Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Refrigerant Recycling; Substitute Refrigerants

Related Material

Other Related Documents

[Federal Register: June 11, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 112)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 32043-32099]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11jn98-26]

[[Page 32043]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

_______________________________________________________________________

40 CFR Part 82

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Refrigerant Recycling; Substitute
Refrigerants; Proposed Rule

[[Page 32044]]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-6107-1]

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Refrigerant Recycling;
Substitute Refrigerants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
amend the rule on refrigerant recycling promulgated under section 608
of the Clean Air Act to clarify how the requirements of section 608
extend to refrigerants that are used as substitutes for
chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)
refrigerants. This proposed rule would supplement a self-effectuating
prohibition on venting substitute refrigerants to the atmosphere that
became effective on November 15, 1995. It would also exempt certain
substitute refrigerants from the prohibition on the basis of current
evidence that their release does not pose a threat to the environment.
In addition, EPA is proposing to change the current requirements for
CFC and HCFC refrigerants to accommodate the proliferation of new
refrigerants on the market and to strengthen and clarify the existing
leak repair requirements for equipment containing CFC and HCFC
refrigerants. This proposed rule will significantly reduce emissions of
environmentally harmful refrigerants in a cost-effective manner.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule must be received by August
10, 1998, unless a hearing is requested by June 18, 1998. If a hearing
is requested, written comments must be received by August 31, 1998. If
requested, a public hearing will be held at 10:00 am, July 1, 1998, at
501 3rd St. NW, Washington, DC in the 1st Floor Conference Room.
Individuals wishing to request a hearing must contact the Stratospheric
Ozone Information Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 by June 18, 1998. To find
out whether a hearing will take place, contact the Stratospheric Ozone
Information Hotline between June 22, 1998 and July 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in duplicate to the attention
of Air Docket No. A-92-01 VIII.H at: Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. Additional information may be
found at Air Docket No. A-91-42, which is incorporated by reference for
purposes of this rulemaking. (Please do not submit comments on this
proposed rule to A-91-42.) The Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center is located in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (Ground Floor),
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460. Dockets may be inspected from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket
materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Debbie Ottinger, Program
Implementation Branch, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of
Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation (6205-J), 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. 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. Regulated Entities
II. Background
A. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act
B. Factors Considered in the Development of this Proposal
C. Public Participation
III. Scope of Statutory and Proposed Regulatory Requirements
A. Overview of Proposed Requirements
1. HFCs and PFCs
2. Chemically Active Common Gases
3. Hydrocarbons
4. Proposed Changes to Requirements for CFCs and HCFCs
B. Determination of Whether Release or Disposal Poses a Threat
to the Environment
1. Methodology
2. HFCs and PFCs
3. Chemically Active Common Gases
4. Hydrocarbons
5. Inert Atmospheric Constituents
IV. The Proposed Rule
A. Definitions
1. Appliance
a. Inclusion of Heat Transfer Devices in the Term ``Appliance''
b. Coverage of One-Time Expansion Devices
c. Secondary Loops
2. Full Charge
3. High-pressure Appliance
4. Higher-pressure Appliance
5. Leak Rate
6. Low-pressure Appliance
7. Opening
8. Reclaim
9. Refrigerant
10. Substitute
11. Technician
12. Very-high-pressure Appliance
B. Required Practices
1. Evacuation of Appliances
a. Evacuation Requirements for Appliances Other Than Small
Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like Appliances
b. Evacuation Levels for Small Appliances
c. Evacuation Levels for Disposed MVACs, MVAC-like Appliances,
and Small Appliances
d. Request for Comment on Establishing Special Evacuation
Requirements for Heat Transfer Appliances
e. Proposed Clarifications of Evacuation Requirements
2. Disposition of Recovered Refrigerant
a. Background
b. Extending Purity Requirements to HFC and PFC Refrigerants
c. Updating the Purity Standard
d. Generic Standard of Purity
e. Possible Application of Standard of Purity to New
Refrigerants
3. Leak Repair
a. Comfort Cooling Chillers
b. Commercial Refrigeration
c. Industrial Process Refrigeration
d. Cross-sector Issues
e. Coverage of HFC and PFC Appliances
f. Clarification of Current Requirements
4. Proposed Changes for Servicing of MVAC-like Appliances
a. Background
b. Recent Amendments to Subpart B
c. Today's Proposal
C. Equipment Certification
1. Certification of Recovery and Recycling Equipment Intended
for Use with Appliances Except Small Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-
like Appliances
a. Background
b. Certification of Recovery/recycling Equipment Used with HFCs
and PFCs
c. Use of Representative Refrigerants in Equipment Testing
d. Additional Refrigerants
e. Materials Compatibility
f. Fractionation
g. Flammability
2. Certification of Recovery and Recycling Equipment Intended
for Use with Small Appliances
3. Approval of Equipment Testing Organizations to Test Recovery
Equipment with HFC and PFC Refrigerants
4. Use of Existing CFC/HCFC Recovery Equipment with HFC and PFC
Refrigerants
D. Technician Certification
E. Sales Restriction
F. Safe Disposal of Small Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like
Appliances
1. Coverage of HFCs and PFCs
2. Possible Clarifications
G. Certification by Owners of Recycling or Recovery Equipment
H. Servicing Apertures
I. Prohibition on Manufacture of One-Time Expansion Devices that
Contain Other than Exempted Refrigerants
J. Recordkeeping Requirements
V. Summary of Supporting Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Regulatory Flexibility
E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
F. Children's Health Protection

[[Page 32045]]

I. Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this action include those who
manufacture, own, maintain, service, repair, or dispose of all types of
air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment; those who sell or reclaim
refrigerants; and manufacturers of refrigerant recycling and recovery
equipment. Regulated categories and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................... Manufacturers of air-conditioning or
refrigeration equipment.
Technicians who service, maintain, repair,
or dispose of air-conditioning and
refrigeration equipment.
Owners of air-conditioning and
refrigeration equipment, including
building owners and operators, grocery
stores, chemical, pharmaceutical, and
petrochemical manufacturers, ice machine
operators, utilities.
Manufacturers of recycling and recovery
equipment.
Refrigerant reclaimers.
Scrap yards and auto dismantlers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether
your company is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria contained in section 608 of the Clean Air
Amendments of 1990; discussed in regulations published on December 30,
1993 (58 FR 69638); and discussed below. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

II. Background

Effective November 15, 1995, section 608(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act
prohibits the knowing release of substitutes for CFC and HCFC
refrigerants during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of
air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment, unless EPA determines
that such release does not pose a threat to the environment. Although
EPA is proposing to determine that releases of some substitute
refrigerants do not pose a threat to the environment, there are other
substitutes, specifically HFCs and PFCs, for which EPA is not proposing
to make such a determination. Thus, EPA is proposing a regulation that
will clarify how the venting prohibition of section 608(c)(2) must be
implemented for HFC and PFC refrigerants, as well as any other
refrigerants whose release EPA does not find does not pose a threat to
the environment. EPA is also proposing to strengthen the existing leak
repair requirements for some types of appliances containing CFCs and
HCFCs, in recognition of design changes that have lowered achievable
leak rates.
By establishing requirements regarding the maintenance, service,
repair, and disposal of appliances containing HFC and PFC refrigerants,
EPA believes that this proposed rule would help to minimize any
environmental harm that might result from the transition away from
ozone-depleting chemicals. In this respect, this proposed rule is
similar to regulations being implemented under sections 609 and 612 of
the Act. This rule would directly limit emissions of gases that result
in global warming, whose possible consequences are discussed at length
in section III.B.2 below. In addition, the proposed rule would reduce
emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants by establishing a consistent
regulatory framework for all halocarbon refrigerants and by lowering
leak rates for appliances containing ozone-depleting refrigerants. The
environmental and human health consequences of ozone depletion include
increased rates of skin cancer and cataracts, suppression of the immune
system, increased formation of ground-level ozone, damage to crops and
other plants, and damage to marine microorganisms at the base of the
aquatic food chain. The establishment of a consistent regulatory
framework would also facilitate compliance with the Section 608
National Recycling and Emissions Reduction Program by simplifying and
clarifying regulatory requirements.

A. Section 608 of the Clean Air Act

Section 608 of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, provides the
legal basis for this rulemaking. It requires EPA to establish a
comprehensive program to limit emissions of ozone-depleting
refrigerants, and prohibits the release of these refrigerants, and
eventually their substitutes, during the servicing and disposal of air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment.
Section 608 is divided into three subsections. In brief, the first,
section 608(a), requires regulations to reduce the use and emission of
class I substances (CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl
chloroform) and class II substances (HCFCs) to the lowest achievable
level, and to maximize the recycling of such substances. Section 608(b)
requires that the regulations promulgated pursuant to subsection (a)
contain requirements concerning the safe disposal of class I and class
II substances. Finally, section 608(c) establishes self-effectuating
prohibitions on the venting into the environment of class I or class II
substances, and eventually their substitutes, during servicing and
disposal of air-conditioning or refrigeration equipment.
Specifically, subsection 608(c) provides in paragraph (1) that,
effective July 1, 1992, it is ``unlawful for any person, in the course
of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance or
industrial process refrigeration, to knowingly vent or otherwise
knowingly release or dispose of any class I or class II substance used
as a refrigerant'' in a manner that ``permits such substance to enter
the environment.'' The statute exempts from this self-effectuating
prohibition ``de minimis releases associated with good faith attempts
to recapture and recycle or safely dispose'' of a substance. EPA
considers releases to meet the criteria for exempted de minimis
releases when they occur while the recycling and recovery requirements
of the section 608 and 609 regulations are followed (40 CFR 82.154(a)).
Section 608(c)(2) extends the prohibition on venting to substances that
are substitutes for class I and class II refrigerants, effective
November 15, 1995, unless the Administrator determines that such
venting or release does not pose a threat to the environment.
On May 14, 1993, EPA published final regulations implementing
subsections (a), (b), and (c)(1) (58 FR 28660). These regulations
include evacuation requirements for appliances being serviced or
disposed of, standards and testing requirements for recycling and
recovery equipment, certification requirements for technicians, purity

[[Page 32046]]

standards and testing requirements for used refrigerant sold to a new
owner, certification requirements for refrigerant reclaimers, leak
repair requirements, and requirements for the safe disposal of
appliances that enter the waste stream with the charge intact.
EPA is today proposing regulations to implement and clarify the
requirements of section 608(c)(2), which extends the prohibition on
venting to substitutes for CFC and HCFC refrigerants. EPA believes that
these regulations are also important to the Agency's efforts to
continue to carry out its mandate under section 608(a) to minimize
emissions of ozone-depleting substances. In addition to sections 608
(a) and (c), EPA is relying on its authority under section 301(a) of
the Act to promulgate these requirements.
While section 608(c) is self-effectuating, EPA regulations are
necessary to define ``(d)e minimis releases associated with good faith
attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose'' of such
substances and to effectively implement and enforce the venting
prohibition. EPA believes that these regulations will help to implement
the prohibition by providing: (1) Clear guidance to technicians working
with substitute refrigerants on what releases do and do not constitute
violations of the prohibition, (2) information on the performance of
recycling and recovery equipment intended for use with substitute
refrigerants through the equipment certification program, and (3)
information on how to recycle effectively and efficiently through the
technician certification program. Section 301(a) authorizes EPA to
``prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out (its)
functions under this Act.'' Section 608(c) provides EPA authority to
promulgate regulations to interpret, implement and enforce the venting
prohibition. Section 301(a) supplements EPA's authority under section
608(c) to promulgate regulations to carry out EPA's functions under
section 608(c).
Section 608(a) provides EPA additional authority to promulgate many
of the requirements proposed today. Section 608(a) requires EPA to
promulgate regulations regarding use and disposal of class I and II
substances that ``reduce the use and emission of such substances to the
lowest achievable level'' and ``maximize the recapture and recycling of
such substances.'' Section 608(a) further provides that ``(s)uch
regulations may include requirements to use alternative substances
(including substances which are not class I or class II substances) * *
* or to promote the use of safe alternatives pursuant to section 612 or
any combination of the foregoing.'' As discussed further below,
improper handling of substitute substances is likely to produce
contamination (and therefore reduction in recycling) and release of
class I and class II substances. EPA's authority to promulgate
regulations regarding use of class I and II substances, including
requirements to use alternatives, is sufficiently broad to include
requirements on how to use alternatives, where this is needed to reduce
emissions and maximize recycling of class I and II substances.
In particular, certification requirements for technicians who
perform work that could release substitute refrigerants to the
atmosphere, as enforced through a sales restriction on substitutes, are
critical to fulfill the statutory goals for class I and II substances.
Technician certification and a sales restriction are necessary to
ensure that persons lacking the expertise tested through certification
do not release or contaminate class I and II substances in the course
of using substitutes to recharge or perform other work on systems
containing class I and II substances. In addition, applying one
consistent set of requirements to all relevant refrigerants will
promote compliance with and enforcement of those requirements for both
ozone-depleting refrigerants and their substitutes by reducing
complexity and minimizing loopholes.
As discussed below, EPA is proposing requirements very similar to
those for CFCs and HCFCs for some alternative refrigerants, while EPA
is proposing to exempt other refrigerants from the prohibition on
venting because their release or disposal does not pose a threat to the
environment.

B. Factors Considered in the Development of this Proposal

In developing these proposed regulations, EPA has considered a
number of factors. First, EPA has considered which non-ozone-depleting
refrigerants should be classified as ``substitute'' refrigerants. EPA
is proposing to adopt a definition that is similar to that adopted by
EPA in its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program, except
the proposed definition omits the proviso of the SNAP definition that a
substitute be ``intended for use as a replacement for a class I or
class II substance.'' For the purposes of section 608, therefore, EPA
proposes to consider a refrigerant a substitute in a certain end-use if
the substance is used as a substitute for CFCs or HCFCs in that end-use
by any user. That is, EPA would consider a refrigerant a ``substitute''
for CFCs or HCFCs under section 608 if any of the following were the
case: (1) The substitute refrigerant immediately replaced a CFC or HCFC
in a specific instance, (2) the substitute refrigerant replaced another
substitute that replaced a CFC or HCFC in a specific instance (was a
second- or later-generation substitute), or (3) the substitute
refrigerant had always been used in a particular instance, but other
users in that end-use had used it to replace a CFC or HCFC.
EPA does not believe that it is appropriate under section 608 to
consider the intent or history of an individual user in determining
whether a refrigerant is a ``substitute'' for CFCs or HCFCs in a given
instance. First, it is reasonable to interpret ``substitute'' to
include second- or later as well as first-generation substitutes for
CFCs and HCFCs. As discussed earlier, the goal of these regulations is
to minimize any environmental harm that might be associated with the
transition away from CFC and HCFC refrigerants. In many cases, the
transition away from CFCs and HCFCs is a multi-step process, with
substitutes supplanting each other as they are tested and developed. In
the absence of the phaseout of CFCs and HCFCs, the later-generation
substitutes would probably never have been used. Thus, even if a
substance is not being used as a direct substitute for CFCs or HCFCs in
a particular instance, its use is the result of the transition away
from CFCs and HCFCs and the substance serves as a substitute for these
chemicals. (Of course, the environmental impact of the release of the
chemical is the same regardless of what it replaces.)
Second, it is also reasonable to interpret ``substitute'' to mean a
refrigerant that is occasionally used as a substitute for CFC or HCFC
refrigerants in a given end-use (e.g., cold storage warehouses), even
if the refrigerant has always been used by a particular user or in a
particular end-use. EPA has broad authority to promulgate and implement
clear, enforceable regulations, and exercise of this authority would be
impeded if the Agency had to attempt to trace the individual histories
of specific appliances in implementing and enforcing the requirements.
As an example of how this definition would work under these
regulations, ammonia used in cold storage warehouses would be
considered a ``substitute,'' and would therefore be subject to section
608(c)(2),1

[[Page 32047]]

because at least some cold storage warehouses have substituted ammonia
for CFCs. This would be true even if the ammonia in a given cold
storage warehouse were the original refrigerant at that particular
site, or if another substitute had first replaced the original CFC
refrigerant and ammonia in turn had replaced that substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ As discussed below, ammonia may nevertheless be exempted
from these regulations because EPA is proposing to determine that it
is adequately controlled under other authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Using this criterion, EPA has identified five classes of substitute
refrigerants in the sectors covered by the SNAP rule:
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrocarbons (HCs),
chemically active common gases, including ammonia and chlorine, and
inert atmospheric constituents, including carbon dioxide and water. EPA
has divided substitutes into these classes on the basis of the varying
environmental impacts of each class and the varying regulatory
structures already in place for each class.
As the second factor in this proposed rulemaking, EPA has made a
proposed determination regarding whether or not the release or disposal
of a substitute refrigerant during the service or disposal of an
appliance poses a threat to the environment. This determination
consists of two findings. In the first finding, EPA determines whether
release or disposal of a substitute refrigerant could pose a threat to
the environment due to the toxicity or other inherent characteristic of
the refrigerant. In the second finding, EPA determines whether and to
what extent such release or disposal actually takes place during the
servicing and disposal of appliances. The release and disposal of many
substitute refrigerants are limited and/or controlled by other
authorities, such as OSHA regulations and building codes. To the extent
that release during the servicing and disposal of appliances is
adequately controlled by other authorities, EPA proposes to defer to
these authorities rather than set up a second regulatory regime.
As is discussed in more detail below, EPA recognizes that release
of HFCs and PFCs during the servicing and disposal of appliances could
pose a threat to the environment due to the global warming potential
(GWP) of these refrigerants, that release of hydrocarbons during the
servicing and disposal of appliances could pose a threat due to the
flammability and smog-forming capability of these refrigerants, and
that release of chemically active common gases during the servicing and
disposal of appliances could pose a threat due to the toxicity and
flammability of these refrigerants. However, EPA is proposing to
determine that the release of hydrocarbons and chemically active common
gases during the servicing and disposal of appliances is adequately
controlled by other authorities, and therefore does not actually pose a
threat. EPA is also proposing to determine that the release of inert
atmospheric constituents during the servicing and disposal of
appliances does not pose a threat to the environment.
As the third factor in this proposed rulemaking, EPA has considered
the availability of technology to control releases, the environmental
benefits of controlling releases, and the costs of controlling releases
for each class of substitutes. (In proposing new permissible leak rates
for certain CFC and HCFC appliances, EPA has considered these factors
for CFCs and HCFCs.) In addition, as much as possible, EPA has sought
to maintain consistency between the proposed requirements for HFCs and
those for CFCs and HCFCs. The Agency considers such consistency
important for two reasons. First, it will reduce confusion, simplify
the regulatory scheme, and ease compliance both with the requirements
applying to substitutes and with those applying to CFCs and HCFCs.
Second and more important, the Agency believes that much of the
rationale for the recycling program developed for ozone-depleting
refrigerants applies to any recycling program for environmentally
harmful refrigerants.

C. Public Participation

In developing this proposed rule, EPA has also considered comments
received during meetings with industry, government, and environmental
representatives. On March 10, 1995, EPA convened a meeting with 20
representatives of appliance manufacturers, servicers, and users,
recycling and recovery equipment manufacturers, equipment testers, and
refrigerant reclaimers and wholesalers, soliciting comment on a range
of regulatory options. A summary of this meeting is available in the
public docket for this rulemaking. EPA has also met with industry and
government representatives to gather data on refrigerant emissions, to
better understand current industry practices, and to determine when and
how existing regulatory authorities control emissions of substitute
refrigerants. Finally, EPA has worked with the air-conditioning and
refrigeration industry's primary standards-setting organizations, the
Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) and the American
Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
(ASHRAE), in developing its proposal. Wherever appropriate, EPA has
incorporated standards and guidelines from these organizations into the
proposed rule.

III. Scope of Statutory and Proposed Regulatory Requirements

A. Overview of Proposed Requirements

1. HFCs and PFCs
EPA is proposing to extend the regulatory framework for CFCs and
HCFCs to HFCs and PFCs, making appropriate adjustments for the varying
physical properties and environmental impacts of these refrigerants.
Thus, appliances containing HFC or PFC refrigerants would have to be
evacuated to established levels; recycling and recovery equipment used
with HFCs or PFCs would have to be certified (although existing
recovery equipment that met certain minimum standards would be
grandfathered); technicians who work with HFCs or PFCs would have to be
certified (although technicians who have been certified to work with
CFCs and HCFCs would be grandfathered); sales of HFC and PFC
refrigerants would be restricted to certified technicians; used HFC and
PFC refrigerants sold to a new owner would have to be tested to verify
that they meet industry purity standards; refrigerant reclaimers who
purify HFCs or PFCs would have to be certified; owners of HFC and PFC
appliances above a certain size would have to repair leaks above a
certain size; final disposers of small appliances and motor vehicle air
conditioners (MVACs) containing HFCs or PFCs would have to ensure that
refrigerant was recovered from this equipment before it was disposed
of; and manufacturers of HFC and PFC appliances would have to provide a
servicing aperture or a ``process stub'' on their equipment in order to
facilitate recovery of the refrigerant.
2. Chemically Active Common Gases
EPA is proposing to find that for the purposes of section 608, the
release and disposal of chlorine and ammonia do not pose a threat to
the environment because the release and disposal of these refrigerants
during the servicing and disposal of appliances are adequately
controlled by other authorities in the air-conditioning and
refrigeration applications where these refrigerants are currently used.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to find that the venting prohibition does
not apply to these substances and the Agency is not proposing recycling
requirements for these refrigerants at this time.

[[Page 32048]]

However, these proposed findings apply to currently SNAP-identified end
uses only. If ammonia and chlorine are proposed for use in other
applications, EPA will evaluate whether the venting prohibition and
recycling requirements should apply in those applications.
3. Hydrocarbons
EPA is proposing to find that for the purposes of section 608, the
release and disposal of hydrocarbons during the servicing and disposal
of appliances do not pose a threat to the environment, because they are
adequately controlled by other authorities in the industrial process
refrigeration applications in which these refrigerants are currently
used. Therefore, EPA is proposing to find that the venting prohibition
does not apply to these substances and the Agency is not proposing
recycling requirements for these refrigerants at this time. However,
these proposed findings apply to currently SNAP-identified end uses
only. If hydrocarbons are proposed for use in other applications, EPA
will evaluate whether the venting prohibition and recycling
requirements should apply in those applications.
4. Proposed Changes to Requirements for CFCs and HCFCs
In today's document, EPA is also proposing a number of changes to
the regulations covering CFC and HCFC refrigerants. Several of these
proposed changes are intended to accommodate the growing number of
refrigerants (both HFCs and HCFCs) that either are or will be subject
to the regulations. Such changes include the adoption of evacuation
requirements based solely on the saturation pressures of refrigerants,
the use of representative refrigerants from saturation pressure
categories for certifying recycling and recovery equipment, and the
adoption of the most recent industry purity and analytical standard for
refrigerants, ARI 700-1995, which includes a number of refrigerants
omitted from its predecessor, ARI 700-1993.
Based on improvements in equipment design and maintenance that have
reduced leak rates over the last five years, EPA is also proposing to
reduce the maximum allowable leak rates for appliances containing more
than 50 pounds of refrigerant. At the same time, EPA is proposing to
make several changes to the leak repair requirements promulgated at
Sec. 82.156(i), the associated recordkeeping provisions at
Sec. 82.166(n) and (o), and the definition of ``full charge'' at
Sec. 82.152. EPA is also proposing to add a definition for ``leak
rate'' under Sec. 82.152 for the purposes of Sec. 82.156(i). The need
for most of these proposed changes was brought to EPA's attention by
industry stakeholders. EPA is also responding to inquiries concerning
whether or not leaks that occur after repairs have been completed and
all applicable verification tests have been successfully performed are
considered new leaks. In addition, the stakeholders suggested several
clarifying changes to the recordkeeping provisions.

