the refrigerant leaks; or perhaps the
repairs undertaken by the facility were merely not completed
successfully. For example, if the leak was in the valve packing, it is
possible that the gland nut was not tightened sufficiently. Therefore,
repeating the process of tightening the gland nut may lead to a
successful dynamic test. EPA also recognizes the large costs involved
with retrofitting or retiring certain industrial process refrigeration
systems. Therefore, due to the complexity of adequately finding and
repairing leaks, EPA believes that in certain circumstances it may be
reasonable to allow the owners and operators of the industrial process
refrigeration equipment to have a second opportunity to complete
repairs.
EPA is proposing that the owner or operator of an industrial
process refrigeration unit be relieved of the obligation to retrofit or
replace the equipment if a second attempt to repair the same leaks that
were the subject of the first repair attempt is undertaken within 30
days of the failed dynamic verification test or within 120 days in the
case of repairs for which an industrial process shutdown is necessary,
and is successful subject to the same verification requirements as the
first attempt at repair. The owner or operator would be required to
notify EPA within 30 days of the successful dynamic verification test
and the owner or operator would no longer be subject to the obligation
to retrofit or replace the equipment that arose as a consequence of the
initial failure to repair the leaks successfully. EPA believes that it
is necessary to allow for a second repair attempt and believes that the
speed with which this proposed second repair attempt must be
accomplished will reasonably limit the amount of refrigerant
potentially released to the atmosphere.
Option To Reduce Other Equipment Leaks
EPA believes it possible, that while the particular leak originally
identified by the owners or operators of the industrial process
facility cannot be successfully repaired, other leak sources could be
eliminated or practices changed to reduce the annual leak rate to below
35 percent. EPA believes it is not possible to establish a zero leak
rate
[[Page 3999]]
for most industrial process refrigeration equipment. Leaks will occur
to some extent in locations such as threaded connections, valve
packing, compressor shaft seals and flange seals. Industrial process
refrigeration equipment contains many of these potential leak sources,
many of which may not be directly accessible because they are packed in
ice or insulation. These seals typically depend upon a polymer or other
flexible material that is compressed between smooth metal surfaces to
form a seal. A perfect seal is virtually impossible. Therefore, all
such seals will have a small leak rate. Scratches on the metal surface,
dirt at the sealing surface, embrittlement, abrasion/deformation from
shaft rotation and valve manipulation, or gradual extrusion,
deformation of the polymer under temperature cycling and pressure could
all increase the leak rates. Leaks may also occur anywhere in the
system where corrosion or metal fatigue can cause mechanical failure.
If the refrigeration system operates under pressure, the refrigerant
may be lost by direct leakage. If the system operates at less than
atmospheric pressure, that is under partial vacuum, then noncondensable
gases will be drawn into the system and small amounts of refrigerant
may be lost when these noncondensables are vented through the purge
valve.Industrial process refrigeration systems have many potential
sources of leaks. If a sufficient number of other leaks can be repaired
creating a situation where the originally identified leak or leaks
remain, but the overall leak rate has been successfully reduced to
below 35 percent per year, EPA believes that the owner or operator of
the facility has still in effect met its obligation under the rule.
EPA is more concerned with the percent of refrigerant being
released than the actual source of the refrigerant leaked. Therefore,
EPA is proposing that the owner or operator of an industrial process
refrigeration unit be relieved of the obligation to retrofit or replace
the equipment if, within 180 days of the failed dynamic verification
test, the owner or operator establishes that the system's annual leak
rate does not exceed 35 percent. If the equipment owner or operator
establishes that the system's annual leak rate does not exceed 35
percent, the owner or operator would be required to notify EPA within
30 days of that determination and the owner or operator would no longer
be subject to the obligation to retrofit or replace the equipment that
arose as a consequence of the initial failure to repair the leaks
successfully. The determination of whether the system's annual leak
rate exceeds 35 percent would be determined in accordance with
parameters identified by the owner or operator in its notice to EPA
regarding the failure of the initial dynamic verification test
discussed above.
EPA believes that this scheme for treating a failed dynamic test
provides an appropriate level of flexibility for the affected
community. Industrial process refrigerant equipment owners or operators
would be required to retrofit or retire the system, unless a second
attempt to repair the leaks is successful, or another method for
achieving a leak rate of less than 35 percent per year can be achieved
within the limited timeframes discussed above. Furthermore, the owners
or operators would be required to maintain records and report
information to EPA so that the Agency can establish that a viable
approach is being followed by the owners or operators of the affected
facilities.
EPA requests comments on this proposed scheme for allowing a
flexible approach to be used by the owners or operators of industrial
process refrigerant equipment that have failed a dynamic test. EPA also
requests comments on ways in which to simplify or make more clear the
differences between when a static or dynamic test is appropriate, or if
other terminology would provide greater clarity.
G. Clarification of Levels to Which Leaks Must be Repaired Leak Rate
Through this action, EPA is also proposing a clarification to
Sec. 82.156(i) (1) and (2). As a part of the settlement agreement, EPA
agreed that for industrial process and commercial sources, leaks needed
to be repaired such that the leak rate was brought back to a level
below the 35annual rate. EPA believes that parallel clarification for
comfort-cooling and commercial sources will provide equitability,
rather than requiring a repair of ``all'' leaks for comfort-cooling
systems.
As discussed above, EPA is proposing to revise the requirements for
industrial process refrigeration equipment currently under
Sec. 82.156(i)(1) to require the owners and operators of this equipment
to reduce leaks to a rate of less than 35 percent per year. However,
EPA would allow these affected systems to operate as long as the leak
rate does not exceed that amount. Therefore, EPA believes it is
appropriate to also revise the regulations regarding commercial and
comfort-cooling equipment to provide that the obligation to repair
leaks triggered by an exceedance of the leak rate is an obligation to
repair all leaks sufficient to bring the leak rate below 35and 15,
respectively, per year, rather than to bring the leak rate down to
zero.
Therefore, EPA proposes to clarify that in repairing leaks on
equipment subject to the 15 2.121996e-313ak rate, one must bring leaks down below
the 15threshold in order to comply and in repairing commercial
refrigeration equipment, one must bring leaks down below the 35
threshold in order to comply. While it may be less difficult to locate
and repair leaks found in comfort-cooling and commercial refrigeration
appliances, to some extent, many of these systems may also contain leak
sources that can be difficult to locate and repair. This may be
particularly true for certain types of commercial refrigeration
appliances.
EPA requests comment on the proposed modification to the current
language in Sec. 82.156(i)(1) and (2).
H. Extension for Retrofitting a Facility
EPA believes that it may be reasonable to permit additional time
beyond the one year established by the current regulations for the
retrofitting of certain industrial process refrigeration equipment. EPA
believes there are specific concerns relating to the need for special
design, engineering, ordering and installation difficulties for some
industrial process refrigeration equipment. It may take weeks or in
some cases months to determine available options and develop
specifications before it is possible to design a retrofitted facility
and subsequently install the equipment. Even when special design plans
are not necessary and the repairs may appear simple, the uniqueness of
these large systems may dictate that new or replacement parts cannot be
obtained in time to meet either 30-day repair requirement or the oneyear
retrofit deadline.