B. Determination of Whether Release or Disposal Poses a Threat to the
Environment

1. Methodology
In determining whether the release or disposal of a substitute
refrigerant during the servicing and disposal of appliances poses a
threat to the environment, EPA has examined the potential effects of
the refrigerant from the moment of release to its breakdown in the
environment, considering possible impacts on workers, building
occupants, and the environment as a whole. As noted above, these
effects vary among the different classes of refrigerant. EPA has also
examined the extent to which the release or disposal of a substitute is
already controlled by other authorities. In some cases, such
authorities tightly limit the quantity of the substitute emitted or
disposed of; in others, they ensure that the substitute is disposed of
in a way that will limit its impact on human health and the
environment. In still others, existing authorities address some threats
(e.g., occupational exposures) but not others (e.g., long-term
environmental impacts). The analysis below discusses the potential
environmental impacts of and existing controls on each class of
refrigerants.
2. HFCs and PFCs
a. Potential Environmental Impacts
i. Toxicity and Flammability
Most HFCs and PFCs have been classified as A1 refrigerants under
ASHRAE Standard 34, indicating that they have low toxicity and no
ability to propagate flame under the test conditions of the Standard.
(The exception is HFC 152a, which has been classified as an A2
refrigerant. This indicates that it may propagate flame under the test
conditions, but only at relatively high concentrations and with
relatively low heat of combustion.) However, like CFCs and HCFCs, HFCs
can have central nervous system depressant and cardiotoxic effects at
high concentrations (several thousand ppm) and can displace oxygen at
very high concentrations.
ii. Long-term Environmental Impacts
Once released into the atmosphere, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and
perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have the ability to trap heat that would
otherwise be re-radiated from the Earth back to space. This ability,
along with the relatively long atmospheric lifetime of these gases
(particularly the PFCs), gives both HFCs and PFCs relatively high
global warming potentials (GWPs). The GWP of a gas is a measure of the
ability of a kilogram of that gas to contribute to global warming
compared to the ability of a kilogram of carbon dioxide to contribute
to global warming over a given span of time. The 100-year GWPs of HFCs
under consideration for use as refrigerants range from 140 (for HFC-
152a) to 11,700 (for HFC-23), and the GWPs of PFCs under consideration
for use as refrigerants range from 8,700 (perfluorocyclo-butane) to
9,200 (perfluoroethane). HFC 134a, the most common individual HFC used
in air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment, has a global warming
potential of 1,300. Thus, the global warming impact of releasing a
kilogram of an HFC or PFC ranges from 140 to 11,700 times the impact of
releasing a kilogram of CO<INF>2</INF>.2 (Factoring in the
35% uncertainty associated with individual GWPs, this range becomes 90
to 15,800.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ The CFCs and HCFCs being replaced by the HFCs are also
greenhouse gases, though their direct warming effect is counteracted
somewhat by the indirect cooling effect caused by their destruction
of stratospheric ozone, which is itself a greenhouse gas. The IPCC
Second Assessment noted that ``The net GWPs for the ozone-depleting
gases, which include the direct ``warming'' and indirect ``cooling''
effects, have now been estimated.* * * The indirect effect reduces
their net GWPs: those of the chlorofluorocarbons tend to be
positive, while those of the halons tend to be negative'' (IPCC
Second Assessment, Working Group I report, p. 73).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA recognizes that the release of refrigerants with high global
warming potentials could pose a threat to the environment.
Internationally accepted science indicates that increasing
concentrations of greenhouse gases, including HFCs and PFCs, will
ultimately raise atmospheric and oceanic temperatures. Although the
precise timing and extent of likely warming are uncertain, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 3 concluded
in a 1995

[[Page 32049]]

Report that the global mean temperature would probably rise between 1
and 3.5 deg.C by 2100. Such a temperature rise would probably be
associated with a number of adverse environmental impacts, including
increased drought at middle latitudes, increased flood frequency and
inundation due to sea level rise, and forest and species loss due to
the rapid poleward migration of ideal ranges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The IPCC was jointly established by the World Meteorological
Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to
assess the scientific information that is related to the various
components of the climate change issue, and to formulate realistic
response strategies for the management of the climate change issue.
The first IPCC report was developed by 170 scientists from 25
countries and was peer-reviewed by an additional 200 scientists.
Since that time, the number of scientists developing and reviewing
the report has grown. This group comprises most of the active
scientists working in the field in the world today, and therefore
the report is an authoritative statement of the views of the
international scientific community at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is already well established that naturally occurring greenhouse
gases keep the Earth 33 deg.C warmer than it otherwise would be. Since
1800, human activities have released additional greenhouse gases to the
atmosphere at an exponentially increasing rate. Atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide have risen by approximately 30
percent; methane concentrations have risen by 145 percent; and nitrous
oxide concentrations have risen by 15 percent. In addition,
concentrations of man-made fluorocarbons, which have no natural source,
have risen quickly over the past 50 years.
These trends may have already had an influence on global climate.
The draft of the most recent report of the IPCC stated that ``emerging
evidence points towards a detectable human influence on climate.'' In
support of this statement, the draft report notes that the global mean
surface temperature has increased by between about 0.3 and 0.6 deg.C
since the late 19th century, that the 20th century global mean
temperature is at least as high as that of any other century since 1400
A.D. (before which data are too sparse to allow reliable estimates),
that the years since 1990 have been some of the warmest in the
instrumental record (the nine warmest years this century have all
occurred since 1980), and that sea levels around the world have risen
by between 10 and 25 centimeters over the past 100 years. Moreover,
several other events consistent with global warming have been observed,
including a decrease in Northern Hemisphere snow cover, a simultaneous
decrease in Arctic sea ice, and continued melting of alpine glaciers.
The report concludes:

Observed global warming over the past 100 years is larger than
our best estimates of the magnitude of natural climate variability
over at least the last 600 years. More importantly, there is
evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response in the observed
climate record to forcings by greenhouse gases and sulphate
aerosols. The evidence comes from the geographical, seasonal and
vertical patterns of temperature change. Taken together, these
results point towards a detectable human influence on global
climate.

Because of the large thermal inertia of Earth's climate system
(including the atmosphere and the oceans), the full effects of added
greenhouse gases are not likely to be felt until many decades after
their release into the atmosphere. Once these effects are felt,
reversing them will take centuries. Thus, policy decisions in the near
term have long-term consequences.
Global warming is expected to have far-reaching effects both
domestically and internationally. Changes in precipitation and
increased evaporation from higher temperatures could affect water
supplies and water quality, posing threats to hydropower, irrigation,
fisheries, and drinking water. In the U.S., floods and droughts will
probably occur more often because of an intensification of the
hydrologic cycle.
The IPCC report projects that sea level will rise by about 50 cm by
2100, using a mid-range emissions scenario and best-estimate values of
climate sensitivity and ice-melt sensitivity to warming. Such a rise
could inundate more than 5,000 square miles of land in the U.S. if no
protective actions are taken. Low-lying areas on the U.S. Atlantic and
Gulf coasts are especially at risk. Internationally, parts of many low-
lying areas such as parts of the Maldives, Egypt, and Bangladesh could
be completely inundated and made uninhabitable by a similar sea level
rise.
Climate change could also have direct impacts on human health.
Global warming may shift the range of infectious diseases, increasing
the risks of malaria and dengue fever in the United States. Changing
temperatures and precipitation patterns may produce new breeding sites
for pests and pathogens. In addition, climate change is likely to
increase deaths from heat stress.
Agriculture would also be affected, as large areas of the eastern
and central U.S. are expected to become drier as the earth warms.
Although changes in management practices and technological advances
might reduce many of the potentially negative effects of climate change
in agriculture, such changes would be expensive. Agricultural
production in developing countries is likely to be more vulnerable to
climate change, given that they have fewer economic resources.
Finally, climate change could profoundly affect natural habitats
and wildlife. Temperature changes of the magnitude expected from the
enhanced greenhouse effect have occurred in the past, but the previous
changes took place over centuries or millennia, whereas those expected
from increased greenhouse gases will take place over decades. For
example, the ideal range for some North American forest species may
shift as much as 300 miles to the north over the next several decades.
Rates of natural migration and adaptation of species and communities
appear to be much slower than the predicted rate of climate change. As
a result, populations of many species and inhabited ranges could change
as the climate to which they are adapted effectively shifts northward
or to higher elevations.
b. Current Practices and Controls
Under the SNAP program, HFCs (either pure or in blends) have been
approved for use in almost every major air-conditioning and
refrigeration end-use, including household refrigerators, motor vehicle
air conditioners, retail food refrigeration, comfort cooling chillers,
industrial process refrigeration, and refrigerated transport. HFC 134a
in particular has claimed a large share of the market for non-ozone-
depleting substitutes in these applications. Given this range of
applications, HFCs have the potential to come into contact with
consumers, workers, the general population, and the environment.
EPA has approved PFCs for use in relatively few end-uses because of
their large global warming potentials and long atmospheric lifetimes.
These end-uses include uranium isotope separation, for which no other
substitute refrigerant has been found, and some heat-transfer
applications. In these applications, PFCs may come into contact with
workers, the general population, and the environment.
Analyses performed for both this rule and the SNAP rule indicate
that existing regulatory requirements and industry practices are likely
to keep the exposure of consumers, workers, and the general population
to HFCs and PFCs below levels of concern (although recycling
requirements would reduce still further the probability of significant
exposure) (U.S. EPA. 1994. Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for
Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning,
Office of Air and Radiation, March 15, 1994. Office of Air and
Radiation, March 15,1994, and Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
Substitutes Recycling Rule, Office of Air and Radiation, 1998).
However, these requirements and practices do not

[[Page 32050]]

address release of HFCs or PFCs to the wider environment.
For example, ASHRAE Standard 15 4 requirements for
equipment with large charge sizes are likely to limit the exposure of
building occupants and workers to HFC and PFC refrigerants, but will
not necessarily reduce releases to the outdoors. Under ASHRAE 15,
equipment containing large charges of HFCs or PFCs (or HCFCs or CFCs)
must be located in a machinery room that meets certain requirements.
These include requirements for tight-fitting, outward-opening doors,
refrigerant detectors that actuate alarms when refrigerant levels rise
above recommended long-term exposure levels, and mechanical ventilation
that discharges to the outdoors. However, ASHRAE 15 does not include
requirements for refrigerant recycling.5 In general, ASHRAE
15 addresses design specifications rather than service and disposal
practices such as recycling, and ASHRAE 15 requirements are codified
and enforced by state or local building code agencies rather than by
contractor or technician licensing boards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ ASHRAE 15, Safety Code for Mechanical Refrigeration, is an
industry standard developed by the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers. ASHRAE 15 forms the
basis for state and local building codes throughout the U.S.
\5\ ASHRAE Guideline 3 recommends recycling of all fluorocarbon
refrigerants, but is not codified or enforced by any governmental
agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Similarly, the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) has
developed exposure limits for HFCs. These may be referenced by OSHA
under its general duty clause to compel employers to protect employees
from identified health hazards. However, local exhaust ventilation
rather than recycling may be used to minimize exposures during service
and disposal operations that involve significant releases of
refrigerant. This will reduce worker exposure to the refrigerant, but
will not reduce the exposure of the general environment.
Finally, many of the statutory and regulatory mechanisms that limit
release of other substitutes such as ammonia do not apply to HFCs or
PFCs. HFCs and PFCs are not listed chemicals for SARA Title III or
CERCLA reporting requirements; nor are they listed as EPA section
112(r) hazardous air pollutants.
c. Conclusion
Given the high global warming potentials of HFCs and PFCs and the
fact that no authority other than section 608(c)(2) currently controls
their release from appliances into the environment, EPA is not
proposing to find that the release of HFCs and PFCs does not pose a
threat to the environment. 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ In 1995, a modeling study indicated that trifluoroacetic
acid (TFA), a breakdown product of HFC 134a, might accumulate and
concentrate in urban wetlands with high evaporation rates. EPA is
monitoring the research in this area. To the extent that TFA
formation and concentration pose a threat to the environment,
recycling requirements for HFC 134a will address this threat as well
as the threat from global warming related to HFC 134a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA's consideration of global warming potential in determining
whether to exempt refrigerants from the venting prohibition of
608(c)(2) is supported by precedent under the Title VI regulatory
program, Presidential directive, and the legislative history of section
608. First, EPA has specifically considered the global warming
potential of substitutes in determining whether they are acceptable for
various end uses under the Significant New Alternatives Program (SNAP)
that implements section 612.7 As stated in the final SNAP
rule (59 FR 13049, March 18, 1994), EPA believes that ``overall risk''
includes global warming potential. Second, in October 1993, the
President directed EPA through the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) to
work with manufacturers, sellers, and users of PFCs and HFCs to
minimize emissions of these substances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Note that a finding under section 612 that a substitute is
acceptable for use in a closed refrigeration system is different
from a finding under section 608(c)(2) that the release of that
substitute does not pose a threat to the environment. Thus,
substances that have been approved under SNAP for use as
refrigerants may nevertheless be subject to the venting prohibition
of 608(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Third, the legislative history of section 608(c)(2) indicates that
Congress specifically intended that EPA consider the global warming
potential of substitute refrigerants in determining whether to exempt
them from the venting prohibition. In a statement read into the record
shortly before passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,
Senators Chafee and Baucus, the Senate managers of the bill, stated
that ``(section 608(c)(2)) is an important provision because many of
the substitutes being developed * * * are `greenhouse gases' and have
radiative properties that are expected to exacerbate the problem of
global climate change.'' The Senators specifically directed that
``(t)he Administrator shall consider long term threats, such as global
warming, as well as acute threats (in making the determination under
608(c)(2))'' (Cong. Rec. S 16948 (Oct. 27, 1990)). EPA believes that in
light of this legislative history, the precedents cited above, and the
expected effects of global warming, it would be very difficult to
justify exempting HFCs or PFCs from the venting prohibition of
paragraph 608(c)(2) on the basis that their release does not pose a
threat to the environment.
3. Chemically Active Common Gases
The two chemically active common gases used as refrigerants are
ammonia and chlorine.
a. Potential Environmental Impacts
i. Toxicity and Flammability
Ammonia can pose a human health hazard through either inhalation or
ingestion. It is irritating at relatively low concentrations, and
disabling (and possibly deadly) at higher concentrations. Ammonia can
also pose a hazard to aquatic organisms if it is discharged to surface
waters at high concentrations.
Ammonia is classified as a B2 refrigerant under ASHRAE 34,
indicating that it is toxic at relatively low concentrations and
flammable at relatively high concentrations. Toxicity reference values
that have been established for ammonia include a Permissible Exposure
Limit (PEL) of 50 ppm, a Threshold-Limit Value (TLV) and a Recommended
Exposure Limit (REL) of 25 ppm, a Short-term Exposure Limit (STEL) of
35 ppm, and an Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) value of
500 ppm.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ PELs are established by OSHA, TLVs and STELs by the American
Congress of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, and RELs and IDLHs
by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
PELs and TLVs are 8=hour time-weighted averages (TWAs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chlorine gas is highly toxic. Inhalation of chlorine gas at high
concentrations can cause pulmonary edema, cardiac arrest, and
inflammation of the larynx. Exposure to concentrations of chlorine
below 5 ppm can irritate mucous membranes, the respiratory tract, and
skin, and can cause headaches, nausea, blister formation, vomiting and
reduced pulmonary function. Toxicity Reference Values that have been
established for chlorine gas include a PEL of 1 ppm, a TLV of 0.5 ppm,
a STEL of 1 ppm, and an IDLH of 30 ppm. ASHRAE 34 has not classified
chlorine.
Chlorine is non-combustible in air, but most combustible materials
will burn in chlorine as they do in oxygen.
ii. Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Ammonia is a naturally occurring compound, and is a central
compound in the environmental cycling of nitrogen. In surface water,
groundwater, or sediment, ammonia will undergo sequential
transformation by two

[[Page 32051]]

processes in the nitrogen cycle, nitrification and denitrification,
eventually leading to the production of elemental nitrogen.
Ammonia can also undergo volatilization or ionization. If released
to surface water, ammonia may volatilize to the atmosphere. The rate of
volatilization decreases as pH and temperature decrease. The toxicity
of ammonia to aquatic organisms (fish are especially vulnerable) also
decreases with pH. In addition to its direct effects, ammonia can
indirectly cause in-stream toxicity through its contribution to
eutrophication and its effect on biological oxygen demand.
Because chlorine used as a refrigerant is typically recaptured or
chemically transformed rather than released, its environmental fate
will not be discussed here.
Ammonia and chlorine have GWPs of 0.
b. Current Practices and Controls
When refrigeration technology was first developed, ammonia was one
of the first refrigerants to gain acceptance. It is now used almost
exclusively in industrial process refrigeration systems in the meat
packing, dairy, frozen juice, brewery, cold storage, and other food
industries. In these applications, ammonia may come into contact with
workers, the general population, and the environment. (Ammonia is also
used with water in small absorption refrigeration units. However, while
ammonia could conceivably come into contact with consumers in this
application, these exposures are likely to be of little concern because
the charge is small and is mixed with water, limiting release to the
air.) Additional exposures to ammonia may occur from its use in non-
refrigerant applications, such as fertilizer and common household
cleaner, but these exposures will not be discussed here except as a
context for refrigerant-related exposures.
Due to its high toxicity, chlorine has not been submitted or
approved for use as a refrigerant except in industrial processes
involved in chlorine manufacture. In this application, chlorine could
come into contact with workers, the general population, and the
environment.
Analyses performed for both this rule and the SNAP rule (RIA and
Risk Screen) indicate that regulatory requirements and industry
practices are likely to keep the exposure of workers, the general
population, and the environment to ammonia and chlorine below levels of
concern.
Occupational exposure to ammonia is primarily controlled by OSHA
requirements and national and local building and fire codes. As
mentioned above, OSHA has established a PEL for ammonia of 50 ppm. This
is an enforceable standard that can be met through containment, safe
disposal, ventilation, and/or use of personal protective equipment.
OSHA also has requirements in place to prevent catastrophic releases,
including the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response
Standard (HAZWOPER), the Hazard Communication Standard, and Process
Safety Management (PSM) regulations. (PSM regulations cover systems
containing more than 10,000 pounds of ammonia.) These standards require
employee training, emergency response plans, and written standard
operating procedures.
ASHRAE 15 (and state and local codes based on it) imposes strict
quantity limits for direct-type ammonia refrigeration systems (which
possess no secondary, heat transfer fluid), and prohibits the use of
ammonia altogether in direct-type comfort cooling systems. Indirect
type ammonia refrigeration and air-conditioning systems (which possess
a secondary, heat transfer fluid) must be housed in a separate
mechanical equipment room. This equipment room must meet the
requirements listed above for HFC equipment rooms and must also meet
several fire-proofing requirements.
Releases of ammonia to the wider environment are addressed by
several authorities. CERCLA and SARA require reporting of accidental
and intentional releases of ammonia to the atmosphere. (Under CERCLA
section 103 and SARA Title III Section 304, releases of more than 100
pounds of ammonia must be reported immediately, unless they are
``Federally permitted'' such as through National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), State Implementation Plans (SIPs), etc. In
that case, however, they are controlled under the permitting authority.
The more common method of ammonia disposal is to mix the ammonia
into water, which absorbs about a pound of ammonia per gallon of water,
and then to dispose of the water/ammonia solution. Releases of ammonia
to surface waters are governed by permits issued by states (or, in some
cases, by EPA Regional Offices) to publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) under NPDES. NPDES permits must include conditions necessary to
meet applicable technology-based standards and water quality standards.
Water quality standards established by states consist of a designated
use for the waters in question, water quality criteria specifying the
amount of various pollutants that may be present in those waters and
still allow the waters to meet the designated use, and anti-degradation
policies.
Entities that discharge to a POTW (usually through a municipally-
owned sewer system) must themselves comply with Clean Water Act pre-
treatment requirements, which may include categorical pretreatment
standards on an industry-by-industry basis as well as local limits
designed to prevent interference with the biological processes of the
treatment plant (or pass through of pollutants). Notification and
approval requirements enable POTWs to manage the treatment process, to
avoid ammonia overloading, and to protect the treatment processes,
collection systems, and facility workers. The POTW typically considers
a number of factors before granting discharge approval for ammonia,
including the POTW plant's treatment capacity, existing industry
discharge patterns, the impact on the POTW's biological treatment
processes, the effect on the sewage collection systems (i.e., sewer
lines), and the possible hazards to workers at the plant or in the
field. The POTW also considers the possibility that ammonia disposed
from refrigeration systems may largely be converted to other forms of
nitrogen (e.g., nitrates) before arriving at the POTW facility. In
general, ammonia from refrigerant uses makes up a small percentage of
the ammonia treated by the POTW.
Ammonia is also listed as a regulated substance for accidental
release prevention in the List of Substances and Thresholds rule (59 FR
4478, January 31, 1994) promulgated under section 112(r) of the Act.
This rule states that if a stationary source handles more than 10,000
pounds of anhydrous ammonia (or 20,000 pounds of 20% or greater aqueous
ammonia) in a process, it is subject to chemical accident prevention
regulations promulgated under section 112(r). These regulations, which
were published on June 20, 1996 (61 FR 31668), require stationary
sources to develop and implement a risk management program that
includes a hazard assessment, an accident prevention program (including
training and the development of standard operating procedures), and an
emergency response program. In addition, section 112(r)(1) of the Act
states that companies have a general duty to prevent accidental
releases of extremely hazardous substances, including ammonia and
chlorine.
Exposures to chlorine are controlled through many of the same
regulatory mechanisms that control exposures to ammonia, except
enforceable

[[Page 32052]]

concentration and release limits are lower for chlorine than for
ammonia. For instance, the OSHA PEL for chlorine is 1 ppm, compared to
50 ppm for ammonia. Similarly, the reporting threshold under CERCLA
section 103 and SARA Title III for chlorine releases is ten pounds,
compared to 100 pounds for ammonia; and the quantity of chlorine that
triggers requirements under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act is
2,500 pounds per process.
In addition to these requirements, chlorine is also subject to
restrictions under section 112(b) and 113 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Chlorine is listed as a Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) under section
112(b) of the CAA, and under section 113 of the CAA, criminal penalties
can be assessed for negligently releasing HAPs into the atmosphere.
EPA is currently investigating whether there are any chlorine
sources that are ``major sources'' under CAA section 112(a). A
``major'' source is one that releases more than 10 tons per year of any
given HAP, or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAPs. Such
sources would be regulated under a National Emissions Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). Because chlorine emissions are
currently well controlled during chlorine manufacture, no manufacturer
emits more than 10 tons per year of chlorine.
Current industry practices and engineering controls in chlorine
manufacture will be applied to the use of chlorine as a refrigerant,
minimizing potential releases and exposures. These practices and
controls include use of system alarms that activate at chlorine
concentrations of 1 ppm, use of self-contained breathing apparatus
during servicing, isolation of liquid chlorine in receivers during
servicing, and use of a caustic scrubber to neutralize gaseous chlorine
during servicing. The anticipated charge sizes in the refrigeration
system are several hundred times smaller than the quantity of chlorine
in the process stream and bulk storage, and chlorine emissions from the
refrigeration system are likely to be significantly smaller than those
emanating from the process and storage systems, which are already well
controlled for safety and health reasons.
c. Conclusion
Because releases of ammonia and chlorine from their currently
approved refrigeration applications are adequately addressed by other
authorities, EPA is proposing to find that the release of ammonia and
chlorine refrigerants during the servicing and disposal of appliances
in these applications does not pose a threat to the environment under
section 608. EPA requests comment on this proposed finding and on the
rationale behind it.
4. Hydrocarbons
a. Potential Environmental Impacts
i. Toxicity and Flammability
Hydrocarbons, including propane, propylene, and butane, are
classified as A3 refrigerants by ASHRAE Standard 34, indicating that
they have low toxicity and high flammability. Like CFCs, HCFCs, and
HFCs, they can displace oxygen at high concentrations and cause
asphyxiation. Toxicity reference values that have been established for
hydrocarbons include a PEL for propane of 1,000 ppm, and IDLHs of
20,000 ppm and 50,000 ppm for propane and butane respectively.
ii. Long-Term Environmental Impacts
Hydrocarbons are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and therefore
contribute to ground-level ozone (smog) formation. Because ozone is a
greenhouse gas, hydrocarbons contribute slightly and indirectly to
global warming. They do not deplete stratospheric ozone.
b. Current Practices and Controls
EPA has approved hydrocarbons under the SNAP program only for use
in industrial process refrigeration systems used for hydrocarbon
manufacture. In this application, hydrocarbons have the potential to
come into contact with workers, the general population, and the
environment. However, analyses performed for both this rule and the
SNAP rule indicate that existing regulatory requirements and industry
practices adequately protect workers, the general population, and the
environment from exposure to hydrocarbon refrigerants.
As is the case for ammonia and chlorine, occupational exposures to
hydrocarbons are primarily controlled by OSHA requirements and national
and local building and fire codes. As noted above, OSHA has established
a PEL for propane of 1,000 ppm, and NIOSH has established IDLHs of
20,000 ppm and 50,000 ppm for propane and butane respectively. The PEL
is an enforceable standard, and the IDLHs trigger OSHA personal
protective equipment requirements. OSHA's Process Safety Management,
confined space entry, and HAZWOPER requirements apply to all
hydrocarbon refrigerants. These requirements include employee training,
emergency response plans, air monitoring, and written standard
operating procedures.
ASHRAE 15 prohibits the use of hydrocarbon refrigerants except in
laboratory and industrial process refrigeration applications.
Refrigeration machinery must be contained in a separate mechanical
equipment room that complies with the requirements for HFC equipment
rooms and also complies with several fire-proofing requirements.
As is the case for ammonia and chlorine, certain hydrocarbons
(including butane, cyclopropane, ethane, isobutane, methane, and
propane) are listed as regulated substances for accidental release
prevention under regulations promulgated under section 112(r) of the
Clean Air Act. In addition, hydrocarbons are considered VOCs, and are
therefore subject to state VOC regulations implemented in accordance
with the Clean Air Act. The regulatory status of new VOC sources is
based on area ground-level ozone classifications. Although states and
industry have various options regarding the permitting of new VOC
sources, industry typically must implement technologies that provide
lowest achievable emissions rates, and must offset new VOC
contributions through reductions in existing sources.
According to industry and OSHA representatives, current industry
service practices for hydrocarbon refrigeration equipment include
monitoring efforts, engineering controls, and operating procedures.
System alarms, flame detectors, and fire sprinklers are used to protect
process and storage areas. Fugitive emissions monitoring is routinely
conducted. If a leak is found, repairs are attempted within five days.
If initial repair attempts are unsuccessful, the system is shut down,
unless releases from a shutdown are predicted to be greater than
allowing a continued leak. During servicing, OSHA confined space
requirements are followed, including continuous monitoring of explosive
gas concentrations and oxygen levels. Hydrocarbon refrigerants may be
returned to the product stream or can be released through a flare
during servicing. Due to fire and explosion risks and the economic
value of the hydrocarbon, direct venting is not a widely used
procedure. In general, hydrocarbon emissions from refrigeration systems
are likely to be significantly smaller than those emanating from the
process and storage systems, which are already well-controlled for
safety reasons.

[[Page 32053]]

c. Conclusion
Because the release of hydrocarbons from industrial process
refrigeration systems appears to be adequately addressed by other
authorities, EPA is proposing to find that the release of hydrocarbon
refrigerants during the servicing and disposal of such systems does not
pose a threat to the environment under section 608. EPA requests
comment on this proposed finding and on the rationale behind it.
5. Inert Atmospheric Constituents
EPA has approved CO<INF>2</INF> under SNAP as a replacement for
CFC-13, R-13B1 and R-503 in very low temperature and industrial process
refrigeration applications, and as a substitute for CFC-113, CFC-114,
and CFC-115 in non-mechanical heat transfer applications.
CO<INF>2</INF> is a well-known, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. Its GWP is
defined as 1, and all other GWPs are indexed to it. EPA's understanding
is that CO<INF>2</INF> is readily available as a waste gas, and
therefore no additional quantity of the chemical needs to be produced
for refrigeration applications. Thus, the use of such commercially
available CO<INF>2</INF> as a refrigerant does not contribute to global
warming, and release of such CO<INF>2</INF> from appliances has no net
contribution to global warming. On this basis, EPA proposes to find
that release and disposal of CO<INF>2</INF> refrigerant during the
servicing and disposal of appliances does not pose a threat to the
environment under section 608. EPA requests comment on the factual
basis for this proposal.
EPA has approved direct nitrogen expansion as an alternative
technology for many CFCs and HCFCs used in vapor compression systems.
Nitrogen is a well-known, nontoxic, nonflammable gas that makes up 78%
of Earth's atmosphere. Nitrogen contributes neither to global warming
nor to ozone-depletion. EPA therefore proposes to find that the release
and disposal of elemental nitrogen during the servicing and disposal of
appliances does not pose a threat to the environment.
EPA has approved evaporative cooling as an alternative technology
to motor vehicle air conditioners using CFC-12. Evaporative cooling
operates simply through the evaporation of water to the atmosphere.
Water released from evaporative cooling is nontoxic and contributes
neither to ozone depletion nor to global warming. EPA therefore
proposes to find that the release and disposal of water during the
servicing and disposal of appliances does not pose a threat to the
environment.

IV. The Proposed Rule

A. Definitions

1. Appliance
EPA is proposing to amend the current definition of ``appliance''
to include air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment that contains
substitutes for class I and class II substances, as well as equipment
that contains class I and class II substances. This amendment is
consistent with the definition of ``appliance'' in section 608(c)(2),
which states, ``[f]or purposes of this paragraph, the term 'appliance'
includes any device which contains and uses as a refrigerant a
substitute substance and which is used for household or commercial
purposes, including any air conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or
freezer.'' EPA proposes to continue to interpret ``appliance'' to
include all air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment except that
designed and used exclusively for military applications. Thus, the term
``appliance'' would include household refrigerators and freezers (which
may be used outside the home), other refrigeration appliances,
residential and light commercial air conditioning, motor vehicle air
conditioners, comfort cooling in vehicles not covered under section
609, and industrial process refrigeration.
a. Inclusion of Heat Transfer Devices in the Term ``Appliance''. A
manufacturer of PFCs has submitted comments requesting that EPA exclude
non-mechanical heat transfer applications from the definition of
appliance. The manufacturer maintained that ``heat transfer does not
involve the use of a refrigerant under the accepted technical
definitions of this term,'' and cited the technical definition of
refrigerant in the ASHRAE handbook as ``the working fluid in a
refrigeration cycle, absorbing heat from a reservoir at low temperature
and rejecting heat at a higher temperature.'' In addition, the
manufacturer stated that heat transfer applications are such a small
segment of the ODS replacement market that they should be exempt from
regulation on de minimis grounds. Citing the Alabama Power Co. v.
Costle decision (636 F.2d 323, DC Cir 1979), the commenter argued that
EPA may make such exemptions ``if it finds (1) that Congress was not
extraordinarily rigid in drafting section 608, and (2) that the burdens
associated with regulating the de minimis categories yield trivial
benefits.'' Finally, the manufacturer requested that if EPA does decide
to continue to consider heat transfer applications appliances, EPA
adopt a unique approach to these systems, as they differ physically
from ``traditional'' air-conditioning and refrigeration systems.
(``Issues Associated with Extending Regulations Under Section 608 to
ODS Substitutes Used in Heat Transfer Applications,'' Michael I.
Dougherty and Larry G. Headrick, 3M Specialty Chemicals Division,
September 5, 1995).
In the past, EPA has considered non-mechanical heat transfer
applications that use the heat transfer fluid as the primary
refrigerant to be appliances. In an applicability determination issued
on June 6, 1993, EPA determined that electrical transformers containing
CFC-113 were appliances because the 113 ``acts to transport heat out of
the transformer.'' The determination stated further that ``(t)he fact
that the transport of heat is accomplished without the use of
compressors or expansion valves does not alter the role of the CFC-113
which acts as a coolant.'' Moreover, under the Significant New
Alternatives Program, EPA has classified non-mechanical heat transfer
applications as part of the refrigeration and air-conditioning major
industrial use sector.
EPA does not see any legal, technical, or environmental
justification for reversing these findings, although EPA is requesting
comment on the option of adopting unique requirements under section 608
for non-mechanical heat transfer applications. As noted above, the
fundamental cooling function of the heat transfer fluid is not changed
because a compressor is not involved. While one technical definition of
``refrigerant'' may refer only to moving heat from low-to high-
temperature regions, commonly accepted dictionary definitions of
``refrigerant'' and ``refrigerate'' refer generally to making or
keeping things cool.9 Neither the statute nor its
legislative history indicate that Congress intended the term to be more
restrictive in the statute than it is in common use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ The Random House College Dictionary defines ``refrigerate''
as ``to make or keep cold or cool, as for preservation,'' and
``refrigerant'' as ``a substance used as an agent in cooling or
refrigeration.'' Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines
``refrigerate'' as ``to make or keep cold or cool,'' and
``refrigerant'' as ``a substance used in refrigeration.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given that heat transfer applications are appliances, EPA does not
believe that it would be appropriate to exempt some or all of these
applications from recycling requirements because they consume a small
quantity of refrigerant relative to other appliance types. The
commenter states that de minimis exemptions are permissible where
Congress has not been ``extraordinarily

[[Page 32054]]

rigid,'' and maintains that section 608 gives the Agency flexibility to
exercise its discretion in this area. In support of this argument, the
commenter cites the explicit exemptions in section 608(c) for (1) de
minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to recover and
recycle, and (2) releases of ODS substitutes that do not pose a threat
to the environment.
However, the legislative history of section 608 indicates that
Congress intended both of these exemptions to be interpreted narrowly.
As noted above, the Senate managers of the CAA bill specifically
identified releases of substitutes with high global warming potential
as a ``threat to the environment,'' and PFCs have among the highest
global warming potentials of any refrigerants. The Senate managers also
read the following statement into the record regarding the explicit
exemption for de minimis releases:

Exceptions to this provision are included for certain de minimis
releases. As used in this context, de minimis refers to extremely
small amounts. The fact that de minimis, in other contexts under
this Act, may be as much as several tons is not relevant nor
controlling in this context. Most appliances contain only a few
ounces of class I or class II refrigerant. Interpreting de minimis
to mean anything other than an extremely small amount would render
this provision a nullity. The exception is included to account for
the fact that in the course of properly using recapture and
recycling equipment, it may not be possible to prevent some small
amount of leakage (Cong. Rec. S 16948 (Oct. 27, 1990)).

Thus, both the statute and the legislative history clearly limit the
applicability of the de minimis exemption to those releases that
unavoidably occur during the course of recycling. The de minimis
exemption is not intended to exempt any sector from recycling
requirements; indeed, the Senate managers specifically proscribe a
broad interpretation of de minimis, noting that it would ``render
(section 608(c)) a nullity.''
Furthermore, Congress' explicit provision of a sharply limited
exemption from section 608(c) for de minimis releases associated with
good faith efforts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of a
substitute undermines the argument that EPA has an understood authority
to grant a much broader de minimis exemption under Alabama Power Co. v.
Costle. Congress has specifically addressed the scope of possible
exemptions from section 608(c) and declared this scope quite limited.
Consequently, EPA has included both small appliances (which
individually have very small charge sizes) and very high-pressure
appliances (which collectively consume only a small percentage of
refrigerants) in the scope of the section 608 recycling requirements.
Moreover, EPA does not believe that the regulation of releases of
PFCs used as heat transfer fluids meets either of the criteria
established by the court in Alabama Power for finding an implied
authority to allow a de minimis exemption. De minimis authority may be
implied where ``the burdens of regulation yield a gain of trivial or no
value.'' Alabama Power at 360-61. First, EPA does not consider the
benefits of this proposed regulation to be ``trivial.'' The commenter
estimates potential annual consumption of PFC heat transfer fluids to
be 580,000 pounds, or 264 metric tons. If this consumption is weighted
by the average 100-year GWP of the PFCs and compared to the consumption
of all other refrigerants weighted by the 100-year GWP of HFC-134a, it
makes up 1.5 percent of total refrigerant consumption in the
U.S.10 If the PFC consumption and other refrigerant
consumption are weighted by their 500-year GWPs, the PFCs make up 7.2
percent of total U.S. refrigerant consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ This figure is based on the commenter's projection of PFC
heat transfer fluid consumption and EPA's estimate of U.S.
consumption of CFC and HCFC refrigerants in 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, the commenter does not demonstrate that recycling PFC heat
transfer fluids would impose significant burdens. While the unique
characteristics and applications of heat transfer appliances may
warrant specialized recycling requirements, they do not render
recycling impracticable or even extraordinarily difficult. Indeed, the
commenter notes that PFC heat transfer fluids are already subject to
use restrictions under the SNAP program that require recycling during
the servicing and disposal of equipment, and observes that total losses
from heat transfer equipment are currently less than 10 percent per
year. Moreover, heat transfer applications using CFCs and HCFCs have
clearly been subject to section 608 requirements since the
applicability determination on electrical transformers was issued in
June, 1993. Since EPA has not received any information indicating that
users of these applications have been unable to comply, and since PFCs
were selected as substitutes for CFCs and HCFCs in these applications
precisely because they have similar physical characteristics, there is
no reason to believe that recycling PFCs in these applications will be
difficult. Thus, EPA is not proposing to exempt heat transfer
applications from the requirements of this proposed rule.
b. Coverage of One-Time Expansion Devices. Similarly, EPA believes
that one-time expansion devices are appliances, and that the release of
refrigerants from one-time expansion devices is prohibited by section
608(c)(2), unless EPA finds that the release of these refrigerants does
not pose a threat to the environment. One-time expansion devices, which
include ``self-chilling cans,'' rely on the release and associated
expansion of a compressed refrigerant to cool the contents (e.g., a
beverage) of a container.
EPA considers refrigerant release from such devices to be
prohibited by section 608(c). First, the refrigerant in these devices
acts as a not-in-kind substitute for CFCs and HCFCs in household and
commercial refrigerators. Although the refrigerant in a one-time
expansion device is not being used in the same system as CFC-12 in a
household or commercial refrigerator, it is providing the same effect
of cooling the container. EPA has previously considered not-in-kind
technologies, such as evaporative cooling, to be substitutes under
SNAP. The SNAP regulation defines ``substitute or alternative'' as
``any chemical, product substitute, or alternative manufacturing
process, whether existing or new, intended for use as a replacement for
a class I or II compound.'' This approach is consistent with the
language of section 612 of the Clean Air Act, in which Congress
repeatedly identified ``product substitutes'' as substitutes for class
I and class II substances. Section 612(a) states the policy of the
section: ``To the maximum extent practicable, class I and class II
substances shall be replaced by chemicals, product substitutes, or
alternative manufacturing processes that reduce overall risks to human
health and the environment'' (emphasis added). 11 As stated
in the SNAP regulation, EPA has interpreted the phrase ``substitute
substances'' in 612(c) to incorporate the general definition of
substitute in 612(a) and 612(b) (3) and (4) (59 FR 13050). As noted
above, the proposed definition of ``substitute'' in today's document is
very similar to that in the SNAP regulations, except the proposed
definition omits the proviso that the substitute be intended for use as

[[Page 32055]]

a replacement for a class I or class II substance. Thus, under the
proposed definition in today's document, and consistent with the
definition in the SNAP regulations and section 612 of the Act, EPA
would consider the refrigerant in a one-time expansion device to be a
``substitute substance'' under section 608(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Section 612(b)(3) directs EPA to ``specify initiatives * *
* to promote the development and use of safe substitutes for class I
and class II substances, including alternative chemicals, product
substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes'' (emphasis
added). Similarly, section 612(b)(4) requires EPA to ``maintain a
public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes,
and alternative manufacturing processes'' (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, one-time expansion devices, which rely on the release of
compressed gases to cool the contents of containers, are encompassed by
the term ``appliance.'' A one-time expansion device is a device that
holds and uses a substitute substance to make the contents of the
container cool for individual consumption. Thus, it is a ``device which
contains or uses'' a ``refrigerant'' ``for household or commercial
purposes.'' The operating principle of a one-time expansion device,
vapor compression and expansion, is the same as that of a traditional
refrigerator. The only technological differences between a one-time
expansion device and a traditional refrigerator are that, with a one-
time expansion device, the compression part of the vapor-compression/
expansion cycle takes place at the factory, and the refrigerant escapes
during expansion instead of being cycled back to a compressor to be
recompressed.
Third, EPA believes that the opening of a one-time expansion device
constitutes disposal of the device. This interpretation is consistent
with the definition of ``disposal'' included in the recycling
regulations for CFCs and HCFCs at Sec. 82.152. ``Disposal'' is the
process leading to and including:
(1) The discharge, deposit, dumping or placing of any discarded
appliance into or on any land or water;
(2) The disassembly of any appliance for discharge, deposit,
dumping or placing of its discarded component parts into or on any land
or water; or
(3) The disassembly of any appliance for reuse of its component
parts.
The act of opening a one-time expansion device meets this
definition of disposal. Opening the device irreversibly discharges the
refrigerant and thereby ends the useful life of the cooling device.
Cooling the container is a one-time action that occurs immediately
prior to consuming or using its contents, after which the remaining
component parts of the appliance will be discarded. In addition, with
the irreversible discharge of the critical portion of the cooling
device, the appliance has been partially disassembled and one of its
component parts has been discharged. Thus, the act of opening the
device and cooling the container is a process that leads quickly and
inevitably to the final disposal of the appliance, and the act itself
includes the permanent disassembly of the appliance and discharge of
one of the component parts. Finally, the act of opening the device is a
``knowing'' release of refrigerant, as a person opening the device
could not fail to be aware that his or her action is causing release of
a gas to the atmosphere.
Thus, the release occurs in the course of ``maintaining, servicing,
repairing, or disposing of an appliance'' and is subject to the venting
prohibition. While EPA is proposing to exempt some substitute
refrigerants in one-time expansion applications from the section 608
requirements because their release does not pose a threat to the
environment (see the discussion of CO<INF>2</INF> above), EPA does not
believe that it can make this finding for the HFC refrigerants that
have been suggested for use in one-time expansion devices due to global
warming concerns. EPA recognizes that this has the effect of
prohibiting the use of HFCs (or other refrigerants whose release EPA
does not find does not pose a threat to the environment) in this
application. As discussed below, EPA is proposing to use its authority
under section 608(c)(2) and section 301(a) to prohibit the manufacture
of one-time expansion devices using refrigerants that EPA has not
exempted from the venting prohibition.
c. Secondary Loops. Rather than cooling things or people directly,
many refrigeration and air-conditioning systems operate by cooling an
intermediate fluid, which is then circulated to the things or people to
be cooled. This intermediate fluid (and the structure for transporting
it) is referred to as a secondary loop. Secondary loops are commonly
used in air conditioners in large buildings,12 in industrial
process refrigeration systems, and in some specialty and commercial
refrigeration systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Large building air conditioners are commonly called
``chillers,'' which is short for ``water chillers.'' Most building
air conditioners cool water or brine that is then circulated
throughout the building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are different types of secondary loops. Interpreted in the
broadest sense, secondary loops include, on the one hand, the lower
temperature loops of cascade systems, and on the other, the ventilation
systems that circulate air that is cooled by an air-conditioner, since
both of these types of loops circulate a fluid that is cooled by a
primary refrigerant loop. However, these loops differ from each other
in a number of ways. The former move heat from cooler to warmer areas,
and there is a change of state in the secondary fluid. The latter move
heat from warmer to cooler areas (because they return air that is
warmed by the inhabitants and equipment in the building), and there is
no change of state in the secondary fluid. The type of loop that is
most commonly considered a secondary loop falls between these two
types, but somewhat closer to air circulation systems: it is a closed
loop that circulates a liquid that is cooled by a primary refrigerant
loop and that is used to move heat from warmer to cooler areas with no
change of state.13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ The 1997 ASHRAE Handbook, Fundamentals, defines ``secondary
coolant'' as ``any liquid cooled by the refrigerant and used to
transfer heat without changing state'' (p. 20.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA is requesting comment regarding what types of secondary loops
should be considered to be part of an ``appliance.'' The definition of
``appliance'' with respect to secondary loops is somewhat ambiguous
under Act. Given this ambiguity, Congress has delegated to EPA the
authority to interpret ``appliance'' consistent with the language and
purpose of section 608. The purpose of section 608 is to reduce
emissions of ozone-depleting substances and to ensure that the phaseout
of ozone-depleting refrigerants does not result in new environmental
problems from emissions of their replacements.
In defining the boundaries of an appliance, EPA believes that it is
appropriate to consider both the proximity of the loop to the primary
cooling mechanism and the mode of functioning of the loop (including
the direction of heat transfer and whether or not a change of state is
involved); otherwise, it may be difficult to draw a clear line between
the appliance and its surroundings. For example, a common-sense
definition of appliance would probably not include the ventilation
system used to circulate cooled air, but, as noted above, such a
ventilation system could be considered a secondary loop. In fact,
because the transfer of heat from warmer to cooler objects occurs
spontaneously, any fluid between the primary loop of an appliance and
the things or people cooled could be considered a secondary (or
tertiary, etc.) loop. In order to avoid an overly expansive
interpretation of ``appliance,'' EPA is proposing to interpret as part
of an ``appliance'' refrigerant loops that (1) are primary or (2) move
heat from cooler to warmer areas or (3) involve a change of state of
the fluid. Under this interpretation, secondary loops that used water,
brine, or other materials to transport heat from warmer to cooler areas
without a change of state would

[[Page 32056]]

not be considered to be part of an ``appliance.'' On the other hand,
cascade system secondary loops that used fluids to transport heat from
cooler to warmer areas with a change of state would be considered to be
part of an ``appliance.'' EPA believes that this interpretation would
cover those secondary loops that are traditionally considered to be
part of the air conditioner or refrigerator, while excluding those that
are not. In addition, the Agency believes that this interpretation
would capture the majority of air-conditioning and refrigerating
components that have used ozone-depleting substances in the past.
This interpretation is also consistent with EPA's decision not to
list secondary fluids under SNAP. In that decision, published on March
10, 1997, EPA expressed concern that listing secondary fluids could
discourage their use and could be very burdensome to the Agency and the
regulated community, as the number of secondary fluids is quite large.
In addition, the Agency noted that there was little information or data
suggesting that the use of these fluids in secondary loops posed an
environmental or safety risk (52 FR 10700).
The Agency requests comment on its interpretation of ``appliance''
as it applies to secondary loops. Specifically, EPA requests comment on
whether there are human health or environmental risks that could be
significantly reduced by subjecting to the venting prohibition
secondary loops that transport heat from warmer to cooler areas without
a change of state. Based on information received to date, the Agency
believes that most secondary fluids are either environmentally benign
or controlled under other authorities. However, if some secondary
fluids were neither benign nor adequately controlled under other
authorities, EPA could interpret ``appliance'' to include secondary
loops and individually exempt fluids whose release did not pose a
threat to the environment. In this way, EPA could subject to the
venting prohibition only those secondary fluids whose release posed a
threat. Given the large number of secondary fluids, however, the Agency
is concerned that it would be difficult to identify and list all of the
secondary fluids whose release does not pose a threat.
EPA also requests comment on the extent to which ozone depleting
substances such as HCFC-123 are used in secondary loops that transport
heat from warmer to cooler areas. EPA believes that such ozone-
depleting substances should be recovered, given their environmental
impact and the availability of equipment and expertise to recover and
recycle them. However, to require such recovery, EPA would not
necessarily need to define secondary loops as part of an appliance and
thereby subject them to the section 608(c) venting prohibition.
Instead, the Agency could use its broad authority to minimize emissions
and maximize recycling of class I and class II substances under section
608(a). EPA requests comment on this approach.
2. Full Charge
Compliance with the leak repair requirements requires calculating
both the full charge of the appliance and the leak rate. EPA has
previously defined full charge at Sec. 82.152 as the amount of
refrigerant required for normal operating characteristics and
conditions of the appliance as determined by using one or a combination
of the four methods specified at Sec. 82.152. Through this action, EPA
is proposing to eliminate the phrase ``for the purposes of
Sec. 156(i)'' and the word ``all'' from paragraph (2) in the definition
of full charge at Sec. 82.152. The definition refers to ``other
relevant considerations.'' The term ``all'' is implicit in that
language. EPA believes this change will improve the readability of the
provision by eliminating redundancy.
3. High-pressure Appliance
As discussed below in section IV.B.1.a, EPA is proposing to base
evacuation requirements for CFC, HCFC, HFC, and PFC appliances on the
saturation pressure of the refrigerant. As part of this approach, EPA
is proposing two changes to its definition of high-pressure appliances.
One of the changes would modify the system for classifying refrigerants
by their saturation pressures. Rather than classifying the refrigerants
according to their boiling points at atmospheric pressure, EPA would
classify them according to their saturation pressures at 104 degrees F.
The other change would split what are currently defined as high-
pressure appliances into two groups. One group would remain subject to
the current requirements for high-pressure CFC and HCFC (except HCFC-
22) appliances and would continue to be called ``high-pressure
appliances.'' The other group would be subject to the current
requirements for HCFC-22 appliances and would be called ``higher-
pressure appliances,'' as described below.
The proposed revised definition of ``high-pressure appliances''
reads as follows:
High-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a refrigerant
with a liquid phase 14 saturation pressure between 45 psia
and 220 psia at 104 degrees Fahrenheit. This definition includes but is
not limited to appliances using R114, R12, R134a, R500, and R401A, B,
and C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Zeotropic blends exert different pressures at the same
temperature, depending upon the percentage of vapor vs. liquid in
the container. For reasons discussed below in section IV.B.1.a., EPA
is proposing to classify refrigerants according to their liquid
phase saturation pressures at 104 degrees F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Higher-Pressure Appliance
As described above, EPA is proposing to create a new category of
``higher-pressure appliances'' whose refrigerants have saturation
pressures between 220 psia and 305 psia at 104 degrees F. Appliances in
this category would be subject to the current requirements for HCFC-22
appliances. The proposed definition of ``higher pressure appliances''
reads as follows:
Higher-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a
refrigerant with a liquid phase saturation pressure between 220 psia
and 305 psia at 104 degrees Fahrenheit. This definition includes but is
not limited to appliances using R22, R502, R402A and B, and R407A, B,
and C.
5. Leak Rate
EPA has not previously promulgated a formal definition for leak
rate. Through today's action, EPA is proposing to add a definition for
leak rate for the purposes of applying leak repair requirements
contained in Sec. 82.156(i). Currently, Sec. 82.156(i) refers to
applicable allowable annual leak rates for different appliances. While
EPA believes that there is a general understanding on how to calculate
leak rates, EPA is proposing to add a specific definition in the
regulations for clarity. EPA believes this definition will address some
of the issues raised by the Chemical Manufacturers' Association (CMA).
EPA and CMA jointly issued a compliance guide for leak repair in
October 1995. That guide, known as the Compliance Guidance For
Industrial Process Refrigeration Leak Repair Regulations Under Section
608 of the Clean Air Act (Compliance Guidance), includes a section on
calculating leak rates. The Compliance Guidance states that each time
the owner or operator adds refrigerant to an appliance normally
containing 50 pounds or more of refrigerant, the owner or operator
should promptly calculate the leak rate to ensure that the appliance is
not leaking at a rate that exceeds the applicable allowable leak rate.
If the amount of refrigerant added indicates