Parts for other types of systems, such as comfort-cooling, are more
likely to be mass-produced, widely distributed, readily transportable
and capable of quick installation. Parts for industrial process
refrigeration equipment are often more difficult to obtain and install.
If a part has to be specially manufactured, special-ordered, or
fabricated on-site, the company may not be able to complete the repair
within one year. For example, one company has indicated that its
supplier is quoting 44-46 weeks for the delivery of a 1000-ton water
chiller, with a charge of approximately 10,000 pounds of refrigerant.
The company estimates that it needs 5-7 weeks to negotiate an
[[Page 4000]]
acceptable proposal prior to ordering the equipment. Installation may
take 10-14 weeks. Therefore, this company believes it will take 59-67
weeks to replace this pre-packaged industrial unit. Another company has
a facility with four process refrigeration systems for chlorine
production, each with a compressor driven by a 4,000 horsepower motor
and refrigerant charge of approximately 175,000 pounds. These are
massive systems that were individually engineered for the needs of the
plant and any changes will also have to be engineered on an individual
basis. The owner believes that even under ideal circumstances
retrofitting the facility may take three years.\2\\2\Information
EPA has received to date indicates that this system will most likely
take the longest of those reviewed to retrofit.
EPA is proposing to revise Sec. 82.156(i)(3) to allow more than one
year to complete the retrofit of industrial process refrigeration
equipment in certain circumstances. While the scenarios described above
may justify more than one year to retrofit a facility, EPA does not
believe additional time is always necessary. Therefore, EPA intends to
only allow for additional time when the owners or operators of the
industrial process refrigeration equipment can provide information
detailing the need for additional time in accordance with the proposed
requirements described below.
Additional Time Based on Regulatory Delays and/or the Need for a
Suitable Replacement
EPA is proposing that additional time, to the extent reasonably
necessary, would be allowed due to delays occasioned by the
requirements of other applicable federal, state, or local regulations,
or due to the unavailability of a suitable replacement refrigerant with
a lower ozone depletion potential. To be a suitable replacement, a
refrigerant would have to be acceptable under section 612(c) of the Act
and implementing regulations, compatible with other materials with
which it may come into contact, and be able to achieve the temperatures
required for the process in a technically feasible manner.
If these circumstances apply, the owner or operator of the facility
would have to notify EPA within six months after the 30-day period
following the discovery of an exceedance of the 35 2.121996e-313ak rate. Records
that would provide evidence that other regulations or the
unavailability of a suitable alternative refrigerant prevent retrofit
or replacement within one year must be submitted to EPA to allow EPA to
determine that these provisions apply and assess the length of time
necessary to complete the work. EPA proposes that it notify the owner
or operator of its determination within 60 days of submittal. Specific
recordkeeping requirements are discussed later in this subsection. EPA
proposes that such records be maintained by the owner or operator and
kept on-site.
EPA has already discussed examples of the types of other federal,
state, or local regulations that may limit the ability of a facility to
retrofit within one year. One example involved delays that would impact
the ability of any facility in California that intended to retrofit
using ammonia. Because ammonia is treated as a hazardous substance
under the California RMPP program, companies need to prepare risk
management plans that meet the approval of the local fire department
before ammonia can be brought to the site. For one company, the process
of receiving such approval took six months. Since other activities may
be delayed or revised based on the acceptability or unacceptability of
the risk management plans, more than one year may be necessary to
complete retrofit activities.
Regulations promulgated under section 612 of the Act, known as the
Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program, establish
acceptable and unacceptable alternatives for particular end-uses,
including refrigeration. The SNAP program regulations were published on
March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13045). Subsequently, additional alternatives
were approved on August 26, 1994 (59 FR 44240). To date, several
replacement substances with lower ozone-depleting potentials have been
listed as acceptable by the Agency. However, there has been difficulty
in locating acceptable alternatives for R-22 systems that have flooded
evaporators.
A flooded-evaporator system uses a pool of refrigerant, which
absorbs heat as it vaporizes. All potential replacements to date are
non-azeotropic in these systems, meaning they consist of components
that do not vaporize uniformly. This has the effect of making the
refrigeration system function like a distillation column, and greatly
reduces the system's cooling capacity to the point where it probably
will not be able to perform its intended function. In addition, a
replacement refrigerant must be compatible with the manufacturing
process to be cooled. There is always the potential for leaks to occur
that could result in the intermingling of the refrigerant and the
process chemicals. If an inappropriate chemical is selected as a
refrigerant, this potential intermingling could cause a chemical
reaction that would damage or destroy refrigeration equipment or
process equipment and potentially create a risk to human health or the
environment.
Any refrigerant may theoretically be capable of achieving virtually
any operating temperature; however, the amount of energy required to
compress and circulate each refrigerant at given temperatures varies
widely. It is not uncommon to determine that one refrigerant may
require four times as much horsepower per ton of refrigeration capacity
as another. The lower the temperature, the wider the difference. At any
given temperature, particularly extremely low temperatures, some
refrigerants may be able to utilize lower-powered, more efficient
compressors while other refrigerants would need extremely large,
powerful multiple-stage compressors. Physical constraints, such as the
size of the room into which the refrigeration system must fit, may need
to be considered. Therefore, the horsepower requirements could make a
particular refrigerant impractical as a replacement.
EPA believes that it is appropriate to require the owners and
operators of industrial process refrigeration equipment needing more
than one year to complete retrofitting the system to maintain certain
records and submit information to the Agency. Through this action, EPA
is proposing that if additional time is necessary due to regulatory
delays or the need for a suitable replacement, the owner or operator of
the facility would have to notify EPA within six months after the 30-
day period following the discovery of an exceedance of the 35 percent
leak rate. Records necessary to allow a determination that these
provisions apply and that document the length of time necessary to
complete the work would need to be maintained. EPA believes that these
records and the information submitted to EPA should include the
following:
(1) Identification of the industrial process facility;
(2) Leak rate;
(3) Method used to determine the leak rate and full charge;
(4) Date a leak rate of 35 percent or greater was discovered;
(5) Location of leaks(s) to the extent determined to date;
(6) Any repair work that has been completed thus far and the date
that work was completed;
(7) Plan to complete the retrofit or replacement of the system;
[[Page 4001]]
(8) Reasons why more than one year is necessary to retrofit or
replace the system;
(9) Date of notification to EPA;
(10) Estimate of when retrofit or replacement work will be
completed;
(11) If time changes for original estimates, document reason for
changes; and
(12) Date of notification to EPA of timing change. The last two
items would only be required to be submitted as needed for a timing
change.
EPA believes that most of the information included in these
proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements may be routinely
maintained by the owners and operators of industrial process
facilities. Where the records may not be routinely kept, the
information EPA is proposing to require should not pose an undue burden
to the affected community. Moreover, since EPA must base a
determination of whether the circumstances faced by the owners or
operators of the industrial process refrigeration equipment are such
that additional time beyond the one year is reasonable, EPA requires
this information in order to make an informed determination.