[[Page 32057]]

that the leak rate for the appliance is above the applicable allowable
leak rate, the owner or operator must perform corrective action by
repairing leaks, retrofitting the appliance, or retiring the appliance
in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 82.156(i). As noted below,
the applicable allowable leak rate for commercial refrigeration and
industrial process refrigeration equipment normally containing 50
pounds or more of refrigerant is currently 35 percent, but EPA is
proposing to lower this for some types of equipment. The applicable
allowable annual leak rate for all other appliances normally containing
50 pounds or more of refrigerant is currently 15 percent, but again,
EPA is proposing to lower this.
The Compliance Guidance specifically mentions two methods for
calculating leak rates. One method for calculating the leak rate is
described in the Compliance Guidance as follows:
(1) Take the number of pounds of refrigerant added to the appliance
to return it to a full charge and divide it by the number of pounds of
refrigerant the appliance normally contains at full charge;
(2) Take the number of days that have passed since the last day
refrigerant was added and divide by 365 days;
(3) Take the number calculated in step (1) and divide it by the
number calculated in step (2); and
(4) Multiply the number calculated in step (3) by 100 to calculate
a percentage.
This method is summarized in the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JN98.000

Because this method takes the quantity of refrigerant (percentage
of charge) lost between charges and scales it up or down to calculate
the quantity that would be lost over a year-long period, it will be
referred to as the ``annualizing method.''
The second method mentioned in the Compliance Guidance is to
calculate the ``rolling average.'' The term ``rolling average'' is not
defined in the Compliance Guidance, but EPA believes it is commonly
calculated by:
(1) Summing up the quantity of refrigerant (e.g., pounds) added to
the appliance over the previous 365-day period (or over the period that
has passed since leaks in the appliance were last repaired, if that
period is less than one year),
(2) Dividing the result of step one by the quantity (e.g., pounds)
of refrigerant the appliance normally contains at full charge, and
(3) Multiplying the result of step two by 100 to obtain a
percentage.
This method is summarized in the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JN98.001

EPA is considering four options for its formal definition of ``leak
rate.'' The first option is to require appliance owners to calculate
leak rates using only the ``annualizing'' method. The second option is
to require owners to calculate leak rates using only the ``rolling
average'' method. The third option is to require owners to calculate
leak rates using whichever of the two methods yields the higher
calculated leak rate, and the fourth option is to permit owners to
calculate leak rates using either method, so long as the same method is
always used for the same appliance, facility, or firm.
EPA believes that there are advantages and disadvantages to each
approach. The annualizing method is relatively simple, catches some
kinds of leaks more quickly than the rolling average
method.15 and does not penalize owners whose appliances leak
slowly but show no signs of leakage until a relatively large percentage
of the charge has been lost. On the other hand, the annualizing method
permits owners whose appliances spring a fast leak after a long period
of slow leakage to delay repair, because it permits them to ``dilute''
the true leak rate by averaging the refrigerant loss over more than one
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ Suppose a previously leak-tight appliance springs a leak.
If the appliance owner is adding less than the applicable allowable
percentage of charge and the time since the last recharge is less
than one year, the annualizing method will force the owner to repair
the leaks before the rolling average method will. If an appliance
owner is adding more than the applicable allowable percentage of
charge and the time since the last recharge is more than one year,
the reverse holds true.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rolling average method is relatively simple and catches some
kinds of leaks (such as the sudden fast leak described in the previous
paragraph) more quickly than the annualizing method. On the other hand,
the rolling average method permits owners to delay repair of certain
types of leaks longer than the annualizing method, and it may force
owners whose appliances actually leak below the applicable leak rate to
undertake repair, especially if these owners have no way of recognizing
that they have a leak until a relatively large percentage of the charge
has been lost.
Requiring the use of whichever method yields the highest calculated
leak rate is a more complicated approach (both for compliance and
enforcement) than requiring the use of either method alone, but ensures
that leaks are caught as quickly as possible. However, because this
approach incorporates the rolling average method, it shares that
method's potential to penalize appliance owners whose appliances leak
below the applicable leak rate but do not show signs of leakage until
they have lost a relatively large percentage of charge.
Permitting appliance owners to use the method of their choice to
calculate leak rates is somewhat more complicated to enforce than
requiring either method alone, but could be easier for owners to comply
with if they have more experience with one method than the other. It
might permit owners to select the method that permits them to perform
leak repair less frequently, but both the annualizing and rolling
average methods eventually catch all leaks above the maximum allowable
rate. Because appliance owners using the rolling average method would
be doing so at their discretion, this approach neutralizes any equity
concerns associated with that method. However, to implement this
approach, EPA would have to resolve two issues. First, the Agency would
have to implement some

[[Page 32058]]

type of recordkeeping requirement (1) to ensure that once appliance
owners chose a method for calculating leak rates, they used the same
method consistently, and (2) to permit EPA inspectors to understand and
audit leak repair records. Second, EPA would have to determine whether
the same method for calculating leak rates should be used for
individual appliances, whole facilities, or entire firms. EPA believes
that using different methods for different appliances within the same
facility would be excessively confusing and difficult to enforce; the
Agency would prefer the same method to be used on a facility or firm
basis.
EPA is proposing the third option, requiring use of whichever
method yields the higher calculated leak rate, as its lead option.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to define ``leak rate,'' as follows:
Leak rate means the rate at which an appliance is losing
refrigerant, measured between refrigerant charges or over 12 months,
whichever is shorter. The leak rate is expressed in terms of the
percentage of the appliance's full charge that would be lost over a 12-
month period if the current rate of loss were to continue over that
period. The rate is calculated using the following method:
(1) Take the number of pounds of refrigerant added to the appliance
to return it to a full charge and divide it by the number of pounds of
refrigerant the appliance normally contains at full charge;
(2) Take the shorter of (a) 365 days and (b) the number of days
that have passed since the last day refrigerant was added and divide
that number by 365 days;
(3) Take the number calculated in step (1) and divide it by the
number calculated in step (2); and
(4) Multiply the number calculated in step (3) by 100 to calculate
a percentage.
This method is summarized in the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JN98.002

Note that using this formula is equivalent to using whichever of
the two formulas above yields the higher calculated leak rate, since it
reduces to the formula for the annualizing method if less than one year
has passed since refrigerant was last added, while it reduces to the
formula for the rolling average method if more than one year has passed
since refrigerant was last added.
The Agency believes that this approach would require owners to
repair leaks quickly without being unduly burdensome. EPA requests
comment on this approach and on the other options presented here.
6. Low-pressure Appliance
EPA is proposing to revise the definition of ``low-pressure
appliance'' to refer to saturation pressures at 104 degrees F rather
than boiling points. The proposed revised definition reads: Low
pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a refrigerant with a
liquid phase saturation pressure below 45 psia at 104 degrees
Fahrenheit. This definition includes but is not limited to appliances
using R11, R123, and R113.
7. Opening
EPA is proposing to amend the definition of ``opening'' to include
service, maintenance, or repair on an appliance that would release
class I, class II, or substitute refrigerants unless the refrigerant
were recovered previously from the appliance.
EPA is also requesting comment on adding disposal to the definition
of ``opening;'' see section IV.F. for a discussion of this option.
8. Reclaim
EPA is proposing to amend the definition of ``reclaim'' to reflect
the proposed update of the refrigerant purity standards at appendix A
from standards based on ARI 700-1993 to standards based on ARI 700-
1995. In addition, EPA is proposing to slightly reword the definition
of ``reclaim'' to remove the reference to a ``purity'' standard and
thereby make the definition more consistent with the full range of
requirements provided in appendix A. EPA has always interpreted
Sec. 82.154(g) and Sec. 82.164 to require that persons who ``reclaim''
refrigerant must reprocess the refrigerant to all of the specifications
of appendix A that are applicable to that refrigerant and to verify
that the refrigerant meets these specifications using the analytical
methodology prescribed in appendix A.
9. Refrigerant
Although the regulations currently use the term ``refrigerant'' in
several places, EPA has not previously defined this term. EPA is
proposing to add a definition of ``refrigerant'' that would include any
class I or class II substance used for heat transfer purposes, or any
substance used as a substitute for such a class I or class II substance
by any user in a given end-use, except for the following substitutes in
the following end-uses:

Ammonia in commercial or industrial process refrigeration or in
absorption units
Hydrocarbons in industrial process refrigeration (processing of
hydrocarbons)
Chlorine in industrial process refrigeration (processing of chlorine
and chlorine compounds)
Carbon dioxide in any application
Nitrogen in any application
Water in any application

EPA is proposing this definition primarily to simplify the rule.
The proposed definition would permit EPA to refer to covered class I,
class II, and substitute refrigerants without having to reiterate a
list of either included or excepted refrigerants each time. At the same
time, EPA believes that the proposed definition would appropriately
define ``refrigerant'' for purposes of section 608. The Agency does not
intend the definition either to expand or diminish the scope of the
section 608 requirements, and believes that the definition is
consistent with EPA's past interpretations of the term ``refrigerant.''
In the past, EPA has interpreted ``refrigerants'' to include the fluids
in traditional vapor-compression systems, such as refrigerators, air-
conditioners, and heat pumps, as well as the fluids in heat transfer
systems that lack compressors, such as electrical transformers. EPA has
adopted this interpretation based on both technical and common
definitions of ``refrigerant.'' The Agency believes that the proposed
definition would cover the fluids covered by the technical and common
definitions. The rationale for the proposed exceptions is discussed
above in section III.B.
As discussed above, EPA is proposing to interpret ``appliance'' to
exclude secondary loops that move heat from warmer to cooler areas
using a fluid that does not change state. If EPA retains its proposed
interpretation of ``appliance,''

[[Page 32059]]

the Agency could add a restriction to the definition of ``refrigerant''
to the same effect, ensuring consistency between the interpretation of
``appliance'' and the definition of ``refrigerant.'' EPA requests
comment on this option, and on the proposed definition.
10. Substitute
EPA is proposing to define ``substitute'' as any chemical or
product substitute, whether existing or new, that is used by any person
as a replacement for a class I or II compound in a given end-use. As
discussed in section I.B. above, this definition is similar to the
definition of ``substitute'' used in the SNAP rule, but it omits the
proviso that a substitute be ``intended for use as a replacement for a
class I or class II substance.'' Thus, it includes substances that may
not have been used to replace class I or class II substances in a given
instance, but are used to replace class I or class II substances in
other instances of that end-use.
11. Technician
EPA is amending the definition of technician to include persons who
perform maintenance, service, repair, or disposal that could be
reasonably expected to release class I, class II, or substitute
refrigerants from appliances into the atmosphere.
12. Very-High-Pressure Appliance
EPA is proposing to revise the definition of ``very-high-pressure
appliance'' to refer to saturation pressures at 104 degrees Fahrenheit
rather than boiling points. Because 104 degrees F is above the critical
temperatures of many very-high-pressure refrigerants, meaning that
there is no ``saturation pressure'' in the usual sense for those
refrigerants at that temperature, EPA is also adding the phrase ``or
with a critical temperature below 104 degrees Fahrenheit'' to the
definition. The proposed revised definition reads as follows:
Very-high-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a
refrigerant with a critical temperature below 104 degrees Fahrenheit or
with a liquid phase saturation pressure above 305 psia at 104 degrees
Fahrenheit. This definition includes but is not limited to appliances
using R410A and B, R13, R23, and R503.

B. Required Practices

EPA is proposing to require persons servicing or disposing of air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment that contains HFCs and PFCs to
observe certain service practices that minimize emissions of these
refrigerants. As noted above, these service practices are very similar
to those required for the servicing or disposal of CFC and HCFC
equipment. The most fundamental of these practices is the requirement
to recover HFC and PFC refrigerants rather than vent them to the
atmosphere. As noted above, the knowing venting of substitutes for
class I and class II refrigerants (except those exempted by the
Administrator) during maintenance, service, repair or disposal is
expressly prohibited by section 608(c)(1) and (2) of the Act, as of
November 15, 1995. Section 608(c)(1) exempts from the prohibition de
minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to recapture and
recycle or safely dispose of these refrigerants.
The statutory language of section 608(c)(2) simply extends to
substitute refrigerants the section 608(c)(1) prohibition on venting of
class I and II substances and its exemption for de minimis releases
associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely
dispose of refrigerant. For releases of class I and II substances, EPA
has interpreted as ``de minimis releases associated with good faith
attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose'' of refrigerants,
releases that occur despite compliance with EPA's required practices
for recycling and recovery under 40 CFR 82.156, including use of
recovery or recycling equipment certified under 40 CFR 82.158.
Compliance with the regulations represents ``good faith attempts to
recapture and recycle or safely dispose'' of refrigerant, and
consequently releases that occur despite such compliance should be
considered de minimis releases under section 608(c).16 EPA
proposes to interpret the phrase ``good faith attempts to recapture and
recycle or safely dispose'' similarly when it applies to section
608(c)(2). Thus, ``good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or
safely dispose'' of substitute refrigerants are defined by the proposed
provisions concerning evacuation of equipment, recycling and recovery,
use of certified equipment, and technician certification. EPA believes
that these provisions appropriately define good faith attempts to
recapture and recycle or safely dispose of substitute refrigerants for
the reasons discussed in EPA's justification of each provision. Under
this approach, emissions that take place during servicing or disposal
when these provisions are not followed would not be de minimis
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ EPA believes that both the statute and its legislative
history support this interpretation of ``de minimis releases
associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or
safely dispose of any such substance.'' Given the lack of
specificity in the statute, Congress clearly intended to give EPA
discretion to interpret the meaning of the phrase. Moreover, EPA's
interpretation is consistent with the legislative history on the
provision. As noted above, the Senate managers explained in their
report that the exception for de minimis releases was ``included to
account for the fact that in the course of properly using recapture
and recycling equipment, it may not be possible to prevent some
small amount of leakage'' (Congressional Record S16948, October 26,
1990). The Senate managers clearly equated ``properly using
recapture and recycling equipment'' with ``good faith attempts to
recapture'' refrigerant. EPA believes that the Senate managers' term
``properly using'' implies at least compliance with the requirements
to evacuate appliances to certain levels, to use certified recovery
equipment, and to become certified as a technician.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To implement section 608(c)(2) more effectively, EPA proposes not
only to define ``good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely
dispose'' according to the proposed provisions, but also more directly
to require compliance with the proposed provisions for substitute
refrigerants regarding evacuation of equipment, use of certified
equipment, and technician certification in any instance where a person
is opening (or otherwise violating the refrigerant circuit) or
disposing of an appliance, as defined in 40 CFR 82.152. It is
physically impossible to open appliances (or otherwise violate the
refrigerant circuit) or dispose of appliances without emitting at least
some refrigerant, even if some effort is made to recapture the
refrigerant. Even after the appliance has been evacuated, some
refrigerant remains, which is released to the environment when the
appliance is opened or disposed of. Other activities that fall short of
opening but that involve violation of the refrigerant circuit also
release refrigerant, albeit very small quantities, because connectors
(e.g., between hoses or gauges and the appliance) never join together
with no intervening space. Even in the best case in which a good seal
is made between a hose and an appliance before the valve between them
is opened, some refrigerant will remain in the space between the valve
and the outer seal after the former is closed. This refrigerant will be
released when the outer seal is broken. Thus, whenever a person opens
an appliance (or otherwise violates the refrigerant circuit) or
disposes of an appliance, he or she will necessarily violate the
venting prohibition unless the exception for de minimis releases
applies. Because EPA is proposing to define the exception such that it
only applies when the person complies with the proposed provisions
related to recapture, recycling and disposal, compliance with the
section 608(c)(2)

[[Page 32060]]

venting prohibition would require compliance with the proposed
provisions. EPA believes that given this factual context, it has
sufficient authority under sections 608(c)(2) and 301(a) to implement
section 608(c)(2) by simply requiring compliance with the proposed
provisions, as a matter of law, without in each instance first
requiring a demonstration that the person's activities have actually
released refrigerant.
1. Evacuation of Appliances
EPA is proposing that before HFC and PFC appliances are opened for
maintenance, service, or repair, the refrigerant in either the entire
appliance or the part to be serviced (if the latter can be isolated)
must be transferred to a system receiver or to a certified recycling or
recovery machine. (As discussed below in the equipment certification
discussion, EPA is proposing to permit technicians to recover HFCs or
PFCs using equipment certified for use with multiple CFC or HCFC
refrigerants of similar saturation pressures.) The same requirements
would apply to equipment that is to be disposed of, except for small
appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances, whose disposal is covered
under section c. below. EPA is proposing that HFC and PFC appliances be
evacuated to established levels that are the same as those for CFCs and
HCFCs with similar saturation pressures. At the same time, in order to
implement an approach based solely on saturation pressures, EPA is
proposing minor changes to the current system for classifying CFC and
HCFC appliances. As for CFCs and HCFCs, evacuation levels for HFCs and
PFCs would also depend upon the size of the appliance and the date of
manufacture of the recycling and recovery equipment.
Technicians repairing MVAC-like appliances are not subject to the
evacuation requirements below, but are subject to a requirement to
``properly use'' (as defined at 40 CFR 82.32(e)) recycling and recovery
equipment approved pursuant to Sec. 82.36(a).
a. Evacuation Requirements for Appliances Other Than Small
Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like Appliances. Table I lists the proposed
levels of evacuation for air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment
other than small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances. These
levels would apply to equipment containing CFCs and HCFCs as well as
HFCs and PFCs. The Agency has considered a number of factors in
developing these levels, including the technical capabilities, ease of
use, and costs of recycling and recovery equipment, the thermodynamic
characteristics of the HFC and PFC refrigerants, the need for a
relatively simple and consistent regulatory scheme for all
refrigerants, the servicing times that would be necessary to achieve
different vacuums, and the amounts of refrigerant that would be
released under different evacuation requirements and their impact on
the environment.

Table 1.--Required Levels of Evacuation for Appliances
[Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inches of Hg vacuum (relative to standard atmospheric
pressure of 29.9 inches Hg)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Type of appliance Using recovery or recycling Using recovery or recycling
equipment manufactured or equipment manufactured or
imported before Nov. 15, imported on or after Nov.
1993 15, 1993
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very high-pressure appliance........................ 0........................... 0.
Higher-pressure appliance, or isolated component of 0........................... 0.
such appliance, normally containing less than 200
pounds of refrigerant.
Higher-pressure appliance, or isolated component of 4........................... 10.
such appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or
more of refrigerant.
High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of 4........................... 10.
such appliance, normally containing less than 200
pounds of refrigerant.
High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of 4........................... 15.
such appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or
more of refrigerant.
Low-pressure appliance.............................. 25.......................... 25 mm Hg absolute.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As noted above, the evacuation requirements in Table 1 are very
similar to those currently in place for CFC and HCFC appliances. The
current evacuation requirements for CFC and HCFC appliances are based
largely, but not entirely, on their saturation pressures. (Refrigerants
are actually classified according to their boiling points at
atmospheric pressure, which are generally inversely related to their
saturation pressures at higher temperatures.) The current regulation
has three saturation pressure categories for appliances: low pressure,
high-pressure, and very-high-pressure. Successively deeper vacuums are
required for lower pressure appliances.
EPA adopted this approach because the saturation pressure of a
refrigerant is directly related both to the percentage of refrigerant
that is recovered at a given vacuum level and to the compression ratio
that is necessary to achieve that vacuum.17 A comparison
between R502, which has a saturation pressure of 245 psia at 104 deg.F,
and R11, which has a saturation pressure of 25.3 psia at 104 deg.F,
makes this clear. At an evacuation level of 10 inches of mercury vacuum
and an ambient temperature of 104 deg.F, 96