EPA requests comments on the need to provide additional time for
the completion of retrofit activities for industrial process
refrigeration equipment based on other applicable regulations and/or
unavailability of acceptable refrigerants. In addition, EPA requests
comments on the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements
discussed in this section.
Additional Time Based on the Unavailability of Necessary Parts
Through this action, EPA is proposing that an additional one-year
period beyond the initial one-year retrofit period be allowed for
industrial process refrigeration equipment if four criteria are met:
(1) The new or retrofitted refrigeration system is custom-built
(meaning if it or any of its critical components cannot be purchased
and/or installed without being specifically designed), fabricated and/
or assembled to satisfy a specific set of industrial process
conditions; (2) the supplier of the system or one or more of its
crucial components has quoted a delivery time of more than 30 weeks
from when the order is placed; (3) the owner or operator notifies EPA
within six months of the expiration of the 30-day period following the
discovery of an exceedance of the 35 percent leak rate to identify the
owner or operator, describe the system involved, explain why more than
one year is needed, and demonstrate that the first two criteria are
met; and (4) the owner or operator maintains records adequate to allow
a determination that the criteria are met.
EPA believes that a new or retrofitted refrigeration system should
be considered custom-built if it or any of its critical components
cannot be purchased and/or installed without being specifically
designed, fabricated and/or assembled to satisfy a specific set of
industrial process conditions. A critical component could be defined as
a component without which an industrial process refrigeration system
will not function, will be unsafe in its intended environment, or will
be subject to failures that would cause the industrial process served
by the refrigeration system to be unsafe. This proposed definition
includes the need to consider the intended environment because of the
potential uniqueness of conditions under which the system is required
to operate. For example, some refrigeration systems must be operated in
the presence of potentially corrosive substances, or flammable or
combustible atmospheres. It may be necessary to ensure containment of
toxic chemicals, or to ensure that potentially reactive chemicals are
separated from each other. There may be high pressures or temperatures
that could pose physical hazards if not restrained.
EPA intends for the term unsafe to include risks to human health
and the environment. The term potentially could also refer to risks
associated with property loss. For example, if cooling is needed to
prevent runaway polymerization of process chemicals, then the sudden
failure of the system could lead to an uncontrolled exothermic
reaction, which could include a fire or potentially an explosion. While
this clearly poses risks to human health and the environment, other
operating conditions may be more likely to lead to property damage. EPA
requests comments on this proposed definition of critical components
and whether property damage should be included as part of this
definition.
The industrial process refrigeration sector uses refrigeration in
an extremely broad range of cooling capacities and temperature levels
as well as a variety of applications. These conditions dictate the
design, fabrication, and/or assembly of the refrigeration system and
are responsible for the sheer diversity of mechanical specifications
and equipment designs that comprise the industrial process
refrigeration sector. These process conditions vary greatly from
manufacturing process to manufacturing process. Below are examples of
various process conditions that may need to be considered.
In the industrial sector, refrigeration systems are frequently used
to cool highly corrosive product streams. As a result heat exchange
evaporator tubes must be constructed of special materials and heavy
wall thickness.
In the industrial sector, high pressures and high temperatures,
particularly on the process side, are frequently encountered. As a
result, process-side construction may have to withstand pressures
seldomly encountered in commercial service. In addition, an extreme
difference in temperature between the process inlet and outlet is
common and requires consideration to be given to thermal stresses.
Industrial manufacturing operations with extremely low temperature
requirements can result in high viscosities on the process side of the
equipment. Although in the commercial sector, evaporators are designed
with tubes of small inside diameter to achieve optimum heat transfer
performance, tubes with extra-large inside diameters may be required to
handle viscous streams. These high viscosities may require that an
evaporator be equipped with rotating internal scrapers within tubes to
provide for continual scraping of the heat transfer wall and facilitate
the flow of the high viscosity fluid through the evaporator.
Manufacturing operations may be batch or continuous. A batch
operation implies that operating conditions are expected to change over
time usually in a repetitive pattern and therefore, the system must be
designed for all extremes. In a continuous operation, temperatures,
pressure, flow levels, composition, and other process parameters do not
change with time.
Some manufacturing processes may yield products that are highly
corrosive, highly viscous, or under high pressure and therefore not
well suited for use in a refrigerant evaporator. Conditions such as
these may require that the process fluid be cooled by an intermediate
liquid, such as water that is itself cooled by evaporating the
refrigerant. The selection of the liquid will be driven by the process
condition. Some areas of the country have tight restrictions on water
usage. In situations where water is utilized to cool equipment, river,
lake, or well-water may provide the most economical cooling medium. In
these instances, water treatment and special construction materials may
be necessary.
EPA believes that the above scenarios represent specific sets of
industrial
[[Page 4002]]
process conditions encountered by owners and operators of industrial
process refrigeration equipment. However, EPA believes there are many
other similar types of conditions that other industrial process
refrigeration equipment owners or operators face. Therefore, this list
of potential conditions is not intended to be all-inclusive.EPA
believes it is appropriate to provide additional time when a supplier
of the system or one or more of its critical components has quoted a
delivery time of more than 30 weeks from when the order is placed,
assuming the order was placed in a timely fashion. EPA realizes that it
may not be possible to specify a date by which the parts must be
ordered. This is true because of the need to identify the specific leak
point, determine the cause, decide appropriate action, create
specifications and obtain any necessary modification approvals from
facility managers and/or other regulatory entities. EPA believes that
the 30-week time frame acknowledges that other activities, such as
designing, installing, testing, etc. will more than fill up the
remainder of the year. Thus, no matter when these facilities order the
parts, if the suppliers quote 30 weeks or longer, they are already in
the two-year time track for retrofitting or replacing the system. EPA
believes that facilities have an incentive to expedite repairs,
retrofits or replacements in order to avoid losing valuable refrigerant
and to continue production under an efficiently running system.
However, EPA does believe that, while it proposes additional time if
delivery time is quoted as 30 weeks or more, a log of when the parts
were ordered should be maintained by the company. This is especially
critical for facilities that may later request an extension beyond the
two years.
The owner or operator would be required to notify EPA within six
months of the expiration of the 30-day period following the discovery
of an exceedance of the 35 percent leak rate, to identify the owner or
operator, describe the system involved, explain why more than one year
is needed, and demonstrate that the first two criteria discussed above
are met; and the owner or operator would be required to maintain
records adequate to allow a determination that the criteria are met.
This information would be maintained and reported using the
recordkeeping scheme described in the section II.H.1. All of the
information described here would fit within that scheme. EPA believes
using the same recordkeeping and reporting requirements will streamline
the requirements for the affected community and will lessen the
regulatory burden.
EPA requests comment on the need to provide one year beyond the
initial one year to complete all retrofitting or replacement activities
when the facility is custom-built and when a supplier is quoting more
than 30 weeks for delivery of a crucial component. EPA also requests
comments on the associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements
discussed in this section.
Additional Time Beyond the One Additional Year
EPA believes that in an extremely limited number of cases
additional time beyond the one additional year may be necessary to
retrofit or replace a system. Through this action, EPA is proposing
that if more than one additional year is needed, the owner may request
EPA to extend the deadline for completing all retrofit or replacement
action. EPA proposes that such a request be submitted to EPA before the
end of the ninth month of the additional year that was granted to
retrofit, replace or retire the system. The request would be required
to include revisions to that information submitted for the first
additional year as proposed under Sec. 82.166(o). Unless EPA objects to
the request within 30 days of receipt, it would be deemed approved.
As EPA has earlier noted, one facility estimates that it will take
three years to retrofit or replace its refrigeration units. These
particular units have refrigerant charges of approximately 175,000
pounds each and are used in the processing of chlorine. The owner of
that system has many other facilities that will be able to complete all
retrofit or replacement work without need for this additional time
extension. While EPA believes that in certain cases additional time may
be necessary, EPA is concerned with scope of such an extension. As
noted in the discussion concerning ordering parts, EPA would not favor
an extension caused by a company delaying to place orders for
components or other similar scenarios. EPA intends this extension to be
granted only in cases where the actual nature of the retrofit or
replacement activities is such that the additional time beyond the one
year is crucial. The submittal of revised information requesting
additional time under this provision could be consistent with submittal
of information requesting additional time beyond the one-year
timeframe. As stated in the discussion regarding the need for an
additional year to complete retrofit or replacement activities, EPA
believes that using the same recordkeeping and reporting scheme for all
retrofit extensions lessens the burden for the affected community.
EPA requests comment on the need to provide additional time beyond
the one additional year for industrial process refrigeration equipment,
where necessary. In addition, EPA requests comments on the potential
number of facilities and the potential reasons that may be cited for
requesting such an extension. Furthermore, EPA requests comments on the
associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
I. Allowing Appliances To Be Pressurized to Slightly Above 0 Psig
Members of the regulated community have requested that EPA revise
requirements relating to oil changes. However, members of industry have
expressed concern with respect to the status of small quantities of
refrigerant that may escape from the appliance itself while oil is
being removed.
Sections 82.156 and 82.158 call for evacuation of the refrigerant
from the appliance, to a specified level of vacuum (or to atmospheric
pressure, for non-major repairs that are not followed by an evacuation
of the appliance to the environment). However, new information
indicates that these levels of vacuum may often be impractical during
oil changes. A small positive pressure is needed during oil changes, to
force the oil from its reservoir. Oil will not flow from a reservoir
that is under vacuum. Therefore, EPA is proposing to allow owners or
operators to evacuate the appliance to slightly above atmospheric
pressure specifically, to a pressure not exceeding 5 psig to perform
oil changes. EPA believes that this approach will reduce emissions of
ozone-depleting refrigerants to the atmosphere, and thus will have an
overall positive impact on the environment. There are three principal
reasons why this approach should produce an environmental benefit.
First, oil changes are a necessary part of preventive maintenance.
If owners or operators are required to draw a deep vacuum before oil
changes, that will add significant delay and expense, serving as a
disincentive to regular oil changes. If appliances are not regularly
maintained, they are more likely to break down and increase their
emissions of refrigerant. They will also be more subject to
catastrophic failures that could result in release of the entire
refrigerant charge. Second, if a deep vacuum is required, air and
moisture will be drawn into the system and will need to be purged
later, which will result in emissions of refrigerant. This can be
minimized by filling the
[[Page 4003]]
appliance with an inert gas such as nitrogen. However, the nitrogen
would then need to be purged (releasing entrained refrigerant) before
the appliance can be restored to operation.Any environmental costs,
i.e., additional emissions that accompany this procedure are likely to
be small. When an appliance is brought nearly to atmospheric pressure,
the great majority of the ozone-depleting refrigerants will be drawn
from the compressor oil and recovered. This means there will not be
significant emissions from the compressor oil after the oil has been
removed from the appliance.
During oil changes, some quantity of refrigerant will be emitted
from two different sources: from the oil that was removed, and from the
appliance itself. Section 608(c) of the Act makes it unlawful to
knowingly vent class I or class II refrigerants from appliances during
servicing and maintenance, other than de minimis releases associated
with good-faith efforts to recover the refrigerant. The regulation
specifies that when the recovery procedures identified in Secs. 82.156
and 82.158 are followed, any remaining emissions of refrigerant will be
de minimis. EPA has thus determined that emissions of refrigerant from
the oil are not subject to this prohibition.
EPA is thus proposing to revise requirements of
Sec. 82.156(a)(2)(i) to allow appliances to be pressurized up to 5 psig
in order to change oil in industrial process refrigeration equipment.
J. Treatment of Purged Refrigerant
EPA would like to clarify that the Agency interprets the 35 percent
leak rate in the regulations as not including emissions of purged
refrigerant that are destroyed, if their destruction is accounted for
and can be verified by records maintained by the owners or operators of
the industrial process refrigeration equipment. If purged refrigerant
is destroyed using one of the five destruction technologies approved by
the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, EPA can consider that refrigerant
to have been destroyed and therefore, not part of the leak rate for the
system. These destruction technologies are liquid injection
incineration, reactor cracking incineration, gaseous fume oxidation,
rotary kiln incineration and cement kiln.
Industrial process refrigerant systems may vary greatly with regard
to their use of purges. In considering purges, it is important to note
the flow rate and the composition of the vent stream. For example,
systems with a flow that is constant allow for the flow to be measured
automatically. Systems that have intermittent mechanical purge units,
or those with a batch production process may have greater variability
and need a greater frequency of recording the amount of refrigerant
purged.
EPA believes it is appropriate that in determining the rate of
refrigerant loss, the owner or operator may exclude quantities of
refrigerant sent for destruction by using an approved destruction
technology under the Montreal Protocol. In deciding whether credit
shall be given for the entire quantity sent for destruction or only for
a percent of the actual refrigerant destroyed, the applicable
provisions of the phaseout regulations (58 FR 65018) shall apply. The
phaseout rule states that if the technology not only is approved under
the Montreal Protocol, but also meets or exceeds a 98 10estruction
efficiency (DE), then 10012f the material may be considered destroyed.
Below a 98DE, credit is given only for the actual percentage
destroyed.
Facilities that wish to utilize this exclusion would need to
maintain records that are sufficient to support the amount of
refrigerant claimed as sent for destruction. All records should be
based on a monitoring strategy that will provide reliable data to
demonstrate that the amount of refrigerant sent for destruction
corresponds with the amount of refrigerant purged. Records should
include the flow rate, quantity or concentration of the refrigerant in
the vent stream, and periods of purge flow. An owner or operator using
this exclusion should submit information to EPA that includes the
identification of the facility and a contact person, including the
address and telephone number. A general description of the refrigerant
system should also be submitted, focusing on aspects of the system
relevant to the purging of refrigerant and subsequent destruction, in
addition to a description of the methods used to determine the quantity
of refrigerant sent for destruction and type of records that are being
kept by the facility. The frequency of monitoring and data-recording
shall also be included. A description of the control device, and its
destruction efficiency would be required. This information should be
submitted within 60 days after the first time the exclusion is utilized
by a facility. It should also be included in any reporting requirements
required for compliance with the leak repair and retrofit requirements
for industrial process refrigeration equipment in order to verify
accurate leak rates.