[[Page 32061]]

percent of R502 refrigerant vapor has been recovered, but only 61
percent of R11 refrigerant vapor has been recovered. For R502, the
compression ratio necessary to achieve this vacuum is about 25 to 1,
but for R11 the compression ratio necessary is only about one tenth of
that, 2.6 to 1. Most recovery compressors have a compression ratio
limit of between 20 and 30 to 1, meaning that it is difficult to
achieve an evacuation level much lower than 10 inches of vacuum for
R502, but that it is easy to achieve a lower evacuation level for R11.
Thus, a refrigerant's saturation pressure directly affects both the
technical feasibility and the environmental impact of a given
evacuation level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ The saturation pressure of a refrigerant is the same as its
vapor pressure, that is, the characteristic pressure of the vapor in
a vapor/liquid mixture of that refrigerant at equilibrium at a given
temperature. A compression ratio `is the ratio of the pressures of a
gas on the discharge and suction sides of the compressor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, saturation pressure is not the only factor affecting the
feasibility and cost-effectiveness of various evacuation levels for
appliances. Other considerations include the discharge temperature of
the refrigerant (the temperature of the refrigerant as it emerges from
the compressor) and the social value of the refrigerant (which includes
both its price and the environmental damage avoided by containing it).
Due to these considerations, EPA established a special set of
evacuation requirements for R-22 appliances, which would otherwise have
been treated as high-pressure appliances. EPA established somewhat less
stringent requirements for R22 appliances because (1) R-22 has both a
relatively high saturation pressure and a relatively high discharge
temperature among high-pressure refrigerants, making it relatively
difficult to evacuate deeply, and (2) R-22 has a low ODP compared to
R12, R500, and R502, all of which contain CFCs (58 FR 28674).
When EPA began its evaluation of possible evacuation levels for HFC
appliances, the Agency believed that it might be appropriate to
establish less stringent levels for these refrigerants than for CFCs of
similar saturation pressure, following the precedent established with
R22. On a pound-for-pound basis, EPA estimates that HFCs generally
cause less environmental harm than the CFCs they replace. However, when
EPA performed its analysis of the costs and benefits of attaining
various vacuum levels, it found that the social cost of releasing the
HFCs and PFCs (which, again, is a combination of the lost private value
of the refrigerant and the environmental damage that results from its
release) justified reaching vacuum levels only slightly less deep than
those for the CFCs being replaced. For instance, EPA found that the
socially optimal level of evacuation for R12 appliances containing 50
pounds of refrigerant was 15 to 22 inches of vacuum 18,
while the socially optimal level of evacuation for R134a appliances
containing the same quantity was 8 to 17 inches of vacuum.19
Based on these results, the most important factor in determining
appropriate evacuation levels for any particular charge size appears to
be the saturation pressure of the refrigerant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ EPA established a 10-inch vacuum level for equipment
containing less than 200 lbs of high-pressure refrigerant in
consideration of the fact that this evacuation requirement would
apply not only to large R12 appliances, but to smaller R12
appliances and to appliances containing somewhat higher pressure
refrigerants (e.g., R502). Very deep evacuation requirements were
not justified for the last two. In addition, many appliances are
likely serviced at higher temperatures than the 70 deg. used in
EPA's model, making attainment of deep vacuums more difficult.
\19\ Calculated optimal vacuums depend upon labor costs, the
estimated social cost of releasing the refrigerant, the displacement
of the recovery device compressor, and the clearance of the recovery
device compressor. The 8-inch optimal vacuum is based on relatively
low compressor displacement, relatively high compressor clearance,
and the assumption that the release of one kilogram of R134a would
cause about 60 cents worth of environmental damage; the 17-inch
optimal vacuum is based upon relatively high compressor
displacement, relatively low compressor clearance, and the
assumption that the release of one kilogram of R134a would cause
about six dollars worth of environmental damage. If the R134a is
assumed to cause no damage (which, for the reasons discussed in
section III.B.2, is an extremely unlikely assumption), the lower-
bound optimal vacuum rounds to seven inches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moreover, standards set by saturation pressure would be easier for
technicians to remember and implement than standards that varied both
by saturation pressure and type of refrigerant. The current CFC and
HCFC regulations contain 12 categories of evacuation requirements, a
number that could conceivably be doubled if EPA established new
categories for HFCs. EPA believes that the limited benefit that might
be gained by such ``fine-tuning'' is outweighed by the confusion and
non-compliance that could result from the proliferation of different
requirements. Many participants at the March 10, 1995, industry meeting
on substitutes recycling expressed a belief that establishing
consistent requirements for CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs, and PFCs would enhance
compliance with the recovery requirements for all of these
refrigerants.
EPA is proposing two changes to the current system for classifying
appliances in order to implement an approach based solely upon
saturation pressure. The first proposed change is to classify
refrigerants according to their saturation pressures at 104 degrees F
rather than their boiling points. The second proposed change is to
eliminate the special category for R22 and to replace it with a new
saturation pressure category that includes the ``high-pressure''
refrigerants with the highest saturation pressures.
EPA is proposing to classify refrigerants according to their
saturation pressures at 104 degrees F 20 because many of the
refrigerants that have entered the market over the past few years pose
two difficulties for the existing system based on boiling points.
First, many of the new HFC and HCFC blends do not have precise boiling
points. Instead, these refrigerants exhibit ``glide,'' boiling and
condensing over a range of temperatures at a given pressure. Second,
refrigerants' boiling points have served as a surrogate for their
saturation pressures at higher temperatures, but the relationship
between boiling point and saturation pressure is not as consistent for
the new refrigerants as it is for traditional CFCs and HCFCs. For
instance, a lower boiling point has generally indicated a higher
saturation pressure at a given temperature. However, R402B, with a
boiling point of -53.2 degrees F, actually has a lower saturation
pressure at 104 degrees F than R407A, with a boiling point of-49.9
degrees. The new approach avoids these difficulties because it links
evacuation requirements directly to the refrigerant saturation pressure
at a temperature similar to those where recovery typically takes place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ Zeotropic blends exert different pressures at the same
temperature, depending upon the percentage of vapor vs. liquid in
the container. For instance, a container of R407C vapor has a
saturation pressure of 223.8 psia at 104 degrees, while a container
of R407C liquid has a saturation pressure of 254.5 psia at 104
degrees. EPA is proposing to classify refrigerants according to
their liquid saturation pressures at 104 degrees F. This is because
the vacuum that can be drawn on an appliance is determined by the
discharge pressure against which the recovery compressor must pump
near the conclusion of the recovery process, and this discharge
pressure is that of a recovery tank that is likely to be nearly
filled with liquid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA has attempted to select bracketing saturation pressures for
appliance categories so as to maintain as much consistency as possible
with the current categories based on boiling points. For instance,
because the current definition of ``high-pressure appliances'' includes
R114 appliances at the low-pressure end, and the saturation pressure of
R114 at 104 degrees F is slightly above 45 psia, EPA is proposing to
use a saturation pressure of 45 psia as the lower-bound saturation
pressure for high-pressure appliances.
One issue raised by the proposed approach is how to classify
appliances using very high pressure refrigerants such as R13, R23, and
R503. These

[[Page 32062]]

refrigerants do not have a saturation pressure in the traditional sense
at 104 degrees F because this temperature is above their critical
temperatures. (As noted above, the saturation pressure of a refrigerant
is the pressure of the vapor in a vapor/liquid mixture, but
refrigerants above their critical temperatures cannot exist in a liquid
state regardless of the pressure.) To address this concern, EPA is
proposing to modify the definition of very high pressure appliances to
add the phrase ``or whose critical temperatures fall below 104 degrees
F.''
EPA requests comment on its proposed use of refrigerants'
saturation pressures at 104 degrees F rather than boiling points to
classify them. An alternative might be to retain the current system
based on boiling points, making allowances for temperature glide. For
example, in cases where glide caused a refrigerant to straddle the line
between two pressure categories, EPA could place the ``straddling''
refrigerant into the category suggested by the lower end of the boiling
range (the ``bubble point''). This point is the one typically listed in
pressure-temperature charts, and EPA believes that it is the point that
would determine the maximum evacuation level (minimum pressure) that is
physically possible for the refrigerant.
Some custom refrigerant blends exhibit very large glides (e.g.,
over 60 degrees Celsius). For such refrigerants, the appropriate
evacuation level may be difficult to predict based on either saturation
pressure or a single ``bubble'' or ``dew'' point. EPA has worked and
will continue to work with the manufacturers of these refrigerants to
determine appropriate evacuation levels on a case-by-case basis.
The second change that EPA is proposing to the current
classification scheme is to eliminate the special category for R22 and
to replace it with a new saturation pressure category that includes the
``high-pressure'' refrigerants with the highest saturation pressures
(those with boiling points approximately between -40 and -50 degrees C
and saturation pressures between 220 psia and 305 psia at 104 degrees
F). EPA would designate this as the ``higher-pressure'' refrigerants
category. This would enable EPA to tailor requirements to refrigerants
with relatively high saturation pressures without increasing the
overall number of categories. The new category would include appliances
containing R22, R502, R404C, and R407 A, B, and C, and would be subject
to the same requirements as R22 appliances. For several of these
refrigerants, the combination of a relatively high saturation pressure
and high discharge temperature makes recovery into a deep vacuum
difficult. On the other hand, these refrigerants have significantly
lower saturation pressures than still higher pressure refrigerants,
such as R410A and B (with saturation pressures near 350 psia) and R13
and R503 (whose critical temperatures fall below 104 degrees F).
EPA requests comment on the establishment of the ``higher-
pressure'' saturation pressure category. EPA specifically requests
comment on the proposed use of 305 psia as the upper bound saturation
pressure for this category. The pressures to which R22 appliances must
be evacuated (and therefore to which ``higher-pressure'' appliances
would have to be evacuated) are 0 inches of vacuum, or atmospheric
pressure, for appliances containing less than 200 pounds of
refrigerant, and 10 inches of vacuum, or 9.8 psia, for appliances
containing more than 200 pounds of refrigerant. Drawing a 10-inch
vacuum on an appliance containing a refrigerant with a saturation
pressure of 305 psia would require recovery equipment to attain a
compression ratio of 30 to 1. EPA's current understanding is that this
is very close to the maximum achievable compression ratio for most
recovery compressors, and may even be beyond the abilities of some
models. (However, the compression ratio necessary to achieve this
vacuum may be lowered by cooling the condenser of the recovery
equipment.) Thus, it may be appropriate to establish a different upper-
bound saturation pressure for this category, such as 265 psia.
EPA also requests comment on whether it is appropriate to include
R502 (which has a relatively low discharge temperature) in this
category, or whether the possibility of drawing a deeper vacuum on this
refrigerant merits its inclusion in a lower-pressure category despite
the confusion that might result.
One concern raised at the March 10, 1995, meeting was whether the
energy consumption associated with lengthy operation of recovery
equipment might result in the emission of more global warming gases
(CO<INF>2</INF>) than would be contained through continuing the
refrigerant recovery process, removing the justification for deep
recovery. To investigate this concern, EPA and a laboratory that tests
recovery and recycling equipment compared the rates of power
consumption (and resultant emissions of CO<INF>2</INF>) and refrigerant
recovery for both high- and low-pressure recovery equipment. Both the
CO<INF>2</INF> emissions rate and the refrigerant recovery rate were
weighted by the GWPs of the gases being emitted or captured. (Both the
EPA and laboratory analyses are included in the docket for this
rulemaking.) The conclusion of both EPA and the laboratory was that the
rate of CO<INF>2</INF> emission resulting from use of recovery
equipment was dwarfed by the rate of refrigerant recovery even at the
latest (and therefore slowest) stages of recovery. Specifically, the
minimum rate of refrigerant recovery for high-pressure recovery
equipment was greater than the maximum rate of CO<INF>2</INF> emissions
attributable to recovery by more than a factor of 2000, and the minimum
rate of recovery for low-pressure equipment out paced the rate of
CO<INF>2</INF> emissions by a factor of over 1000. These large
differences are in part attributable to the high global warming
potential of most HFC refrigerants compared to CO<INF>2</INF>.
b. Evacuation Levels for Small Appliances. EPA is proposing to
establish the same evacuation requirements for servicing small
appliances charged with HFCs as it has for small appliances charged
with CFCs and HCFCs. Technicians opening small appliances for service,
maintenance, or repair would be required to use equipment certified
either under Appendix B, ARI 740-1993, or under Appendix C, Method for
Testing Recovery Devices for Use with Small Appliances, to recover the
refrigerant.
Technicians using equipment certified under Appendix C would have
to capture 90 percent of the refrigerant in the appliance if the
compressor were operating, and 80 percent of the refrigerant if the
compressor were not operating. Because the percentage of refrigerant
mass recovered is very difficult to measure on any given job,
technicians would have to adhere to the servicing procedure certified
for that recovery system under Appendix C to ensure that they achieve
the required recovery efficiencies.
Technicians using equipment certified under Appendix B would have
to pull a four-inch vacuum on the small appliance being evacuated.
c. Evacuation Levels for Disposed MVACs, MVAC-like Appliances, and
Small Appliances. EPA is proposing to establish the same evacuation
requirements for disposing of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like
appliances that are charged with HFCs as it has for these types of
appliances charged with CFCs and HCFCs. MVACs and MVAC-like appliances
would have to be evacuated to 102 mm (approximately four inches) of
mercury vacuum, and small appliances would have to have 80 or 90
percent of the

[[Page 32063]]

refrigerant in them recovered (depending on whether or not the
compressor was operating) or be evacuated to four inches of mercury
vacuum.
d. Request for Comment on Establishing Special Evacuation
Requirements for Heat Transfer Appliances. As noted in section
IV.A.1.a. above, EPA received comments from a manufacturer of PFCs that
stated that special evacuation requirements may be appropriate for
certain types of heat transfer appliances containing PFCs, such as some
types of electrical transformers. The commenter specifically noted that
evacuating some types of heat transfer systems may result in damage to
those systems, that in many cases, parts to be repaired may be isolated
from the refrigerant charge, and that many repairs may be performed
quickly, releasing little refrigerant even if the system is not
evacuated.
EPA does not currently believe that special evacuation requirements
for heat transfer appliances are necessary, for two reasons. First, EPA
has not heard from users or servicers of heat transfer appliances that
the current requirements regarding the recovery of CFCs and HCFCs from
such appliances (which are the same as those for similarly sized
appliances containing refrigerants of similar pressure) are difficult
to implement. Because PFCs have physical characteristics similar to
those of the CFCs that they replace in heat transfer appliances, EPA
believes that any potential problems associated with implementing the
proposed evacuation requirements for PFCs would have already surfaced
with CFCs and HCFCs. Second, the current evacuation provisions appear
to adequately address most of the situations that the commenter has
identified. Specifically, the current regulations establish an
exception to the evacuation requirements for non-major repairs and
permit isolation of parts to be repaired. Before non-major repairs,
technicians need only evacuate (or pressurize, in the case of low-
pressure appliances) appliances to atmospheric pressure. If a part can
be isolated from the refrigerant charge, technicians may repair the
part without recovering the refrigerant into an external container.
EPA requests comment on the need for special evacuation
requirements for heat transfer appliances in light of the arguments
presented here.
e. Proposed Clarifications of Evacuation Requirements. EPA has
received a request for two clarifications of the evacuation
requirements for appliances. The first request for clarification
concerns whether a part of the appliance that is not a separate tank
may be considered a ``system receiver,'' in which the system charge may
be isolated while another, isolated part of the appliance is opened for
repairs. The second request for clarification concerns whether an
isolated portion of an appliance that already meets the required level
of evacuation due to normal operating characteristics may be opened for
repairs without further evacuation. In addition to proposing a minor
change to the regulatory language to respond to the first request, EPA
is proposing to add language to Sec. 82.156(a) to clarify that, except
in the case of non-major repairs to low-pressure appliances, liquid
refrigerant must be removed from appliances (or from the isolated parts
to be serviced) before they are opened to the atmosphere.
Regarding the first request for clarification, EPA is today
clarifying that, for purposes of complying with Sec. 82.156(a), EPA
interprets the term ``system receiver'' to include a part of the
appliance that is not a separate tank, if that portion of the appliance
can be isolated from the portion of the appliance that is opened for
repairs. From an environmental perspective, EPA believes that the
critical consideration is whether the part of the appliance to be
opened to the atmosphere for repair has had the refrigerant removed and
isolated from it, not the configuration of the remaining appliance
parts within which the refrigerant is isolated. To clarify this point,
EPA is proposing to amend Sec. 82.156(a) by adding the following
examples after the term ``system receiver'': ``(e.g., the remaining
portions of the appliance, or a specific vessel within the
appliance)''. EPA requests comment on this proposed change.
In addition to clarifying its interpretation of ``system
receiver,'' EPA is proposing to add language to Sec. 82.156(a) to
ensure that the regulations clearly preclude a possible
misinterpretation of these requirements. EPA has always interpreted
Sec. 82.156(a) to require that, except in the case of non-major repairs
to low-pressure appliances, liquid refrigerant must be removed from
appliances (or from the isolated parts to be serviced) before they are
opened to the atmosphere. Currently, Sec. 82.156(a) reads (in part)
``all persons disposing of appliances * * * must evacuate the
refrigerant in the entire unit to a recovery or recycling machine
certified pursuant to Sec. 82.158. All persons opening appliances * * *
must evacuate the refrigerant in either the entire unit or the part to
be serviced (if the latter can be isolated) to a system receiver or a
recovery or recycling machine certified pursuant to Sec. 82.158.''
Sections 82.156(a)(1) through (5) specify pressures to which the
appliances must be evacuated.
It has come to EPA's attention that it may be possible in some
cases to briefly attain the required evacuation levels specified in
Secs. 82.156(a)(1) through (5) while there is still liquid refrigerant
in the appliance or in the isolated part to be serviced. In general, if
vapor is removed from a mixture of liquid and vapor refrigerant at
equilibrium, reducing the vapor pressure, the liquid will boil until
the equilibrium between the vapor and liquid states is restored,
returning the vapor pressure to the saturation pressure of the
refrigerant. However, heat must flow into the system from the
environment for this to occur, and such heat flow takes time. Thus, if
an individual quickly recovers vapor from an appliance, permitting no
time for the liquid to boil to return the vapor pressure to the
equilibrium value, the pressure specified in Sec. 82.156(a) may be
attained, albeit only temporarily. If the individual opens the
appliance at this point, a great deal of refrigerant will be released
to the environment. This is because the density of liquid refrigerant
is typically one to two orders of magnitude greater than that of vapor
refrigerant, meaning that a large mass of refrigerant may be
concentrated in a relatively small volume of liquid, and the liquid
will continue to boil off into the atmosphere as long as the appliance
is opened.
EPA believes that the use of the phrase ``evacuate the
refrigerant'' in Sec. 82.156(a), as well as the language in
Sec. 82.154(a) (the prohibition on venting) already clearly indicate
that liquid refrigerant must be removed from the appliance or isolated
part before it is opened for servicing. Otherwise, a significant
portion of the refrigerant will not be evacuated to a recovery device,
a good faith effort to recover and recycle refrigerant will not be
made, and releases to the environment will be considerably more than de
minimis. Nevertheless, to eliminate any possible ambiguity on this
point, the Agency is proposing to add the phrase, ``including all
liquid refrigerant,'' after the phrase, ``the refrigerant,'' in both
places where it occurs in Sec. 82.156(a). To ensure that the modified
language does not implicitly override Sec. 82.156(a)(2)(i)(B), which
provides that recovery of liquid is not required in cases of non-major
repairs to low-pressure appliances, EPA is proposing to add the
parenthetical phrase ``(except as provided at
Sec. 82.156(a)(2)(i)(B))'' to the second occurrence of ``including all
liquid

[[Page 32064]]

refrigerant.'' EPA requests comment on this proposed change.
In response to the second request for clarification, EPA believes
that if a part of an appliance already meets the required level of
evacuation due to normal operating characteristics, it may be isolated
and opened for repairs without further evacuation, so long as liquid
refrigerant is not present in the isolated part. Again, the purpose of
the requirement to evacuate under Sec. 82.156(a) is to minimize
refrigerant emissions from the part. If the required level of
evacuation has been met, and no liquid is present in the isolated part,
only de minimis quantities of refrigerant will be released when the
part is opened to the atmosphere. Therefore, this situation meets the
requirements to evacuate under Sec. 82.156(a).
2. Disposition of Recovered Refrigerant
EPA is proposing to establish purity requirements for HFCs and PFCs
very similar to those for CFCs and HCFCs. In addition, the Agency is
proposing to update its purity requirements for all refrigerants to
reflect the most recent industry standard, ARI 700-1995, Specifications
for Fluorocarbon and Other Refrigerants, and is requesting comment on
adopting a generic standard of purity for those refrigerants that are
not covered by ARI 700-1995.
a. Background. Currently, before being sold for use as a
refrigerant, used CFCs and HCFCs must be reclaimed by a certified
reclaimer to the ARI 700-1993 Standard of purity, which is codified as
Appendix A to subpart F. In a separate rulemaking, EPA has proposed to
add more flexibility to the purity standards for CFC and HCFC
refrigerants, permitting contractors to transfer refrigerant from one
customer's to another customer's equipment, so long as (1) the
refrigerant remains within the contractor's constant custody and
control, (2) the refrigerant is returned to the ARI 700 Standard of
purity, and (3) this purity is verified through submission of a
representative sample to an analytical laboratory certified by an EPA-
approved laboratory certification program. That proposal would also
require third party certification of reclaimers. See 61 FR 7858
(February 29, 1996).
b. Extending Purity Requirements to HFC and PFC Refrigerants. EPA
is not today soliciting comment on which refrigerant purity regime is
preferable for all refrigerants. Instead, EPA requests comment on
whether the purity of HFCs and PFCs should be maintained through a
different regulatory approach than the purity of CFCs and HCFCs, and if
so, why.
EPA believes that the rationale for promulgating purity standards
for CFCs and HCFCs also applies to HFCs and PFCs 21. EPA
discussed the rationale for covering CFCs and HCFCs at length in the
May 14, 1993 final rule (58 FR 28678-28679), the March 17, 1995, and
February 29, 1996 direct final rules, and the December 27, 1996 final
rule extending the reclamation requirement (60 FR 14608, 61 FR 7724,
and 61 FR 68506). In summary, the purity requirements are intended to
prevent refrigerant releases that would result from refrigerant
contamination, particularly releases linked to damage to equipment
caused by use of contaminated refrigerant. This damage, including
sludging of high-viscosity oils in low temperature systems, freezing of
moisture in capillary tubes, corrosion from acids, and high head-
pressures from noncondensables and refrigerant mixtures, could be
caused by contaminated HFCs and PFCs (and their lubricants) as well as
by contaminated CFCs and HCFCs. Equipment damage from contaminated
refrigerant would result in costs to equipment owners and releases of
refrigerant from damaged equipment though increased leakage, servicing,
and replacement. In addition, such damage would ultimately lead to a
reduction in consumer confidence in the quality of used refrigerant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ In finalizing the purity requirements for HFCs and PFCs,
EPA will consider comments received on both on the February 29,
1996, document (and on any subsequent document related to purity
standards for refrigerant) and on this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given these potential effects, EPA believes that promulgating
purity requirements for HFCs and PFCs is vital to implementation and
enforcement of section 608(c)(2). Any reduction in consumer confidence
in the quality of used refrigerant would undermine a fundamental
incentive to comply with the section 608(c)(2) prohibition on venting
substitute refrigerants. Without a market for the used refrigerant,
there is no economic incentive to recover it; indeed, the costs of
recovery and destruction create a significant economic incentive simply
to release the substance, in violation of the venting prohibition.
Moreover, the removal of economic incentives to comply with the
prohibition is particularly deleterious to compliance because direct
enforcement of the prohibition is difficult. The prohibition applies to
numerous small entities, including over one million technicians, and
EPA lacks the resources to monitor their refrigerant-related activities
on an individual basis. Under these circumstances, establishing
economic incentives for compliance, or at least neutralizing economic
disincentives to compliance, is particularly critical to implementing
the statutory prohibition on venting.
The proliferation of refrigerants and lubricants on the market has
made efforts to protect refrigerant purity more important than ever.
The increasing number of refrigerants increases the probability of
refrigerant mixture, particularly if equipment that has been
retrofitted with new refrigerant is not properly identified, leading to
mixture of a CFC with the HCFC or HFC that replaced it. Requirements to
analyze refrigerant before sale to a new owner can prevent mixed
refrigerants from being placed into equipment or from contaminating a
larger batch of refrigerant.
Moreover, EPA believes that purity standards must apply to all
refrigerants in similar applications in order to ensure purity for any
subset of these refrigerants. As noted above, several persons attending
the March 10, 1995 public meeting stated that failure to apply
standards to HFCs could erode compliance with the standards for CFCs
and HCFCs, because technicians would become either confused or
skeptical regarding standards that were applied inconsistently. Such
standards would also be difficult to enforce. For instance, without
purity standards, contractors could sell dirty HFCs on the open market,
and it would be relatively easy to hide commerce in dirty CFCs or HCFCs
within commerce in dirty HFCs (e.g., through deliberate mislabelling, a
tactic that has been used to import CFCs illegally). Thus, purity
standards for HFCs are important to prevent damage to CFC and HCFC
equipment and subsequent emissions of these refrigerants as well. As a
consequence, EPA believes that purity standards for HFCs and PFCs are
important to implement the section 608(a)(2) requirement to reduce
emissions of CFCs and HCFCs to the lowest achievable level.
EPA is proposing to extend the purity requirements to HFCs and PFCs
by revising prohibitions 82.154(g) and (h) to refer simply to
``refrigerant'' rather than to ``class I and class II substances.'' In
addition, EPA is proposing to include purity standards and analytical
protocols for HFC refrigerants in Appendix A.
c. Updating the Purity Standard. EPA is proposing to adopt the most
recent version of the industry purity standard and analytical protocol
for refrigerants, ARI 700-1995. ARI 700-1995 includes standards for a
number of refrigerants that are not addressed by the currently