EPA requests comments on the appropriateness of exempting purged
refrigerant that has been destroyed using one of the approved
destruction technologies under the Montreal Protocol. In addition, EPA
requests comments on the recordkeeping and reporting procedures with
which EPA would expect the owners or operators of industrial process
refrigerant equipment to comply, if they choose to utilize an exemption
for purged refrigerant that has been destroyed.
K. Temporarily Mothballing Equipment Prior to Repairing Leaks
EPA understands that for some of the equipment subject to the leak
repair requirements promulgated under Sec. 82.156(i), it may be
possible for the owner or operator of the appliance to discontinue use
of the equipment on a temporary basis, perhaps on a seasonal basis.
This may also be true for equipment other than industrial process
refrigeration appliances that are integrally linked to a manufacturing
process. For example, it may be reasonable to shut down or mothball a
comfort-cooling system for a period of time.
This type of system mothballing would not be the same as a process
shutdown undertaken to repair particular leaks found in industrial
process refrigeration or perform other maintenance activities. Also,
this type of shutdown or mothballing is not the same as being taken
off-line due to a power outage or event. A system mothballing is an
intentional shutting down of the refrigerant appliance undertaken for
an extended period of time by the owners or operators of that
facility--not for the purposes of servicing or repairing the
appliance--where the refrigerant has been evacuated.
If a facility is temporarily mothballed, EPA believes it is
appropriate to suspend the time-relevant repair and/or retrofit
requirements while the facility is effectively inoperative. For
example, if a comfort-cooling system with over 50 pounds of refrigerant
has a leak rate of more than 15 percent per year, the leak or leaks
must be repaired or the system must be retrofitted within one year.
However, if after discovery of the exceedance of the leak rate, the
owner of the system voluntarily mothballs the system for a period of
several months or years, EPA believes it is appropriate to suspend the
need to repair leaks or retrofit the system during the same time
period. Therefore, if the system operated for five days after discovery
of the exceedance of the leak rate, then shut down for 2 months, when
the system returned to operating, the owner or operator will still have
25 days to repair
[[Page 4004]]
the leaks. The necessary applicable static and dynamic tests would need
to be employed.EPA believes that while the system is mothballed,
only a limited amount of refrigerant, if any, is likely to be released
to the atmosphere from the leak or leaks, since the appliance or
isolated section of the appliance has been evacuated per requirements
of Sec. 82.156 of subpart F. Therefore, there is no environmental
benefit for maintaining required timelines for completion of repairs
when the system is not in operation in a mothballed situation. EPA
requests comments on providing a de facto extension to the owners or
operators of systems subject to the leak repair requirements
promulgated under Sec. 82.156(i) that voluntarily mothball their
systems.
L. Proposed Extension for Federally-Owned Commercial and Comfortcooling
Refrigeration Equipment
EPA has received new information indicating that certain federal
entities periodically have difficulty complying with the 30-day leak
repair requirement and the one-year retrofit/retirement requirement for
leaky refrigeration equipment subject to the requirements of
Sec. 82.156(i). This equipment does not appear to be unique in design;
however, many of these systems are older. The difficulties appear to
stem from the need to procure parts for these systems. The concerns are
based on the need to follow specific government procurement practices
that may be more cumbersome than those faced by private sector
entities. These procurement practices are set forth by statute, the
Federal Acquisition Regulations, and often specific Agency procedures.
EPA has received information from one federally-owned entity in
this regard, claiming the need to provide an exemption for federallyowned
equipment subject to the leak repair requirements promulgated
under Sec. 82.156(i) when mandated procurement practices prevent timely
delivery of parts. EPA understands that in addition to the fact that
older parts may be more difficult to obtain and may be more costly, the
federal procurement process may further delay acquisition of parts in
timely fashion. EPA requests comments that would indicate whether this
situation is unique to the federal government or if other situations
unique to the federal government could justifiably merit an extension.
If a government facility believes it will take longer than the 30
days to complete repairs or more than one year to complete retrofit or
retirement activity, EPA is proposing that the facility be able to
submit a request for extensions parallel to those outlined in today's
action for industrial process refrigeration systems, but based on the
hindrance of federal procurement requirements. If additional time is
granted, EPA also proposes that testing and documentation should occur,
parallel to those for industrial process refrigeration systems.
In light of the above discussion, EPA is proposing today to provide
extensions to the leak repair provisions for federally-owned commercial
and comfort-cooling systems. However, EPA is requesting comments that
may shed light on additional information in this regard. EPA is
particularly interested in how the FAR could negatively affect
compliance with the requirements promulgated under Sec. 82.156(i).
III. Summary of Supporting Analysis
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant'' regulatory action as
one that is likely to lead to a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely and materially affect a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined by OMB and EPA that this proposed amendment
to the final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB
review under the Executive Order.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-602, 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).
EPA believes that any impact that this proposed amendment will have
on the regulated community will serve only to provide relief from
otherwise applicable regulations, and will therefore limit the negative
economic impact associated with the regulations previously promulgated
under Section 608. An examination of the impacts on small entities was
discussed in the final rule (58 FR 28660). That final rule assessed the
impact the rule may have on small entities. A separate regulatory
impact analysis was developed. That impact analysis accompanied the
final rule and is contained in Docket A-92-01. I certify that this
proposed amendment to the refrigerant recycling rule will not have any
additional negative economic impacts on any small entities.
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 (ICR
No. 1626.03) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, Information
Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M St., SW. (2136); Washington, DC 20460 or by
calling (202) 260-2740.
This collection of information has an estimated reporting burden
averaging 10 hours per response and an estimated recordkeeping burden
averaging 15 minutes per response. These estimates include 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. (2136);
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.
[[Page 4005]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Dynamic test,
Industrial process refrigeration, Leak repair, Recordkeeping
requirements, Static test.
Dated: January 9, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Part 82, chapter I, title 40, of the code of Federal Regulations,
is amended to read as follows:
PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
2. Section 82.152 is amended by removing the paragraph designations
from the definitions and placing them in alphabetical order and by
adding the following definitions in alphabetical order:
Sec. 82.152 Definitions.
* * * *
Critical component means for the purposes of Sec. 82.156(i) a
component without which an industrial process refrigeration system will
not function, will be unsafe in its intended environment, and/or will
be subject to failures that would cause the industrial process served
by the refrigeration system to be unsafe.
Custom-built means for the purposes of Sec. 82.156(i) if the
equipment or any of its critical components cannot be purchased and/or
installed without being specifically designed, fabricated and/or
assembled to satisfy a specific set of industrial process conditions.
* * * *
Dynamic test means for the purposes of Sec. 82.156(i) those tests
that involve checking the repairs within 30 days of returning to
steady-state operating characteristics. Dynamic tests for equipment
from which the refrigerant charge has been evacuated means a test
conducted after the appliance or portion of the appliance has resumed
operation at steady-state or normal operating conditions of temperature
and pressure. A dynamic test with respect to repairs conducted without
evacuation of the refrigerant charge means a reverification test
conducted after the static test. Where a system is not evacuated, it is
only necessary to conclude any required changes in pressure,
temperature or other conditions to return the system to a steady-steady
for operations.
Full charge means for the purposes of Sec. 82.156(i) the amount of
refrigerant required for steady-state operations of the industrial
process refrigeration equipment as determined using one of the
following three methods or a combination of one of the following three
methods:
(1) The use of the equipment manufacturers' determination of the
correct full charge for the equipment;
(2) Determining the full charge based on the use of appropriate
calculations where the owners or operators of a system are able to
calculate the full charge based on component sizes, density of
refrigerant, volume of piping, and other relevant considerations; and/
or
(3) The use of actual measurements by the owners or operators of
the amount of refrigerant added or evacuated from an industrial process
refrigeration system.
* * * *
Process shutdown means for the purposes of Sec. 82.156(i) when, for
purposes such as maintenance or repair, an industrial process or
facility temporarily ceases to operate or manufacture whatever is being
produced at the particular facility.
* * * *
Static test means for the purposes of Sec. 82.156(i) those leak
tests that are conducted as soon as practicable after the repair is
completed. A static test with regard to the leak repairs that require
the evacuation of the equipment or portion of the equipment means a
test conducted prior to the replacement of the full refrigerant charge
and before the appliance or portion of the appliance has reached
operation at normal working conditions of temperature and pressure. A
static test with regard to repairs conducted without the evacuation of
the refrigerant charge means a test conducted as soon as practicable
after the conclusion of the repair work.
Steady-state operating characteristics or conditions means for the
purposes of Sec. 82.156(i) operating at temperatures, pressures, fluid
flows, speeds and other characteristics that would normally be expected
for a given process load and ambient condition. Steady-state operating
characteristics are marked by the absence of atypical conditions
affecting the operation of the refrigeration system.
Suitable replacement refrigerant means for the purposes of
Sec. 82.156(i)(2)(i) that a refrigerant is acceptable under section
612(c) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and all regulations
promulgated under that section, compatible with other materials with
which it may come into contact, and be able to achieve the temperatures
required for the affected industrial process in a technically feasible
manner.
* * * *
System mothballing means the intentional shutting down of a
refrigerant system undertaken for an extended period of time by the
owners or operators of that facility, not for the purposes of servicing
or repairing the appliance, where the refrigerant has been evacuated
from the appliance or the isolated section of the appliance, at least
to atmospheric pressure.
* * * *
Section 82.156 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(A)
and (a)(2)(i)(B), adding a new paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C), and revising
paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 82.156 Required practices.
* * * *
(a) * * *
(2)(i) * * *
(A) Be evacuated to a pressure no higher than 0 psig before it is
opened if it is a high- or very high-pressure appliance;
(B) Be pressurized to 0 psig before it is opened if it is a lowpressure
appliance. Persons pressurizing low-pressure appliances that
use refrigerants with boiling points at or below 85 degrees Fahrenheit
at 29.9 inches of mercury (standard atmospheric pressure), (e.g., CFC-
11 and HCFC-123), must not use methods, such as nitrogen, that require
subsequent purging. Persons pressurizing low-pressure appliances that
use refrigerants with boiling points above 85 degrees Fahrenheit at
29.9 inches of mercury, e.g., CFC-113, must use heat to raise the
internal pressure of the appliance as much as possible, but may use
nitrogen to raise the internal pressure of the appliance from the level
attainable through use of heat to atmospheric pressure; or
(C) In the case of oil changes, be evacuated or pressurized to a
pressure no higher than 5 psig, before it is opened.
* * * *
(i)(1) Owners of commercial refrigeration equipment must have leaks
repaired if the equipment is leaking at a rate such that the loss of
refrigerant will exceed 35 percent of the total charge during a 12-
month period in accordance with paragraph (i)(9) of this section,
except as described in paragraphs (i)(6) and (i)(8) of this section and
paragraphs (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), and (i)(1)(iii) of this section.
Repairs must bring the annual leak rate to below 35
[[Page 4006]]
(i) If the owners or operators of the federally-owned commercial
refrigerant equipment determine that the leaks cannot be repaired in
accordance with paragraph (i)(9) of this section and that an extension
in accordance with the requirements discussed in this paragraph
(i)(1)(i) of this section apply, they must document all repair efforts,
and notify EPA of their inability to comply within the 30-day repair
requirement, and the reason for the inability must be submitted to EPA
in accordance with Sec. 82.166(n).
(ii) Owners or operators of federally-owned commercial
refrigeration equipment may have more than 30 days to repair leaks if
federal procurement procedures make a repair within 30 days impossible.
Only the additional time needed to receive delivery of the necessary
parts will be permitted.
(iii) Owners or operators of federally-owned commercial
refrigeration equipment requesting or who are granted time extensions
under this paragraph must comply with paragraphs (i)(3) and (i)(4) of
this section.
(2) The owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration
equipment must exert best efforts to repair the leaks if the equipment
is leaking at a rate such that the loss of refrigerant will exceed 35
percent of the total charge during a 12-month period in accordance with
paragraph (i)(9) of this section, except as described in paragraphs
(i)(6) and (i)(7), and paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this
section. Repairs must bring annual leak rates to below 35If the
owners or operators of the industrial process refrigerant equipment
determine that the leaks cannot be repaired in accordance with
paragraph (i)(9) of this section and that an extension in accordance
with the requirements discussed in this paragraph apply, they must
document all repair efforts, and notify EPA of their inability to
comply within the 30-day repair requirement, and the reason for the
inability must be submitted to EPA in accordance with Sec. 82.166(n).
(i) The owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration
equipment may have more than 30 days to repair leaks if the necessary
parts are unavailable or if requirements of other applicable federal,
state, or local regulations make a repair within 30 days impossible.
Only the additional time needed to receive delivery of the necessary
parts or comply with the pertinent regulations will be permitted.
(ii) Owners of industrial process refrigeration equipment will have
a 120-day repair period, rather than a 30-day repair period, to repair
leaks in instances where an industrial process shutdown is needed to
repair a leak or leaks from industrial process refrigeration equipment.
(3) The owners or operators of refrigeration equipment who are
granted additional time under paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(5),
(i)(7), and (i)(8) of this section must ensure that the repair efforts
performed be those that sound engineering judgment indicates will be
sufficient to bring the leak rates below the applicable allowable
annual rate, that when a process shutdown has occurred or when repairs
have been made while a system is mothballed, a static test be conducted
at the conclusion of the repairs and that a dynamic test be conducted
within 30 days of completing the repairs or within 30 days of bringing
the system back on-line, if taken off-line, but no sooner than when the
system has achieved steady-state operating characteristics.