[[Page 32065]]

codified standard, ARI 700-1993. These refrigerants include R404A,
R405A, R406A, R407A, B, and C, R408A, R409A, R410A and B, R411A and B,
R412A, R507, R508 and R509. In addition, the Appendix C to ARI Standard
700-95 has updated some of the procedures for the analysis of
refrigerants in Appendix 93 to ARI 700-1993, which is incorporated by
reference into subpart F. First, methods have been added for
determining the composition of the zeotropic refrigerant blend families
R404, R407, R408, R409, and R410, and of the azeotropic refrigerant
blends R507 and R508. These methods will enable laboratories to verify
that the blends contain the appropriate percentages of their component
materials. Second, a gravimetric test has been added as an alternate
method for determining high-boiling residues. The gravimetric test is
actually considered to be more accurate than the current volumetric
method, and its addition will permit laboratories with the appropriate
facilities and expertise to perform more precise measurements of high-
boiling residues than are permitted by the volumetric method. (The
volumetric method is retained as an alternate in ARI 700-95 because it
is adequately precise for most applications, and is less expensive to
perform than the gravimetric method.) Finally, several typographic and
wording changes have been made to improve the clarity of the standard.
EPA believes that these changes will make the reclamation requirements
more enforceable while decreasing the burden of industry to prove
conformance.
ARI is currently revising ARI Standard 700-95 to reflect further
advances in refrigerant analysis and changes in the refrigerant market.
Because the next version of the Standard may be completed between the
publication of this proposed rule and the final rule, and because EPA
believes it is appropriate to adopt the most recent version of the
Standard possible, EPA is requesting comment on the changes to the
Standard that EPA understands are being considered. These changes
include (1) the adoption of a single analysis (for each blend) for
determining both the composition of each refrigerant blend and its
level of contamination by organic impurities, and (2) the
standardization of the presently wide range of equipment, techniques,
and calculations used in the current methods for determining the
composition of refrigerant blends. Currently, there are no analytical
methods for determining blends' levels of contamination by organic
impurities, and the adoption of a standardized and consolidated
composition/impurity analysis will therefore make the standard more
enforceable without significantly increasing the burden on
laboratories. These changes are discussed in more detail in a report
developed by Integral Sciences Incorporated for the Air-Conditioning
and Refrigeration Technology Institute (ARTI). This report is entitled
Methods Development for Organic Contaminant Determination in
Fluorocarbon Refrigerant Azeotropes and Blends and is included in the
docket for this rulemaking.
d. Generic Standard of Purity. Despite EPA's proposed adoption of
the latest industry standard, the Agency's purity standards are likely
to be rendered incomplete shortly after their promulgation by the rapid
development and introduction of new refrigerants into the market. In
general, there is likely to be a delay between the introduction of new
refrigerants and the adoption of specific purity standards for them by
ARI and EPA. Although EPA plans to consider purity requirements along
with recycling requirements for each new refrigerant as it undergoes
SNAP review, the Agency is requesting comment on establishing a generic
purity standard for refrigerants for which specific purity standards
have not yet been codified. The ARI 700 standard includes
specifications for boiling points, boiling ranges, isomer contents,
noncondensables, water, high-boiling residue, particulates/solids,
acidity, and chlorides. Except for boiling points, boiling ranges, and
high boiling residues, the specifications for all CFC, HCFC, and HFC
refrigerants are identical or vary systematically according to the
saturation pressure of the refrigerant. EPA is requesting comment on
whether HFCs for which specific standards have not been codified should
be subject to the following maximum contaminant levels, which are based
on those of ARI 700:

Generic Maximum Contaminant Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contaminant Reporting units Low pressure refrigs. Other refrigs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-condensables................... % by volume @ 25 deg.C........ N/A.................. 1.5.
Water.............................. ppm by weight................. 20................... 10.
High boiling residue............... % by volume................... 0.01................. 0.01.
Particulates/solids................ Visually clean to pass........ pass................. pass.
Acidity............................ ppm by weight................. 1.0.................. 1.0.
Chlorides.......................... No visible turbidity.......... pass................. pass
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA requests comment on the specific contaminant levels presented
here.
Since reclamation requires not only that refrigerant be cleaned to
a certain level, but also that it be analyzed to verify that it meets
that level, a generic standard of purity should be matched by a generic
analytical protocol. General analytical procedures exist to determine
the levels of acidity, water, high-boiling residue, chloride, and non-
condensable gases in refrigerants; these procedures are detailed in
parts 1 through 5 of Appendix C to ARI 700-95. However, individual gas
chromatography procedures are required for each refrigerant in order to
determine the overall purity of that refrigerant. This is because each
refrigerant has its own gas chromatogram (profile) and characteristic
impurities (other than acid, water, high-boiling residue, chloride, and
noncondensable gases). EPA understands that the need to develop gas
chromatography procedures is what frequently slows the adoption of
reclamation procedures for new refrigerants. Thus, EPA requests comment
on whether it would be useful to have generic standards of purity for
new refrigerants and analytical protocols for acid, water, high-boiling
residues, chloride, and noncondensable gases for these refrigerants in
the absence of specific gas chromatography procedures to determine the
overall purity of these refrigerants.
e. Possible Application of Standard of Purity to New Refrigerants.
EPA believes

[[Page 32066]]

that the vast majority of new refrigerant sold meets the ARI 700
standard. However, the Agency understands that on occasion, used or
otherwise contaminated refrigerant has been sold as ``new.'' In order
to ensure that the Agency can prevent the sale of contaminated
refrigerant that is labeled as ``new,'' EPA is requesting comment on
whether it should require new refrigerant to meet the ARI 700-1995
specifications. EPA also requests comment on whether producers or
sellers of new refrigerant should be required to analyze the
refrigerant before its sale, using the protocol set forth in ARI 700-
1995.
3. Leak Repair
EPA is proposing to lower the permissible leak rates for some air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment containing more than 50 pounds
of CFC \22\ and HCFC refrigerant. EPA is also proposing to extend the
leak repair requirements (as they would be amended) to air-conditioning
and refrigeration equipment containing more than 50 pounds of HFC and
PFC refrigerant. Specifically, EPA is proposing to lower the
permissible annual leak rate for new commercial refrigeration equipment
to 10 percent of the charge per year, the permissible annual leak rate
for older commercial refrigeration equipment to 15 percent per year,
the permissible annual leak rate for some industrial process
refrigeration equipment to 20 percent of the charge per year, the
permissible annual leak rate for other new appliances (e.g., comfort
cooling chillers) to five percent of the charge per year, and the
permissible annual leak rate for other existing appliances to 10
percent of the charge per year. The proposed changes would become
effective thirty days after publication of the final rule except for
the provisions affecting industrial process refrigeration, which would
become effective three years after publication of the final rule. The
other aspects of the current leak repair provisions, such as time lines
for repair or retrofit, would remain the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ EPA is not aware of any manufacturers of new appliances who
are still using CFCs. However, in the event that such appliances
were manufactured, they would be subject to the new leak repair
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The current permissible annual leak rates for commercial and
industrial process refrigeration and for other appliances are 35
percent per year and 15 percent per year respectively. These limits
were set based on information that EPA gathered regarding typical leak
rates for these types of equipment in 1991 and 1992. In several recent
meetings and conversations with EPA, industry representatives have
indicated that air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment
manufactured over the past few years has been designed to leak at lower
rates than air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment manufactured
earlier, and that existing appliances have often been modified with new
devices, such as high-efficiency purge devices for low-pressure
chillers, that have significantly lowered their leak rates.
Manufacturers have made these design changes, and owners have invested
in them, in response to growing environmental and economic concerns
associated with refrigerant emissions.
a. Comfort Cooling Chillers. EPA's research indicates that the
reduction in leak rates has been most dramatic in comfort cooling
chillers, where leak rates have been lowered from between 10 and 15
percent per year to less than five percent per year in many cases.
Design changes that have contributed to this reduction include the
installation of high-efficiency purge devices on low-pressure chillers,
the installation of microprocessor-based monitoring systems that can
alert system operators to warning signs of leakage (such as excessive
purge run time), the use of leak-tight brazed rather than leak-prone
flared connections, and the use of isolation valves, which permit
technicians to make repairs without evacuating and opening the entire
refrigerant circuit. The first two conservation measures can be
implemented for existing as well as new equipment; the last two apply
primarily to new equipment.
Manufacturers, servicers, and users of chillers state that, as a
result of these modifications, new chillers (those built since 1992)
typically leak less than five percent per year, with many new chillers
leaking around two percent per year, and some leaking less than one
percent. Only one type of new equipment has been reported to have a
leak rate above five percent; that is high-pressure chillers with open-
drive compressors, which have been found to have leak rates ranging
from four to seven percent. Older chillers that have been modified with
emissions-reduction technologies are reported to leak between one and
10 percent per year. Where industry sources have not distinguished
between modified and unmodified older equipment, leak rates have been
reported to average four percent per year, indicating that most of the
chiller fleet has either been modified to leak less or is significantly
better maintained than it was five years ago.
EPA believes that the reported performance of today's chiller fleet
argues for lowering the maximum permissible leak rate from 15% per
year. The leak repair requirement was promulgated under section
608(a)(2), which requires EPA to promulgate regulations regarding the
use and disposal of class I and class II substances, including
refrigerants, that reduce the use and emission of such substances to
the lowest achievable level. EPA believes that the evidence discussed
above demonstrates that the current 15-percent-per-year permissible
rate is considerably above the ``lowest achievable level of
emissions,'' especially for new equipment. (In fact, EPA acknowledged
in the May 14, 1993 rule that the 15-percent-per-year leak rate
probably was not the lowest achievable level for at least some comfort
cooling equipment, but the Agency did not have sufficient information
at that time to develop stricter or more refined standards.)
While section 608(a)(2) does not require EPA to perform a cost-
benefit analysis to determine what leak rate(s) would constitute the
``lowest achievable level of emissions,'' such cost-benefit analyses
support establishing lower leak rates. One such analysis simply deduces
from achieved leak rates that a lower permissible leak rate would be
publicly cost-effective. The leak rates reported above, which generally
fall well below the current regulatory maximum, are clearly being
achieved in response to private incentives alone. If maintaining these
leak rates is privately cost-effective, it must be publicly cost-
effective, because the public cost of emissions, which includes both
the private value of the refrigerant and the environmental damage it
causes, exceeds the private cost of emissions, which includes only the
private value of the refrigerant.
In another analysis, EPA directly examined the public cost-
effectiveness of certain types of leak repair and equipment
modification. First, EPA estimated the public benefits of avoiding
emissions of refrigerant on a per kilogram basis. Second, EPA
calculated the leak reductions that would have to be achieved through
repairs and modifications to produce benefits to offset their costs. In
general, EPA found that reductions in leak rates on the order of two to
10 percent of the charge per year had to be achieved to justify the
cost of the leak repair or equipment modification. These reductions are
comparable to those that have already been achieved over the last four
years through the implementation of leak repair and equipment

[[Page 32067]]

modification, providing additional evidence that leak rates below the
current 15 percent permissible rate can be cost-effectively achieved.
Because EPA's data indicates that new chillers leak less than
existing chillers, and because some leak reduction modifications can be
applied to new, but not to existing, equipment, EPA is proposing a more
stringent standard for new chillers than for older chillers. For
chillers built in 1993 or later, EPA is proposing a maximum permissible
leak rate of five percent per year. With one exception, the reported
leak rates for new chillers all fall below this rate, and the
exception, the open-drive type of high pressure chiller, has leak rates
between four and seven percent. EPA believes that with careful
maintenance, even these chillers can maintain a leak rate below five
percent. However, if they cannot, EPA requests comment on whether EPA
should establish a larger maximum leak rate for this type of chiller.
EPA is currently disinclined to establish a special, larger rate,
because EPA believes that, if necessary, chiller designs with lower
inherent leak rates can be substituted for the high-pressure, open-
drive type at little or no additional cost.
For chillers built in 1992 or earlier, EPA is proposing a maximum
permissible leak rate of 10 percent per year. This rate is consistent
with the data provided to EPA for fleets that include modified
equipment. While EPA considered setting the leak rate for older
equipment equal to that for new equipment, information gathered to date
indicates that it may be difficult to reduce the emissions of some
older equipment to much below 10 percent of the charge per year without
undertaking the wholesale replacement of existing joints and seals,
which would prove prohibitively expensive. EPA requests comment on the
proposed leak rates for both new and existing equipment.
Finally, EPA requests comment on whether there are any appliances
that would be classified as ``Appliances other than commercial or
industrial process refrigeration'' that are not comfort cooling
chillers and that could not attain the five and 10 percent per year
maximum permissible leak rates that are being proposed for new and
existing appliances of this type. EPA currently believes that the vast
majority, if not all, of the appliances classified as ``Appliances
other than commercial or industrial process refrigeration'' are comfort
cooling chillers and can attain the proposed rates.
b. Commercial Refrigeration. In general, leak rates are higher in
the commercial refrigeration sector than in the chiller sector. In
large part, this is attributable to the facts that (1) equipment in the
commercial refrigeration sector is largely assembled in the field (in
the grocery store or food storage warehouse) rather than in the factory
and (2) commercial refrigeration equipment generally uses a long single
refrigerant loop for cooling rather than a short primary refrigerant
loop with a secondary loop containing water or brine. The first fact
makes it more difficult for original equipment manufacturers to
systematically implement leak reduction technologies for commercial
refrigeration equipment than for chillers (in fact, in a sense, each of
the hundreds of contractors who install the equipment nationwide is a
``manufacturer''), and the second tends to raise average leak rates,
particularly when the refrigerant loop flows through inaccessible
spaces, such as underneath floors. In addition to these considerations,
the need to operate commercial refrigeration equipment continuously to
keep products from spoiling makes leak repair more difficult.
Nevertheless, data from manufacturers and owners of commercial
refrigeration equipment indicates that leak rates considerably lower
than 35 percent per year can be achieved cost effectively with this
equipment. A study sponsored by EPA's Office of Research and
Development analyzed two detailed bodies of data on leakage from
commercial refrigeration equipment, one collected by a Midwestern chain
of 110 stores and the other gathered by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD), which requires monitoring and reporting
of leak rates from large refrigeration systems. The Midwestern chain
achieved an average leak rate of 15 percent by establishing written
procedures for equipment installation (including a requirement that
expansion valves be brazed or ``sweated''), a refrigerant monitoring
system, and an equipment inspection protocol. This rate was achieved in
1992, before EPA's leak repair requirements were even in effect. The
data collected by SCAQMD was based 440 recharging and leak testing
events from 56 different stores representing 20 different businesses.
The average leak rate achieved by the stores was eight percent of total
charge.
The ORD report also investigated the cost-effectiveness of
different strategies and technologies for reducing leak rates, finding
that many of these approaches could lower leak rates significantly and
thereby pay for themselves. Using a combination of these approaches, a
number of chains had significantly reduced both overall refrigerant
consumption and leakage from equipment over the previous two to eight
years. Some of the most effective approaches included vibration
elimination devices, use of high-quality brazed rather than mechanical
connections, low emission condensers, stationary leakage monitors,
refrigerant tracking and improved preventive maintenance. A few of the
approaches, such as installation of low-emission condensers, were more
applicable to new than to existing equipment; however, many of the
approaches, such as refrigerant monitors, refrigerant tracking systems,
and improved preventive maintenance, were applicable to both existing
and new equipment. These approaches were individually expected to
reduce leak rates from equipment by between five and forty percent of
the charge per year.
In light of this information, EPA is proposing to establish lower
permissible leak rates for commercial refrigeration equipment. Although
neither the Midwestern chain nor SCAQMD distinguished between new and
old equipment in measuring leak rates, equipment manufacturers (ARI)
have stated that leak rates in new equipment are likely to be lower
than leak rates in old equipment. This statement, along with the fact
that some leak reduction technologies are applicable to new but not to
older equipment, indicates that it would be appropriate to establish
different permissible leak rates for new and old commercial
refrigeration equipment. EPA is therefore proposing that the maximum
permissible leak rate for new commercial refrigeration equipment
(commissioned after 1992) be lowered to 10 percent per year, and that
the maximum rate for old commercial refrigeration equipment
(commissioned before or during 1992) be lowered to 15 percent per year.
EPA believes that these rates are appropriate in view of the average
leak rates achieved in the South Coast Air Quality Management District
and in the Midwestern chain and in view of the availability of
effective leak reduction approaches.
EPA requests comment on these proposed rates. First, EPA requests
comment on whether the relatively low leak rates observed in new
equipment are likely to persist throughout its lifetime, or whether
those rates are likely to rise over its lifetime to approach the
current leak rates of older equipment. In other words, does new
equipment leak less simply because it has endured less wear and tear
than older equipment, or is new equipment now manufactured and
installed in a

[[Page 32068]]

way that will minimize leakage over its entire life? Second, EPA
requests comment on whether higher or lower rates might be appropriate
for different types of commercial refrigeration equipment, given that
compressor rack systems, single compressor systems, and self-contained
units may have significantly different average leak rates. For
instance, because compressor rack systems may include miles of piping
and numerous connections that provide many opportunities for leakage,
one might expect them to leak a greater percentage of their charge than
self-contained units that include only a few feet of piping. Third, EPA
requests comment on whether significant percentages (e.g., 10 percent
or more) of the various types of commercial refrigeration equipment
might not be able to comply with leak rates of 10 or 15 percent without
being totally replaced, and, if this is the case, whether permissible
leak rates of 15 and 20 percent might be more achievable.
c. Industrial Process Refrigeration. As is the case for commercial
refrigeration equipment, leak rates in industrial process refrigeration
equipment have been falling, but the rates and consistency of decline
across equipment types have been lower than for comfort cooling
chillers. While some industrial process refrigeration equipment has
attained leak rates between five and 10 percent per year, other
equipment has continued to leak near the 35-percent-per-year maximum
permissible rate despite the growing price of refrigerants over the
past five years. The conditions that contribute to a wide range of leak
rates in the commercial refrigeration sector apply even more to the
industrial process refrigeration sector. Equipment in the industrial
process refrigeration sector is not only assembled on site, but is
often custom-designed for a wide spectrum of processes and plants,
giving the sector an extraordinarily broad range of equipment
configurations and designs. Equipment may be high- or low-pressure; may
possess hermetic, semi-hermetic, or open-drive compressors; may use one
(primary) or two (primary and secondary) refrigerant loops; may be
brand new or decades old; and may range in charge size from a few
hundred to over 100,000 pounds of refrigerant. All of these factors are
important in determining leak rates, leading to the observed range
mentioned above.
Specifically, as is true for chillers, and, to some extent, for
retail food refrigeration equipment, industrial process refrigeration
equipment built more recently has generally been designed to leak less
than equipment built earlier. Similarly, equipment containing hermetic
compressors tends to leak less than equipment containing open-drive
compressors, because the latter possess openings for their drive
shafts, compromising the integrity of the system. Single loop, direct
expansion systems tend to leak more than systems possessing a secondary
water or brine loop because the former tend to have longer refrigerant
loops than the latter, increasing opportunities for leakage. Large
equipment may leak more than small equipment for two reasons. First,
large equipment tends to be custom-built rather than built on an
assembly line in a factory, making it more difficult to regulate
manufacturing techniques (joint construction, etc.) that affect
leakage. Second, large equipment tends to have more piping and joints
than small equipment, increasing the number of potential leak sites.
EPA believes that it is appropriate to consider the date of
manufacture, compressor configuration, and possession (or lack) of a
secondary loop in determining maximum allowable leak rates for
industrial process refrigeration equipment. However, the Agency is
reluctant to permit higher leak rates for equipment with very large
charge sizes. This is because a given leak rate in large equipment
causes more environmental harm than the same leak rate in small
equipment. For example, a 20% per year leak rate in equipment with a
10,000 pound charge would result in the release of 2,000 pounds of
refrigerant per year, while a 20% per leak rate in equipment with a
1,000 pound charge would result in the release of 200 pounds of
refrigerant per year. Thus, although it may be more difficult or
expensive to achieve a given leak rate in large equipment than in small
equipment, EPA believes that these additional efforts are warranted by
the larger environmental impact of leaks from large equipment.
In view of these considerations, EPA is proposing different maximum
permissible leak rates based on the equipment's date of manufacture,
compressor configuration, and number of refrigerant loops (primary only
vs. primary and secondary). EPA thereby expects to increase
environmental protection (by lowering the permissible rate where it can
be lowered) without imposing undue costs (by accommodating types of
equipment for which the rate cannot be lowered). At the same time,
however, the Agency wishes to minimize the confusion that might be
associated with having multiple permissible rates that are keyed to
different combinations of the above criteria. EPA is therefore is
proposing a two-rate system for the industrial process sector. As is
the case for the comfort cooling and commercial refrigeration sectors,
EPA believes that these changes are necessary to carry out section
608(a)(2) of the Act.
Under the proposed approach, industrial process refrigeration
equipment would be subject to a 20 percent per year maximum permissible
leak rate unless it met all four of the following criteria:
(1) The refrigeration system is custom-built;
(2) The refrigeration system has an open-drive compressor;
(3) The refrigeration system was built in 1992 or before; and
(4) The system is direct-expansion (contains a single, primary
refrigerant loop).
Systems that met conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4 would continue to be
subject to the 35-percent-per-year maximum permissible leak rate.
The Agency requests comment on the approach, both on the criteria
used to sort equipment between the 20% and 35% per year rates, and on
the rates themselves. EPA specifically requests comment on whether it
might be appropriate to permit a higher leak rate for equipment with a
charge size above 10,000 lbs. As noted above, EPA is reluctant to
permit higher leak rates for large equipment due to the greater
environmental impact of a given leak rate from large equipment;
however, if it is demonstrably impossible to reduce the leak rate of
such equipment without undertaking a massive overhaul, EPA could
consider permitting a higher leak rate for large equipment built before
1992. The Agency believes that large equipment built more recently
should be able to maintain a leak rate of 20% per year. The Agency also
requests comment on whether it would be appropriate to use a measure
other than charge size to characterize sprawling, inherently leaky
equipment. The Agency is concerned that the proposed characterization
might inappropriately permit high leak rates for some large equipment
that does not possess an inherently leaky configuration. One
alternative would be to use pipe length rather than charge size to
characterize equipment as having a leaky configuration.
In addition, EPA requests comment on the interchangeability of
leaky and non-leaky equipment designs. That is, are there compelling
reasons why users of industrial process refrigeration must use open-
drive compressors or direct expansion systems rather than hermetic
compressors and secondary loops? The Agency understands that it may be