(i) Refrigeration equipment may not be brought back on-line, if
taken off-line, until a static test indicates that the repairs
undertaken in accordance with paragraphs (i)(1) (i), (ii), and (iii),
or (i)(2) (i) and (ii), or (5)(i), (ii) and (iii) of this section, have
been successfully completed to bring the leak rate below the applicable
allowable annual rate.
(ii) If the dynamic test indicates that the repairs to
refrigeration equipment have not been successfully completed, the owner
must retrofit or replace the equipment in accordance with paragraph
(i)(6) of this section within one year of the failure to verify that
the repairs had been successfully completed or such longer time period
as may apply in accordance with paragraphs (i)(7)(i), (ii) and (iii) or
(i)(8) (i) and (ii) of this section. The owners and operators of
refrigeration equipment are relieved of this requirement if the
conditions of paragraphs (i)(3)(iv) or (i)(3)(v) of this section are
met.
(iii) The owner or operator of refrigeration equipment that fails a
dynamic test must notify EPA of the failure within 30 days of
conducting the failed dynamic test in accordance with Sec. 82.166(n).
(iv) The owner or operator is relieved of the obligation to
retrofit or replace the refrigeration equipment as discussed in
paragraph (i)(6) of this section if a second attempt to repair the same
leaks that were the subject of the first repair attempt is successfully
completed and subject to the same verification requirements of
paragraphs (i)(3) (i) and (ii) of this section. The owner or operator
is required to notify EPA within 30 days of the successful dynamic
verification test in accordance with Sec. 82.166(n) and the owner or
operator would no longer be subject to the obligation to retrofit or
replace the equipment that arose as a consequence of the initial
failure to repair the leaks successfully.
(v) The owner or operator of refrigeration equipment is relieved of
the obligation to retrofit or replace the equipment in accordance with
paragraph (i)(6) of this section if within 180 days of the failed
dynamic verification test, the owner or operator establishes that the
system's annual leak rate does not exceed the applicable allowable
annual leak rate, in accordance with paragraph (i)(4) of this section.
If the equipment owner or operator establishes that the system's annual
leak rate does not exceed the applicable allowable annual leak rate,
the owner or operator is required to notify EPA within 30 days of that
determination in accordance with Sec. 82.166(n) and the owner or
operator would no longer be subject to the obligation to retrofit or
replace the equipment that arose as a consequence of the initial
failure to repair the leaks successfully.
(4) In the case of a failed dynamic verification test, the
determination of whether refrigeration equipment has an annual leak
rate that exceeds the applicable allowable annual leak rate will be
determined in accordance with parameters identified by the owner or
operator in its notice to EPA regarding the failure of the initial
dynamic verification test and where those parameters are acceptable to
EPA. The determination must be based on the amount of refrigerant
contained in the full charge for the affected industrial process
refrigeration equipment. The leak rate determination parameters will be
considered acceptable unless EPA notifies the owners or operators
within 30 days.
(5) Owners of appliances normally containing more than 50 pounds of
refrigerant and not covered by paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this
section must have leaks repaired if the system is leaking at a rate
such that the loss of refrigerant will exceed 15 percent of the total
charge during a 12-month period in accordance with paragraph (i)(9) of
this section, except as described in paragraphs (i)(6) and (i)(8) of
this section and paragraphs (i)(5)(i), (i)(5)(ii) and (i)(5)(iii) of
this section. Repairs must bring the annual leak rate to below 15
(i) If the owners or operators of federally-owned comfort-cooling
refrigerant equipment determine that the leaks cannot be repaired in
accordance with paragraph (i)(9) of this section and that an extension
in
[[Page 4007]]
accordance with the requirements discussed in paragraph (i)(5) of this
section apply, they must document all repair efforts, and notify EPA of
their inability to comply within the 30-day repair requirement, and the
reason for the inability must be submitted to EPA in accordance with
Sec. 82.166(n).(ii) Owners or operators of federally-owned comfortcooling
refrigeration equipment may have more than 30 days to repair
leaks if federal procurement procedures make a repair within 30 days
impossible. Only the additional time needed to receive delivery of the
necessary parts will be permitted.
(iii) Owners or operators of federally-owned comfort-cooling
refrigeration equipment requesting or who are granted time extensions
under this paragraph must comply with paragraphs (i)(3) and (i)(4) of
this section.
(6) Owners or operators are not required to repair the leaks
defined in paragraphs (i)(1), (2) and (5) of this section if, within 30
days, they develop a one-year retrofit or retirement plan for the
leaking equipment. This plan (or a legible copy) must be kept at the
site of the equipment. The original must be made available for EPA
inspection on request. The plan must be dated and all work under the
plan must be completed within one year of the plan's date except as
described in paragraphs (i)(7) and (i)(8) of this section. Owners are
temporarily relieved of this obligation if the appliance has undergone
system mothballing as defined in Sec. 82.152.
(7) The owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration
equipment will be allowed an additional year to complete the retrofit
or retirement of industrial process refrigeration equipment if the
conditions described in paragraph (i)(7)(i) or (i)(7)(ii) of this
section are met, and will be allowed one year beyond the additional
year if paragraph (i)(7)(iii) of this section is met.
(i) Additional time, to the extent reasonably necessary, will be
allowed for retrofitting or retiring industrial process refrigeration
equipment due to delays occasioned by the requirements of other
applicable federal, state, or local regulations, or due to the
unavailability of a suitable replacement refrigerant with a lower
ozone-depletion potential. If these circumstances apply, the owner or
operator of the facility must notify EPA within six months after the
30-day period following the discovery of an exceedance of the 35 2.121996e-313ak
rate. Records necessary to allow EPA to determine that these provisions
apply and the length of time necessary to complete the work, in
accordance with Sec. 82.166(o), must be submitted to EPA, as well as
maintained on-site. EPA will notify the owner or operator of its
determination within 60 days of the submittal.
(ii) An additional one-year period beyond the initial one-year
retrofit period is allowed for industrial process refrigeration
equipment where the following criteria are met:
(A) The new or the retrofitted industrial process refrigerant
system is custom-built;
(B) The supplier of the system or one or more of its crucial
components has quoted a delivery time of more than 30 weeks from when
the order is placed;
(C) The owner or operator notifies EPA within six months of the
expiration of the 30-day period following the discovery of an
exceedance of the 35 2.121996e-313ak rate to identify the owner or operator,
describe the system involved, explain why more than one year is needed,
and demonstrate that the first two criteria are met in accordance with
Sec. 82.166(o); and
(D) The owner or operator maintains records adequate to allow a
determination that the criteria are met.