[[Page 32069]]

difficult to transform an existing direct expansion system into a
system with a secondary loop. However, persons installing new systems
might be expected to have more flexibility.
Other possible approaches to leak repair in industrial process
refrigeration equipment could be either more or less complex than the
one proposed. A simple approach would lower the current permissible
leak rate for all industrial process equipment to a single new rate,
perhaps to 25 percent per year. While this approach would be
administratively simple, however, it could be costly if a significant
fraction of existing equipment was not able to meet the new rate
without massive overhaul or replacement. Based on its discussions with
users of industrial process refrigeration equipment, EPA believes that
this is indeed the case. A more complex approach would establish three
or more permissible rates for different classes of equipment based on
the above criteria. However, although this approach would better tailor
permissible leak rates to the inherent leak rates of different types of
equipment, the Agency believes that any environmental or economic gains
that might be achieved through such an approach would not justify its
complexity and associated difficulty of implementation. EPA requests
comment on these potential alternative approaches.
EPA is proposing to make the new leak rates effective for
industrial process refrigeration equipment three years after
promulgation of this rule. EPA is proposing this delayed effective date
for industrial process refrigeration equipment for several reasons.
First, the current leak repair requirements for industrial process
refrigeration equipment only became effective in September 1995, over
two years later than the leak repair requirements for other equipment.
Owners and servicers of industrial process refrigeration equipment have
therefore had considerably less time than owners and servicers of other
types of equipment to learn and implement the existing maximum
permissible rates. Thus, promulgating new maximum permissible rates
with immediate effective dates would lead to considerable confusion and
disruption in this sector, while, inversely, promulgating new rates
with delayed effective dates would permit this sector to make an
orderly transition between the old and new rates. Second, because it is
custom-built, industrial process refrigeration equipment takes longer
than other types of equipment to build and to repair. The proposed lead
time between promulgation and effective date would permit equipment
users sufficient time to order replacement parts or systems that might
be necessary to meet the new rates. Finally, industrial processes must
be shut down, at considerable expense, before large repairs can be made
to their refrigeration systems or before such systems can be replaced.
According to industry sources, shutdowns are usually only scheduled to
occur every two to five years. Again, this argues for permitting
significant lead time between the promulgation and effective date of
the new leak rate. EPA requests comment on its proposed three-year
delay.
d. Cross-sector Issues. EPA is also requesting comment on four
issues that affect all three sectors covered by the leak repair
requirements. First, EPA requests comment on its proposal to
distinguish between old and new equipment in establishing maximum
allowable leak rates. In general, the Agency believes that equipment
manufactured after 1992 is, by a significant margin, inherently more
leak-tight than equipment manufactured before that date. This means
that significantly lower leak rates can be maintained in new equipment
than in old equipment for about the same cost. If EPA were to set a
single allowable leak rate for old and new equipment, this rate would
probably be either difficult to attain in old equipment, forcing the
expensive retrofit or replacement of the equipment, or above the rate
achievable by new equipment, permitting emissions significantly above
the lowest achievable level. However, EPA recognizes that implementing
two leak rates for each type of equipment would be more
administratively complex than implementing a single leak rate for each
type of equipment. To implement two leak rates, equipment owners,
operators, and technicians would have to remember both rates, and they
would have to be able to distinguish old from new equipment. Based on
current information, EPA does not believe this would constitute an
unreasonable burden or lead to excessive confusion. However, the Agency
requests comment on whether the environmental and economic benefits of
having two leak rates justify the increase in administrative complexity
that results from this approach.
Second, if the final regulations distinguish among appliances based
on their dates of manufacture, EPA requests comment on whether the date
of ``manufacture'' should be defined as the date that appliance leaves
the factory or the date that it is installed. The Agency believes that
it may be appropriate to define ``manufacture'' differently for
different types of appliances. Appliances that are relatively compact
and complete when they leave the factory, such as chillers, could be
considered ``manufactured'' when they leave the factory, while
appliances that are assembled in the field from numerous components,
such as commercial and industrial process refrigeration equipment,
could be considered ``manufactured'' (or ``commissioned'') when their
installation is complete.
Third, EPA requests comment on the proposed use of the year 1992 as
the dividing line between more and less strictly regulated equipment.
EPA's research indicates that by the end of that year, most equipment
was being manufactured to leak significantly less than equipment built
earlier. However, if a significant fraction of equipment manufactured
since 1992 still cannot attain the proposed maximum leak rate, it may
be appropriate to make the stricter requirements effective for
equipment built after 1999 (or whatever year follows the year of
publication of the final rule). This would permit equipment purchasers
to consider the leakiness of certain types of equipment in their
purchasing decisions from now on, allowing for the lag time between
equipment ordering and manufacture.
Fourth, EPA requests comment on whether it is possible to
distinguish between slow leakage, servicing emissions, and catastrophic
emissions in establishing and complying with leak rate limits. This
question becomes important with a lower permissible leak rate because
the percentage of charge lost through servicing and catastrophic
emissions may be a significant fraction of the lower rate. The goal of
the leak repair provisions has primarily been to reduce emissions from
slow leakage, because servicing emissions are addressed by the rule's
recycling requirements and catastrophic emissions (such as those
resulting from the triggering of a pressure relief valve) are often
beyond the control of equipment owners. Thus, if possible, EPA would
like to establish a leak rate based on slow leaks alone. Even if it is
not possible to isolate slow leaks from all other types of emissions,
EPA would like to avoid establishing a relatively high permissible leak
rate based in part on servicing or catastrophic emissions if it is
possible to distinguish either one of these types of emissions from
slow leaks. On the other hand, the Agency would like to avoid
establishing an overly stringent leak rate based on

[[Page 32070]]

hypothetical emissions from slow leaks if in practice these cannot be
distinguished from other types of emissions.
Based on information gathered to date, EPA believes that servicing
emissions and slow leakage may be difficult to separate, since the
precise amount of refrigerant lost from equipment may not be known
until the equipment is recharged after servicing. However, EPA believes
that it should be possible to distinguish between catastrophic and slow
emissions. Catastrophic losses will generally come to the attention of
equipment owners very quickly after they occur and will be large (for
the piece of equipment that experiences a catastrophic loss) compared
to losses from slow emissions. Moreover, because correcting the
conditions that led to the catastrophic release (e.g., correcting the
conditions that led to an over-pressure situation) would be considered
to repair the ``leak,'' catastrophic losses would not be expected to
compromise compliance with the permissible leak rate. Based on
discussions with persons who maintain chillers, EPA believes that
catastrophic losses are greater than servicing losses for these
appliances. EPA has less information on the relationship between
catastrophic losses and servicing emissions for commercial and
industrial process refrigeration equipment.
EPA requests comment on whether its understanding of the
separability and relative significance of the various types of
emissions is correct. EPA also requests that, to the extent possible,
commenters distinguish between servicing emissions, catastrophic
losses, and losses from slow leaks in their comments on what leak rates
are achievable.
e. Coverage of HFC and PFC Appliances. EPA believes that
establishing consistent leak repair requirements for CFC, HCFC, HFC,
and PFC appliances is necessary to minimize emissions of all four types
of refrigerants. As noted above, industry representatives emphasized
that exempting HFC and PFC refrigerants from conservation requirements
could lead to confusion and skepticism regarding similar requirements
for CFCs and HCFCs, which would undermine implementation of the
statutory directives to reduce emissions of these substances to the
lowest achievable level and to maximize their recapture and recycling.
For instance, if owners or operators of refrigeration systems could
permit HFC systems to leak, they might fail to establish or maintain
leak repair procedures or systems for any of their refrigeration
equipment, including CFC or HCFC systems (particularly if these were in
the minority at a given site), forgetting or never realizing that the
latter were subject to repair requirements. Moreover, in any given
application, there is no technological difference between CFC, HCFC and
HFC appliances that makes leaks easier to control for one type of
refrigerant than the other. Technology and techniques developed to
reduce CFC and HCFC emissions can be easily applied to reducing HFC and
PFC emissions. Finally, the release of all four types of refrigerants
could pose a threat to the environment. EPA is therefore proposing
requirements for CFC, HCFC, HFC, and PFC appliances that recognize the
design and maintenance advances of the last few years.
f. Clarification of Current Requirements. i. Compliance Scenarios
The initial final rule (May 14, 1993, 58 FR 28660) required owners
and operators to ``have all leaks repaired'' where an appliance subject
to the leak repair requirements was leaking above the applicable
allowable annual leak rate (58 FR 28716). In a subsequent rulemaking
regarding leak repair requirements published August 8, 1995 (60 FR
40420), EPA amended that language to state that ``repairs must bring
the annual leak rate to below 35 percent of the total charge during a
12-month period'' (60 FR 40440) or where appropriate, to below 15
percent. This change in the rule recognizes that appliances without
hermetically sealed refrigerant circuits should not be expected to have
a ``zero'' leak rate. Moreover, EPA also believes that it is practical
to require the owners or operators to maintain a leak rate that is at
or below the applicable allowable annual rate, and where this leak rate
has been exceeded, to make the necessary repairs to return the
appliance's leak rate to or below the applicable allowable leak rate or
to retrofit/retire the appliance. Leaving leaks unrepaired does not
necessarily equate to non-compliance; however, maintaining a leak rate
above the maximum leak rate of either 15 or 35 percent is non-
compliance.
For industrial process refrigeration equipment and for federally-
owned commercial refrigeration equipment and federally-owned comfort
cooling appliances located in areas subject to radiological
contamination, EPA requires owners and operators to perform
verification tests to establish that repairs were successful. EPA
recognizes that verification tests indicate the success or failure of
the repair effort for a given leak or set of leaks, not the leak rate
of an appliance. In the August 8, 1995 rulemaking, EPA stated that it
was not the Agency's ``intention to imply that the verification test
shows what the leak rate is. However, EPA believes that where the
verification test shows that the repairs have been successful, in most
cases this will mean that there has been a reduction in the leak rate''
(60 FR 40430). EPA recognizes that knowing a leak has been repaired
does not necessarily mean that the owner or operator knows what the
current leak rate is. EPA further stated that ``if more than one leak
exists, it is possible that the leak rate could remain above acceptable
levels. In such cases the owners or operators would be expected to take
reasonable actions'' (60 FR 40430). EPA believes that where owners or
operators employ sound professional judgement in responding to a leak
rate above the applicable allowable annual leak rate they will reduce
the appliance's leak rate to below the applicable allowable annual leak
rate.
Section 82.156(i) requires owners or operators to conduct repair
efforts to lower an appliance's leak rate to below the applicable
allowable annual leak rate. EPA is describing the following scenarios
to assist the owners or operators in determining what actions must be
taken when an appliance is leaking above the applicable allowable
annual leak rate. EPA believes that by describing four likely
scenarios, EPA can further clarify for the regulated community how the
leak rate and verification tests relate to the repair and/or retrofit/
retire provisions promulgated at Sec. 82.156(i).
In the first scenario, the owner or operator discovers that the
appliance is leaking above the applicable allowable annual rate. The
owner or operator fixes all leaks and verifies that the leaks have been
repaired consistent with Sec. 82.156(i). Therefore, where sound
professional judgement has been successfully executed, the appliance
will have a leak rate below the applicable allowable annual rate. If a
leak rate above the applicable allowable annual rate is again suspected
a short time after the repairs were completed (perhaps only a few
weeks) and leaks are discovered at a new location, these leaks would be
considered new leaks. The owner or operator must comply with all
applicable requirements promulgated at Sec. 82.156(i) for these new
leaks.
In the second scenario, the owner or operator discovers that the
appliance is leaking above the applicable allowable annual leak rate.
The owner or operator fixes the leaks and verifies that they

[[Page 32071]]

have been repaired consistent with Sec. 82.156(i). Therefore, the owner
or operator believes the appliance is not leaking above the applicable
allowable annual leak rate. The next time leaks are suspected, the
owner or operator finds leaks have occurred at the same location. Since
the initial leaks were repaired and properly verified consistent with
the regulation, leaks at the same location would be considered new
leaks. If the leak rate is again above the applicable allowable annual
leak rate, the owner or operator must repair the leaks and, where
appropriate, perform verification tests, retrofit the appliance, or
retire the appliance consistent with the requirements promulgated at
Sec. 82.156(i). However, if repeated leaks continue to occur at the
same location, this ongoing problem may be an indication that
appropriate repairs have not actually been conducted. For example, the
particular leak point may involve the connection of two parts that
appears to have loosened. Rather than repeatedly tightening the
connection, the parts may need to be replaced. EPA believes that where
leaks at the same location continue to occur, the owner or operator may
not have used sound professional judgement in determining what repair
efforts are necessary to reduce the leak rate to below the applicable
allowable annual leak rate. Thus, the owner or operator would have
violated with the requirements in Sec. 82.156(i).
In the third scenario, the owner or operator discovers that the
appliance is leaking above the applicable allowable annual rate and
identifies ten different leak sources that are contributing to the high
leak rate. The owner or operator determines that repairing six leaks
will bring the appliance into compliance by lowering the leak rate to
below the applicable allowable annual rate. The owner or operator
believes that leaving four leaks unrepaired still will result in a leak
rate below the applicable allowable annual rate. The owner or operator
fixes and verifies that these six leaks have been repaired consistent
with the requirements promulgated at Sec. 82.156(i). The appliance
continues to leak, but below the applicable allowable annual rate. In
this scenario the owner or operator of the appliance complied with the
requirements by actually reducing and maintaining a leak rate that is
below the applicable allowable annual rate.
In the fourth scenario, the owner or operator discovers that the
appliance is leaking above the applicable allowable annual rate. The
owner or operator identifies ten different leak sources that are
contributing to the leak rate. The owner or operator decides that
repairing six leaks will bring the appliance into compliance by
lowering the leak rate to below the applicable allowable annual rate.
The owner or operator fixes and verifies that these leaks have been
repaired consistent with the requirements promulgated at
Sec. 82.156(i). Upon later inspection, it is discovered that the
appliance continued leaking above the applicable allowable annual rate
and there are no newly identified leak sources. In this scenario the
owner or operator never brought the leak rate below the applicable
allowable leak rate, and hence violated Sec. 82.156(i), regardless of
whether the owner or operator exercised sound professional judgement in
deciding upon the leaks to be repaired.
EPA views the above scenarios as consistent with the current
regulatory requirements. Therefore, today's action does not propose any
regulatory changes associated with these scenarios. Nevertheless, EPA
requests comment on the guidance presented for these four scenarios.
ii. Recordkeeping for leak repair. EPA received information from
CMA indicating that the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
promulgated at Sec. 82.166(n) may be confusing for those subject to the
requirements. EPA notes that the structure of these provisions did
change between the proposed and final notices (January 19, 1995, 60 FR
3992, and August 8, 1995, 60 FR 40420) to ensure that the format was
consistent with the requirements established by the Office of the
Federal Register. The August 8, 1995 final rule requires the same
information to be maintained or submitted as EPA proposed in the
January 19, 1995, except as discussed in the preamble to the August 8,
1995 final rule.
CMA and its members requested that EPA consider whether these
provisions could be redrafted for clarity. EPA agrees that the
readability of these provisions can be improved. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to modify the presentation of the requirements to more
clearly indicate what records must be kept and what information must be
reported. EPA is not proposing any changes in the substance of the
requirements. EPA requests comment on these proposed changes and
whether they improve readability of the provisions.
iii. Replacement refrigerants. EPA is proposing to amend
Sec. 82.156(i)(6) to incorporate a requirement that was discussed in
the preamble to the May 14, 1993 initial final rule (58 FR 28680) but
that was inadvertently excluded from the regulatory text. In the
preamble, EPA indicated that if the owners or operators elect to
retrofit an appliance rather than repair leaks that are above the
applicable allowable annual rate, the owners or operators must use a
refrigerant with a lower ozone-depleting potential (ODP) than the
original refrigerant. Owners and operators would still retain the
options of either retiring the appliance or repairing the existing
leaks in accordance with the existing requirements. EPA refers readers
to the preamble discussion in the May 14, 1993 rule for additional
information. EPA believes this proposed change is important to minimize
the use of refrigerants that are potentially more harmful to
stratospheric ozone. It would be environmentally unsound to exempt
owners or operators from repairing leaks on the grounds that they will
retrofit or replace the leaky appliance if the replacement refrigerant
would pose an equivalent or even greater threat to the stratospheric
ozone. Therefore, EPA is today proposing to modify the regulatory text
to ensure that only a substitute refrigerant with a lower ODP is used.
EPA requests comment on this proposed regulatory change.
iv. Minor Clarifications. EPA is proposing to modify the text
throughout Sec. 82.156(i) and Sec. 82.166(n) and (o) to substitute the
word ``retire'' for the word ``replace'' and to add ``operators'' where
the regulation inadvertently refers solely to owners. EPA believes
these changes are necessary because the term ``retire'' better
describes the activities that are discussed and because the
requirements are applicable to both owners and operators.
EPA is also proposing to modify Sec. 82.156(i)(3), which requires
owners and operators to exercise sound professional judgement and to
perform verification tests, to clarify that it applies to all owners
and operators of industrial process refrigeration equipment and not
just to those who are granted additional time under paragraph (i)(2).
At the same time, EPA is proposing to clarify that the paragraph
applies to owners and operators of federally-owned commercial
refrigeration equipment and of federally-owned comfort cooling
appliances who are granted additional time under paragraphs (i)(1) and
(i)(5). In the preamble to the August 8, 1995 rule, EPA stated that
initial and follow-up verification tests must be performed even where
the repairs are completed within 30 days (60 FR 40430). EPA
inadvertently neglected to make the corresponding change to the
regulatory text. Therefore, EPA is proposing to change the first
sentence in the

[[Page 32072]]

paragraph to the following: ``Owners or operators of federally-owned
commercial refrigeration equipment or of federally-owned comfort
cooling appliances who are granted additional time under paragraphs
(i)(1) or (i)(5) of this section, and owners or operators of industrial
process refrigeration equipment, must have repairs performed in a
manner that sound professional judgment indicates will bring the leak
rate below the applicable allowable leak rate.''
In addition, EPA is proposing to amend Sec. 82.156(i)(3)(ii) and
(i)(6)(i) to provide owners and operators 30 days to prepare and 1 year
to execute a retrofit/retirement plan, where the owners or operators
have unsuccessfully attempted to repair the appliance and therefore are
switching to a retrofit/retirement mode. Section 82.156(i)(3)(ii)
permits owners and operators who are unable to verify that repairs have
been successful to switch to a retrofit/retirement mode. EPA is
proposing to delete from this paragraph the phrase ``* * * of this
section within one year after the failure to verify that repairs had
been successfully completed.'' This phrase starts the one-year
retrofit/retirement implementation clock based on the date of the
failed verification test. EPA provided this provision because the
Agency believes it is appropriate to permit the owner or operator of
industrial process refrigeration equipment that fails a follow-up
verification test to complete a retrofit within approximately one year
of that failed test in situations where the owner or operator made good
faith efforts to repair an appliance before deciding to switch to a
retrofit or retirement mode.
However, in establishing this provision, EPA was concerned with the
potential to abuse such a safeguard. Owners and operators who realize
that a retrofit or retirement is necessary could attempt to repair the
appliance while knowing such efforts were useless, merely to extend the
date by which a retrofit or retirement must be completed. In an effort
to limit abuse in this situation, the current regulations provide that
the one-year time frame to complete a retrofit or retirement is
triggered by the date of the failure to verify successful repairs.
However, concerns have been raised regarding whether this limited time
frame inadvertently increases the burden for those that made good faith
efforts to repair the appliances, by lessening the retrofit/retirement
clock by up to 30 days. In addition, those who intentionally violate
the spirit of this good faith provision still could seek some extra
time by pursuing useless repairs, albeit 30 days less than what is
potentially available under the current regulations.
While EPA does not believe this 30-day difference imposes a
significant burden under the current regulations, EPA recognizes the
need to provide the owners or operators with sufficient time to develop
and implement retrofit or retirement plans. Therefore, EPA is proposing
to eliminate the reference to the date of the failure to verify that
repairs have been successfully completed. By deleting this reference,
owners or operators would have 30 days from the failure to verify that
the repairs were successful to develop a retrofit/retirement plan, and
one year from the plan's date to complete the retrofit or retirement,
or such longer time periods as may apply under 82.156(i)(7) and (i)(8).
EPA requests comment on these proposed changes.
EPA is proposing to make several other minor clarifying changes to
the regulatory text. EPA is proposing changes at Secs. 82.156(i)(1),
(i)(2), (i)(3)(i), (i)(5), (i)(6)(i) and 82.166(o)(10)(i) and (ii). At
Secs. 82.156(i)(1), 82.156(i)(2) and 82.156(i)(5) EPA is proposing to
express maximum allowable leak rates in terms of the proposed defined
term, ``leak rate.'' EPA believes that these changes would make the
regulatory text more easily understood. In various sections of the
regulations, EPA is proposing a number of minor non-substantive wording
changes to make the regulatory text clearer and easier to read. None of
these additional modifications should affect the meaning of the
regulatory text.
EPA requests comments on these proposed changes regarding whether
the changes will improve the clarity and readability of the regulatory
text.
4. Proposed Changes for Servicing of MVAC-like Appliances
a. Background. MVAC-like appliances are open-drive compressor
appliances used to cool the driver's or passenger's compartment of non-
road motor vehicles, such as agricultural or construction vehicles.
MVAC-like appliances are essentially identical to motor vehicle air
conditioners (MVACs), which are subject to regulations promulgated
under section 609 of the Act. However, because MVAC-like appliances are
contained in non-road vehicles, they are subject to regulations
promulgated under section 608 of the Act.
Due to the similarities between MVACs and MVAC-like appliances in
design and servicing patterns, EPA has established requirements
regarding the servicing of MVAC-like appliances that are very similar
to those for MVACs (58 FR 28686). In fact, many of the section 608
requirements for MVAC-like appliances that are published at subpart F
simply refer to the section 609 requirements for MVACs that are
published at subpart B. For instance, Sec. 82.156(a)(5) states that
persons who open MVAC-like appliances for maintenance, service, or
repair may do so only while ``properly using,'' as defined at
Sec. 82.32(e), recycling or recovery equipment certified pursuant to
Sec. 82.158(f) or (g) as applicable. The definition of ``properly
using'' appears in the regulations published at subpart B, and the
reference therefore subjects MVAC-like appliances to the evacuation and
refrigerant purity requirements of subpart B. Similarly, the equipment
and technician certification provisions applicable to MVAC-like
appliances in subpart F (Secs. 82.158(f) and 82.161(a)(5)) refer to the
equipment and technician certification provisions applicable to MVACs
in subpart B (Secs. 82.36(a) and 82.40).
The section 609 and 608 regulations treat MVACs and MVAC-like
appliances (and persons servicing them) slightly differently in four
areas. First, persons who service MVACs are subject to the section 609
equipment and technician certification requirements only if they
perform ``service for consideration,'' while persons who service MVAC-
like appliances are subject to the section 608 equipment and technician
certification requirements regardless of whether they are compensated
for their work.\23\ Second, persons who service MVACs must have a piece
of recovery and recycling equipment available at their place of
business, even if they never open the refrigeration circuit of the
MVACs (e.g., if they only perform top-offs). In contrast, persons who
service MVAC-like appliances are required to have a piece of recovery
and recycling equipment available at their place of business only if
they open the appliances (i.e., perform work that would release
refrigerant to the environment unless the refrigerant were recovered
previously). Third, recycling and recovery equipment that is intended
for use with MVACs and that was manufactured before the effective date
of the section 609 equipment certification provisions must be
demonstrated to be ``substantially identical'' to certified recycling
equipment, while recycling and recovery equipment that is intended for
use with MVAC-like appliances and that was manufactured before the
effective

[[Page 32073]]

date of the section 608 equipment certification provisions must simply
be able to pull a 4-inch vacuum. Finally, persons servicing MVAC-like
appliances have the option of becoming certified as Type II technicians
instead of becoming certified as MVAC technicians under subpart B. The
first three differences arise from differences between the statutory
requirements of sections 608 and 609; the last is intended to give
persons who service MVAC-like appliances flexibility in choosing the
type of training and testing most appropriate to their work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Note that persons servicing MVACs are subject to the
section 608 vending prohibition regardless of whether they are
compensated for their work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Recent Amendments to Subpart B. In a final rule published on
December 30, 1997 (62 FR 68025), EPA made several changes to the
provisions governing servicing of MVACs and MVAC-like appliances (as
they are currently defined) at subpart B. First, EPA extended the
regulations to MVACs containing substitutes for CFC and HCFC
refrigerants. Second, EPA explicitly allowed mobile servicing of MVACs
and MVAC-like appliances. That is, technicians are permitted to
transport their recovery or recycling equipment from their place of
business in order to recover refrigerant from an MVAC or MVAC-like
appliance before servicing it. Third, EPA permitted refrigerant
recovered from disposed MVACs or MVAC-like appliances to be reused in
MVACS or MVAC-like appliances, as long as the refrigerant was processed
through approved refrigerant recycling equipment before being charged
into the MVAC to be serviced.
Fourth, EPA adopted new standards for recycling and recovery
equipment intended for use with MVACs. These new standards address HFC-
134a recover/recycle equipment, HFC-134a recover-only equipment,
service procedures for HFC-134a containment, purity of recycled HFC-
134a, recover/recycle equipment intended for use with both CFC-12 and
HFC-134a, and recover-only equipment designed to be used with any motor
vehicle refrigerants other than CFC-12 and HFC-134a. Please refer to
the December 30, 1997, final rule for a detailed explanation and
justification of these changes for MVACs.
As noted above, these regulations apply both to MVACS containing
all types of refrigerant and to MVAC-like appliances containing class I
and class II substances. As is discussed at length in the final
amendment to subpart B, EPA believes that it is appropriate to cover
both MVACs and MVAC-like appliances under the subpart B regulations,
although EPA is relying on section 608 authority to cover MVAC-like
appliances. In brief, the rationale for this approach is that (1) MVACs
and MVAC-like appliance are very similar, and the requirements for
MVAC-like appliances under the subpart F regulations have historically
referred back to the requirements for MVACs under subpart B, and (2)
MVACs and MVAC-like appliances are often serviced by the same group of
people, and therefore publishing the requirements for both MVACs and
MVAC-like appliances in the same place will minimize confusion within
this group. Under this approach, most of the provisions governing MVAC-
like appliances have been reproduced in the regulations at subpart B
and will be removed from the regulations at subpart F; an important
exception is the definition of MVAC-like appliance, which will remain
in the regulations at subpart F. Thus, the final subpart B rule covers
MVAC-like appliances as they are currently defined in the subpart F
regulations, which means MVAC-like appliances containing CFCs or HCFCs.
(However, the subpart B amendment does not affect the four differences
between the treatment of MVACs and MVAC-like appliances identified
above.)
c. Today's Proposal. In this document, EPA is proposing to change
the definitions of ``appliance,'' ``MVAC-like appliance'' (which is
based on the definition of ``appliance''), and ``opening'' in subpart F
to include substitute refrigerants. This would effectively apply the
major requirements of the amended subpart B regulations (when this rule
was finalized) to MVAC-like appliances containing substitutes for CFCs
and HCFCs. EPA is also proposing editorial changes to eliminate
redundancy between the subpart B and subpart F rules in their treatment
of MVAC-like appliances.
EPA believes that in order to implement the venting prohibition, it
is necessary to apply the major subpart B requirements (including the
requirements to properly use recycling and recovery equipment and to
certify recycling and recovery equipment and technicians) to MVAC-like
appliances containing substitute refrigerants. The basic rationale for
applying the subpart B requirements to MVAC-like appliances containing
substitute refrigerants is the same as that for applying the equivalent
subpart F requirements to other appliances containing substitute
refrigerants; this reasoning is presented throughout this document. In
the case of MVAC-like appliances, however, the similarities in design
and servicing patterns between MVACs and MVAC-like appliances make it
appropriate to subject MVAC-like appliances to the required practices
and certification programs established for MVACS in subpart B rather
than to the required practices and certification programs established
for stationary appliances in subpart F. (As noted above, the argument
for parallel coverage of MVACs and MVAC-like appliances was discussed
at length in the May 14, 1993 rule at 58 FR 28686.) EPA requests
comment on the regulatory approach and rationale presented here.