(iii) The owners or operators of industrial process refrigerant
equipment may request additional time to complete retrofitting or
retiring industrial process refrigeration equipment beyond the
additional one-year period if needed and where the initial additional
one year was granted in accordance with paragraph (i)(7) (i) or (ii) of
this section. The request shall be submitted to EPA before the end of
the ninth month of the first additional year and shall include
revisions of information required under Sec. 82.166(o). Unless EPA
objects to this request submitted in accordance with Sec. 82.166(o)
within 30 days of receipt, it shall be deemed approved.
(8) Owners or operators of federally-owned commercial or comfortcooling
refrigeration equipment will be allowed an additional year to
complete the retrofit or retirement of industrial process refrigeration
equipment if the conditions described in paragraph (i)(8)(i) of this
section is met, and will be allowed one year beyond the additional year
if paragraph (i)(8)(ii) of this section is met.
(i) An additional one-year period beyond the initial one-year
retrofit period is allowed for such equipment where the following
criteria are met:
(A) Due to complications presented by the federal procurement
process, a delivery time of more than 30 weeks from the beginning of
the official procurement process is quoted;
(B) The operator notifies EPA within six months of the expiration
of the 30-day period following the discovery of an exceedance of the
applicable allowable annual leak rate to identify the operator,
describe the system involved, explain why more than one year is needed,
and demonstrate that the first criterion is met in accordance with
Sec. 82.166(o); and
(C) The operator maintains records adequate to allow a
determination that the criteria are met.
(ii) The owners or operators of federally-owned commercial or
comfort-cooling refrigerant equipment may request additional time to
complete retrofitting, replacement or retiring such refrigeration
equipment beyond the additional one-year period if needed and where the
initial additional one year was granted in accordance with paragraph
(i)(8)(i) of this section. The request shall be submitted to EPA before
the end of the ninth month of the first additional year and shall
include revisions of information earlier submitted as required under
Sec. 82.166(o). Unless EPA objects to this request submitted in
accordance with Sec. 82.166(o) within 30 days of receipt, it shall be
deemed approved.
(9) Owners or operators must repair leaks pursuant to paragraphs
(i) (1), (2) and (5) of this section within 30 days of discovery, or
within 30 days of when the leaks should have been discovered if the
owners intentionally shielded themselves from information which would
have revealed a leak, unless granted additional time pursuant to
paragraph (i) of this section.
(10) The amount of time for owners and operators to complete
repairs, retrofit plans or retrofits/replacements/ retirements under
paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(5), (i)(6), (i)(7), (i)(8), and (i)(9)
of this section is temporarily suspended at the time a system is
mothballed as defined in Sec. 82.152. The time for owners and operators
to complete repairs, retrofit plans, or retrofits/replacements under
paragraph (i)(10) of this section will resume on the day the appliance
is brought back on-line and is no longer considered mothballed.
(11) In calculating annual leak rates, purged refrigerant that is
destroyed will not be counted toward the leak rate, in accordance with
the definition of ``destruction'' set forth in 40 CFR 82.3(g). Owners
or operators destroying purged refrigerants must maintain information
as set forth in Sec. 82.166(p)(1) and submit to EPA, within 60 days
after the first time such exclusion is used by that facility,
information set forth in Sec. 82.166(p)(2).
Sec. 82.166 is amended by adding paragraphs (n), (o), and (p) to
read as follows:
[[Page 4008]]
Sec. 82.166 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
* * * *
(n) The owners or operators of refrigeration equipment must
maintain and report to EPA the following information where such
reporting and recordkeeping is required and within the timelines
specified under Sec. 82.156 (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3) and (i)(5). This
information must be relevant to the affected industrial process
refrigeration equipment and must include:
(1) Identification of the facility;
(2) The leak rate;
(3) The method used to determine the leak rate and full charge;
(4) The date a leak rate of greater than the allowable annual leak
rate was discovered;
(5) The location of leaks(s) to the extent determined to date;
(6) Any repair work that has been completed thus far and the date
that work was completed;
(7) A plan to fix all other outstanding leaks to achieve a rate
below the applicable allowable leak rate;
(8) The reasons why more than 30 days are needed to complete the
work; and
(9) An estimate of when repair work will be completed. Where
changes from original estimate of work when work will be completed
occur, the reasons for these changes must be documented and submitted
to EPA within 30 days of discovery of the need for such a change. The
dates and types of static and dynamic tests performed and test results
for all static and dynamic tests must be maintained and submitted to
EPA within 30 days of conducting each test. All the information
specified in paragraph (n) of this section must be maintained by the
refrigeration facility on-site.
(o) The owners or operators of refrigeration equipment must
maintain and report to EPA the following information where such
reporting and recordkeeping is required and in the timelines specified
in Sec. 82.156(i)(7) and (i)(8), in accordance with Sec. 82.156(i)(7)
and (i)(8). This information must be relevant to the affected
industrial process refrigeration equipment and must include:
(1) The identification of the industrial process facility;
(2) The leak rate;
(3) The method used to determine the leak rate and full charge;
(4) The date a leak rate of 35 percent or greater was discovered;
(5) The location of leaks(s) to the extent determined to date;
(6) Any repair work that has been completed thus far and the date
that work was completed;
(7) A plan to complete the retrofit or replacement of the system;
(8) The reasons why more than one year is necessary to retrofit to
replace the system;
(9) The date of notification to EPA;
(10) An estimate of when retrofit or replacement work will be
completed;
(11) If time changes for original estimates occur, document reason
for these changes; and
(12) The date of notification to EPA regarding a change in the
estimate of when the work will be completed.
(13) The items in paragraphs (o) (11) and (12) of this section only
are required to be submitted when such changes occur, and will be
submitted within 30 days of occurring. All the information specified in
paragraph (o) of this section must be maintained by the refrigeration
facility on-site.
(p)(1) Owners or operators who wish to exclude purged refrigerants
that are destroyed from annual leak rate calculations must maintain
records on-site to support the amount of refrigerant claimed as sent
for destruction. Records shall be based on a monitoring strategy that
provides reliable data to demonstrate that the amount of refrigerant
sent for destruction corresponds with the amount of refrigerant purged.
Records shall include flow rate, quantity or concentration of the
refrigerant in the vent stream, and periods of purge flow.
(2) Owners or operators who wish to exclude purged refrigerants
that are destroyed from annual leak rate calculations must submit
information to EPA, within 60 days after the first time the exclusion
is utilized by a facility, that includes:
(i) The identification of the facility and a contact person,
including the address and telephone number;
(ii) A general description of the refrigerant system, focusing on
aspects of the system relevant to the purging of refrigerant and
subsequent destruction;
(iii) A description of the methods used to determine the quantity
of refrigerant sent for destruction and type of records that are being
kept by the facility;
(iv) The frequency of monitoring and data-recording; and
(v) A description of the control device, and its destruction
efficiency.
(vi) This information must also be included in any reporting
requirements required for compliance with the leak repair and retrofit
requirements for industrial process refrigeration equipment, as set
forth in paragraphs (n) and (o) of this section.
[FR Doc. 95-1250 Filed 1-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081108144728im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}