C. Equipment Certification

The final rule published on May 14, 1993 requires that refrigerant
recycling and recovery equipment manufactured after November 15, 1993,
and used to service appliances containing CFCs or HCFCs be tested by an
EPA-approved laboratory to ensure that it meets certain performance
standards. These standards vary among equipment used to service MVAC-
like appliances, small appliances, and other appliances. EPA is
proposing to require that equipment used to service appliances
containing HFCs and PFCs be tested by an EPA-approved laboratory to the
same standards as apply to equipment used to service appliances
containing class I and class II refrigerants, as applicable. Because
EPA is simultaneously proposing to permit the use of representative
refrigerants in equipment testing (as opposed to requiring testing with
every refrigerant), equipment models already certified for use with
CFCs and HCFCs might not always need additional testing in order to be
certified for use with HFCs and PFCs. In addition, as discussed below,
EPA is proposing to grandfather existing recovery and recycling
equipment that is certified for use with at least two CFCs and HCFCs
for use with HFCs and PFCs of similar saturation pressure.
1. Certification of Recovery and Recycling Equipment Intended for Use
with Appliances Except Small Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like
Appliances
a. Background. For recovery equipment used with appliances other
than small appliances, MVACs and MVAC-like appliances, the laboratory
must verify that the equipment is capable of achieving applicable
required evacuation levels and that the equipment releases no more than
3% of the quantity of refrigerant being recycled through
noncondensables purging. In addition, the laboratory must measure the
vapor and liquid recovery rates of the equipment. To perform all of
these measurements, the

[[Page 32074]]

laboratory must use the test procedure set forth in ARI 740-93, an
industry test protocol for recycling and recovery equipment that EPA
included in the final rule as Appendix B.
A proposed rule published on February 29, 1996 requested comment on
amending the certification requirements to include a new, more
representative method for measuring the equipment's refrigerant
recovery rate; requirements to measure the equipment's recovery rate
and final vacuum at high temperatures; a limit on the total quantity of
refrigerant that may be released from equipment from noncondensables
purging, oil draining, and equipment clearing; a requirement to measure
the quantity of refrigerant left in the condenser of equipment after
clearing has occurred; standards for external hose permeability; and a
requirement that equipment be tested with recovery cylinders that are
representative of those used with the equipment in the field. In
addition, EPA proposed to require that equipment that is advertised as
``recycling equipment'' be capable of cleaning up refrigerants to the
contamination levels (except that for ``Other Refrigerants'') set forth
in the IRG-2 table of Maximum Contaminant Levels of Recycled
Refrigerants in Same Owner's Equipment.
b. Certification of Recovery/recycling Equipment Used With HFCs and
PFCs. EPA is today proposing equipment certification requirements for
recovery and recycling equipment used with HFCs and PFCs that are very
similar to the requirements for recovery and recycling equipment used
with CFCs and HCFCs, as they were proposed to be amended in the
February 29, 1996 document. The evacuation requirements would depend
upon the saturation pressure of the refrigerant, the size of the
appliance in which it is used, and the date of manufacture of the
recovery equipment. These standards, which are described in Table 1 and
Table 2, are consistent with the proposed evacuation requirements
discussed in section IV.B.1.a. above.

Table 1.--Levels of Evacuation Which Must Be Achieved by Recovery or
Recycling Equipment Intended for Use With Appliances \1\ Manufactured on
or after November 15, 1993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inches of
vacuum
(relative to
Type of appliance with which recovery or recycling standard
machine is intended to be used. atmospheric
pressure of
29.9 inches of
Hg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very high-pressure appliance............................ 0
Higher-pressure appliance or isolated component of such
appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds of
refrigerant............................................ 0
Higher-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such
appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more of
refrigerant............................................ 10
High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such
appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds of
refrigerant............................................ 10
High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such
appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more of
refrigerant............................................ 15
Low-pressure appliance.................................. \2\ 25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances.
\2\ mm Hg absolute.

The vacuums specified in inches of Hg vacuum must be achieved
relative to an atmospheric pressure of 29.9 inches of Hg absolute.

Table 2.--Levels of Evacuation Which Must Be Achieved by Recovery or
Recycling Equipment Intended for Use With Appliances \1\ Manufactured
Before November 15, 1993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inches of
vacuum
(relative to
Type of appliance with which recovery or recycling standard
machine is intended to be used. atmospheric
pressure of
29.9 inches of
Hg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very high-pressure appliance............................ 0
Higher-pressure appliance or isolated component of such
appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds of
refrigerant............................................ 0
Higher-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such
appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more of
refrigerant............................................ 4
High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such
appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds of
refrigerant............................................ 4
High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such
appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more of
refrigerant............................................ 4
Low-pressure appliance.................................. 225
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances.
\2\ mm Hg absolute.

The other certification requirements, including the requirement to
use the more representative method for measuring the equipment's
refrigerant recovery rate, the requirement for high-temperature
testing, and limits on refrigerant emissions from air purging, oil
draining, equipment clearing, and hoses, would be identical to those
proposed for CFC and HCFC recovery and recycling equipment in the
February 29, 1996 document.
EPA believes that certification of recovery and recycling equipment
used with HFCs and PFCs is necessary to implement and enforce both
section 608(c)(2) and section 608(a). In order to comply with the
prohibition on venting of substitute refrigerants by making good faith
efforts to recover them, technicians must recover the refrigerants
using equipment that minimizes refrigerant emissions and mixture, and
they must complete the recovery process. Certification of HFC and PFC
recovery equipment would permit technicians to achieve all of these
goals. First, certification would provide reliable information on the
ability of equipment to minimize emissions, measuring and/or
establishing standards for recovery efficiency (vacuum level) and
emissions from air purging, oil draining, equipment clearing, and hose
perme

[[Page 32075]]

ation. Second, certification would provide reliable information on the
equipment's ability to clear itself when it was switched between
refrigerants. Without sufficient clearing capability, equipment may
retain residual refrigerant in its condenser, which will be mixed with
the next batch of a different refrigerant recovered by the equipment.
Because it is frequently impossible to reclaim and expensive to
destroy, such mixed refrigerant is much more likely than unmixed
refrigerant to be vented to the atmosphere. Third, certification would
provide reliable information on the equipment's recovery speed, without
which technicians may purchase equipment that recovers too slowly,
tempting them to interrupt recovery before it is complete. As discussed
in the May 14, 1993, final rule, EPA believes that the information on
equipment performance provided by a disinterested third-party testing
organization is more reliable than that provided by other sources, such
as equipment manufacturers (58 FR 28686-28687).
Certification of recovery equipment used with HFCs and PFCs would
also maximize recycling and minimize emissions of CFCs and HCFCs. As
discussed below, there is no physical difference between ozone-
depleting refrigerants and their fluorocarbon substitutes that would
prevent a technician from purchasing and using HFC recovery equipment
on CFCs or HCFCs. At the same time, uncertified recovery and recycling
equipment is likely to be less expensive than certified equipment,
which must meet standards and undergo testing. Thus, if uncertified HFC
or PFC equipment is available on the market, technicians may well
decide to purchase and use it with CFCs and HCFCs instead of or in
addition to HFCs and PFCs. In this way, failure to require
certification for recovery equipment used with HFCs and PFCs would
undermine the current certification program for equipment used with
CFCs and HCFCs, leading to greater emissions of the latter. These
emissions could occur through any of the routes identified above; that
is, directly from leaky or inefficient equipment, or indirectly through
refrigerant mixture or incomplete recovery.
c. Use of Representative Refrigerants In Equipment Testing.
Currently, equipment certification organizations test recovery and
recycling equipment with each of the refrigerants for which the
equipment is to be rated. Given the proliferation of new refrigerants
and the associated cost of testing equipment with each one, EPA is
proposing to permit equipment to be tested with only one or two
representative refrigerants from each saturation pressure category for
which it is to be rated. At least one of the representative
refrigerants would be one that was among the most difficult to recover
in its category, that is, a refrigerant whose relatively high
saturation pressure and/or discharge temperature made attainment of
deep vacuums relatively difficult. This would ensure that equipment
that could attain the required vacuums with the representative
refrigerant could attain these vacuums with all of the other
refrigerants in that category. Other factors that could be considered
in the selection of representative refrigerants include moisture
affinity, which affects the ease with which refrigerants may be
cleaned, materials compatibility, likely popularity, and availability
for testing purposes. Different refrigerants might be selected for
different testing purposes; for instance, a refrigerant with a high
saturation pressure might be selected to test a piece of equipment's
ability to draw a vacuum, while a refrigerant with a high moisture
affinity might be selected to test the equipment's ability to remove
contaminants.
The Agency believes that the saturation pressure (and to some
extent, discharge temperature and moisture affinity) of the refrigerant
are more important factors in recovery equipment performance than the
chemical identity of the refrigerant; in general, equipment that passes
the certification test for CFCs and HCFCs is likely to pass the test
for HFCs and PFCs of similar (or lower) saturation pressure, as long as
the materials used in the recovery equipment are compatible with all of
these refrigerants. The equipment certification programs operated by
both UL and ARI have been testing recovery and recycling equipment with
HFC-134a for the past few years, and equipment performance (final
vacuum) with HFC-134a appears to be comparable to that with R-12. EPA
requests comment on whether there are factors other than saturation
pressure, discharge temperature, moisture affinity, materials
compatibility, popularity, and availability that should be considered
in selecting a representative refrigerant or in determining the set of
refrigerants for which equipment should be certified.
The latest version of ARI 740, ARI 740-1995, already includes a
test that is performed with one representative refrigerant. That is
high-temperature testing, which is performed with R-22. As discussed in
the proposed rule to adopt ARI 740-1995, R-22 was selected because it
has a relatively high saturation pressure and discharge temperature,
making it harder to recover than many other high-pressure refrigerants
(61 FR 7867). Although EPA is proposing to place R22 in a separate
saturation pressure category from R134a and R12, EPA believes that it
may be appropriate to retain R22 as a representative refrigerant for
both pressure categories. EPA requests comment on this issue. EPA also
requests comment on whether recovery equipment that is to be certified
for use with refrigerants whose saturation pressures are higher than
that of R22 should have high-temperature testing performed with R22, or
with a higher-pressure refrigerant. Because many new refrigerants have
significantly higher saturation pressures than R22 (for instance, R407B
has a saturation pressure of 281.7 psia at 104 degrees F, while R22 has
a saturation pressure of 222.4 psia at that temperature), EPA believes
that equipment that is rated for use with these refrigerants should
have high-temperature testing performed with a refrigerant whose
saturation pressure is closer to theirs.
In its efforts to revise and update the ARI 740 standard, ARI is
currently considering an approach that divides refrigerants into six
saturation pressure categories and selects one or two refrigerants for
each one. The planned ARI groupings and representative refrigerants for
each one are reprinted in Table 3 below.

Table 3.--Proposed ARI Grouping of Refrigerants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSIA at 104
Designated group refrigerant Group No. Refrigerant No. deg.F, liquid Bubble point, Critical
deg.F temp., deg.F
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-123.................................... I
(3)LOW PRESSURE

R-11..................................... ......................... R-113 18 117.6 417.4
......................... R-123 22.4 82.1 362.6

[[Page 32076]]

......................... R-11 25.3 74.9 388.4
R-114.................................... II
(3)MEDIUM PRESSURE--LOW MOISTURE

......................... R-114 48.6 38.8 294.3
R-134a................................... III
(3)MEDIUM PRESSURE

......................... R-12 139.7 -21.6 233.2
......................... R-134a 147.4 -14.9 213.9
......................... R-401C 151.9 -19.0 234.9
......................... R-406A 161.4 -26.2 238.1
......................... R-500 163.7 -28.3 221.9
R-407C................................... IV
(3)MEDIUM HIGH PRESSURE

R-22..................................... ......................... R-401A 174.9 -27.5 226.4
......................... R-409A 178.6 -29.6 224.6
......................... R-401B 183.5 -30.4 223.0
......................... R-412A 191.8 -37.3 220.6
......................... R-411A 210.8 -37.5 209.5
......................... R-407D 217.8 -39.1 216.3
......................... R-22 222.4 -41.4 205.1
......................... R-411B 225.5 -42.9 205.7
......................... R-502 244.8 -49.7 180.0
......................... R-407C 254.5 -46.4 189.1
......................... R-402B 255 -53.2 180.7
......................... R-408A 255 -46.3 182.3
......................... R-509 256.5 -52.8 188.3
R-410A................................... V
(3)HIGH PRESSURE

......................... R-407A 267.6 -49.9 181.0
......................... R-404A 269.9 -51.6 161.7
......................... R-402A 270.6 -46.5 167.9
......................... R-507 275.5 -52.1 159.6
......................... R-407B 281.7 -53.1 168.4
......................... R-410A 352.8 -62.9 162.5
R-508A................................... VI
(3)VERY HIGH PRESSURE--HIGH MOISTURE

......................... R-13 supercritical -114.5 83.8
......................... R-23 supercritical -115.8 78.1
......................... R-508A supercritical -122.2 73.5
......................... R-503 supercritical -126.0 67.1
......................... R-508B supercritical -126.9 57.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARI's saturation pressure categories are similar, but not
identical, to the saturation pressure categories that EPA is proposing
to use as the basis for its evacuation requirements. For instance, both
EPA and ARI propose to classify R113, R123, and R11 as low-pressure
refrigerants, and R13, R23, R508A, R503, and R508B as very-high
pressure refrigerants. However, while EPA is proposing to classify
R114, R134a, and R401A as high-pressure refrigerants, ARI is proposing
to place these refrigerants into three separate saturation pressure
categories. Moreover, EPA's proposed dividing line between high and
higher-pressure refrigerants would split ARI's ``medium high-pressure''
category in half, falling between R407D and R22.
EPA does not believe that using different saturation pressure
categories for selecting representative refrigerants and for
determining evacuation requirements would be a problem if the
categories for selecting representative refrigerants fell entirely
within the categories for determining evacuation requirements. Thus,
EPA believes it would be quite reasonable to separate EPA's high-
pressure category into three categories for purposes of selecting
representative refrigerants; this would simply mean that recovery and
recycling equipment would be tested with more refrigerants. However, if
a category for selecting representative refrigerants were split into
different categories for determining evacuation requirements, confusion
and inefficiency could result. For instance, ARI is considering R22 and
R407C as representative refrigerants for its ``medium high-pressure''
category. If EPA were to promulgate the categories for evacuation
requirements proposed today, recovery/recycling equipment that was
being certified for use with any refrigerant in the ``medium high-
pressure'' category would have to pull these refrigerants to the
relatively deep vacuums required for R12 and R134a, because EPA is
proposing to place these refrigerants in the same evacuation category
as many of the refrigerants in ARI's ``medium high-pressure category.''
This may be an unnecessarily strict approach, as R22 itself would not
need to be drawn to these vacuums in the field. EPA requests comment on
this issue.
Because the current regulations establish less stringent evacuation
requirements for R22 appliances than for appliances containing
refrigerants with lower saturation pressures, and because EPA wishes to
retain as much consistency as possible between the proposed and the
existing evacuation requirements, EPA is reluctant to eliminate or move
its dividing line between the proposed high-pressure and higher
pressure evacuation requirement categories. (Again, the proposed
dividing line falls between R407D and R22.) In consideration of this
issue and the issues discussed above, the Agency requests comment on
whether it should adopt the proposed ARI groupings as is or with some
changes. If the latter, the Agency requests comment on what changes
would be appropriate.
ARI selected the proposed representative refrigerants considering

[[Page 32077]]

the saturation pressure, discharge temperature, moisture affinity,
materials compatibility, and likely popularity of the refrigerants. ARI
is considering using both R11 and R123 as representative refrigerants
for the low-pressure category because some equipment uses materials
that are compatible with R11 but not with R123, and a requirement for
performance testing with R123 may reduce the incidence of equipment
failure and refrigerant leakage in the field. ARI is considering a
separate grouping for R114 because this refrigerant has a saturation
pressure that is significantly higher than lower-pressure refrigerants
and significantly lower than higher pressure refrigerants. Although
R134a is not the refrigerant with the highest saturation pressure in
the next, ``medium pressure'' category, ARI is considering it as the
representative refrigerant because it is likely to be used widely and
the refrigerants with higher saturation pressures (R401C, R406A, R500)
are not. R134a also has a relatively high moisture affinity.
ARI is considering using both R22 and R407C as representative
refrigerants in the ``medium high-pressure'' category because of their
popularity, the high discharge temperature of R22, and the high
saturation pressure of R407C at 104 F. (R407C has a saturation pressure
of 254.5 psia at that temperature, while the highest pressure
refrigerant in the category, R509, has a saturation pressure only 2 psi
higher, 256.5) R410A is being considered as the representative
refrigerant for the next category because its saturation pressure of
3.8 psia is the highest in its category, and because it has a high
moisture affinity. ARI's tentative choice as the representative
refrigerant for the very high pressure category is R508A, which is
supercritical at 104 degrees F. R508A's critical temperature of 73.5 is
16 degrees higher than that of the highest-pressure refrigerant in the
group, R508B, but 10 degrees lower than that of the lowest-pressure
refrigerant in the group, R13.
EPA believes that ARI's tentative choices for representative
refrigerants would probably appropriately represent their categories,
as those categories are currently defined. However, EPA is requesting
comment on a few issues. First, EPA requests comment on whether R134a
is an appropriate representative refrigerant for the ``medium
pressure'' group, given that its saturation pressure is 16 psi lower
than the saturation pressure of the highest-pressure refrigerant in the
category, R500. Should the likely popularity of R134a relative to
R401C, R406A, and R500 overrule its relatively low saturation pressure?
Is equipment that successfully recovers R134a in testing likely to fail
to recover refrigerant with a saturation pressure 16 psi higher? EPA
requests comment on the same issue as it applies to the use of R508A as
the representative refrigerant for ``very high pressure'' refrigerants.
Finally, EPA requests comment on what refrigerant should be chosen to
represent the category of refrigerants whose saturation pressures fall
between those of R401A and R407D, in case this category is split off
from the current ``medium high pressure'' category, and what
refrigerant should be chosen to represent ``high pressure
refrigerants,'' in case R410A is split off from this category. EPA
believes that R407D and B, which would become the highest pressure
refrigerants in these categories, would be appropriate choices, but
recognizes that considerations of moisture affinity and/or refrigerant
availability may argue for choices with slightly lower saturation
pressures.
While the proper selection of representative refrigerants would
ensure that recovery equipment could achieve the required vacuum for
all the refrigerants in a category, some information would be lost.
Specifically, the vapor and liquid recovery rates of equipment with
each of the refrigerants in a category would no longer be available.
However, technicians and contractors would still be able to compare
recovery rates across different makes and models for the representative
refrigerant. EPA requests comment on whether the information gained
through measuring recovery rates for each refrigerant justifies
retaining testing with each refrigerant.
EPA would include representative refrigerants in the equipment
testing program by amending Appendix B, the test protocol based on ARI
740-1993. If EPA completes the rulemaking adopting the latest version
of ARI 740, ARI 740-1995, before this rule is finalized, EPA would
amend that protocol rather than the protocol based on ARI 740-1993.
Since the use of representative refrigerants amounts to a relaxation of
testing requirements, EPA does not anticipate any problems from
adopting this approach only shortly after adopting an earlier set of
amendments to the testing requirements.
d. Additional Refrigerants. Industry experts have suggested that a
few additional refrigerants could be usefully added to Table 3. These
include R124, R125, R403A, R405A, R409B, R410B, and R413B. R124, R125,
and R410B are ASHRAE-recognized refrigerants that are included in ARI
Standard 700. In addition, R124 and R410B have been determined to be
``acceptable'' for several end-uses under the SNAP program, and R125 is
a component of several refrigerant blends that have been determined to
be ``acceptable.'' Thus, it appears appropriate to include these in the
equipment certification program. Although R403A and R413A have not been
submitted for review under SNAP and are not used in the U.S., they are
in use overseas. Industry experts believe that certification for these
refrigerants could benefit manufacturers who intend to export
refrigerant recovery/recycling equipment to Europe and elsewhere. EPA
believes that the same logic may apply to R405A, although it has been
found to be ``unacceptable'' in the U.S. under SNAP due to its high PFC
content. R409B does not yet appear in ARI Standard 700, but R409A,
whose composition differs from that of R409B by less than five percent,
does. Thus, it also seems reasonable to accommodate this fluid in the
equipment certification program. EPA requests comment on these possible
additions to the equipment certification program.

Refrigerants Recommended for Addition to Table 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bubble Critical
Refrigerant Group No. PSIA at point, point,
104 deg.F deg.F deg.F
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-124............................................ II 86.0 10.3 252.4
R-413A........................................... III 167.2 -31.0 198.5
R-405A........................................... IV 177.3 -25.2 223.0
R-409B........................................... IV 186.6 -31.4 221.0
R-403A........................................... IV 244.5 -58.0 199.9
R-125............................................ V 290.9 -54.7 151.3
R-410B........................................... V 350.3 -60.3 159.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 32078]]

EPA is also requesting comment on how R124 would be integrated into
Table 3. The working pressure of R-124 differs sufficiently from R-114
that some equipment may not operate correctly with both fluids. For
this reason, industry experts recommend that R124 be listed as an
additional refrigerant for group II, subject to the following
guidelines:
(a) Equipment that is certified for use in group I may also be
certified for group II by testing with R-124. The test for R-114 may be
waived as the equipment would be shown to operate correctly for both
higher and lower pressure fluids.
(b) Equipment that is certified for use in group III may also be
certified for group II by testing with R-114. The test for R-124 may be
waived as the equipment would be shown to operate correctly for both
higher and lower pressure fluids.
(c) Equipment that is not certified in either group I or group III
must be tested using both R-114 and R-124 in order to obtain
certification for group II.
(d) Equipment that is not certified in either group I or group III
may be certified for a single refrigerant from group II through
successful testing with the appropriate refrigerant. EPA requests
comment on this approach.
e. Materials Compatibility. Although EPA's preliminary information
indicates that recovery and recycling equipment designed for use with
CFCs and HCFCs can be used with HFCs and PFCs, some industry experts
have raised concerns that lubricants, elastomers, filter driers, and/or
motor materials used in recovery and recycling equipment may not be
compatible with the full range of halocarbon (CFC, HCFC, HFC, and PFC)
refrigerants coming into use. Use of incompatible lubricants may lead
to compressor wear and ultimately to compressor failure; use of
incompatible filter driers may lead to declining performance in
refrigerant blends; use of incompatible elastomers may lead to the
failure of seals and subsequently to refrigerant leakage from the
equipment; and use of incompatible motor materials may lead to motor
failure.
Some industry representatives expressed the concern that many
models of recycling and recovery equipment have been built and sold
with mineral oil, which is not compatible with HFCs. EPA believes that
this concern may be addressed by informing equipment manufacturers and
users of the need to replace the mineral oil with ester oil if the
equipment is used with HFCs, and possibly by requiring equipment
manufacturers to use ester lubricants in equipment certified for use
with HFCs. EPA understands that ester lubricants work well with all
halocarbon refrigerants, and that changing out the oil in recycling and
recovery equipment is usually a simple and routine procedure. HCFCs,
which dissolve easily into ester oil, may thin it out, necessitating
the use of higher viscosity oils, but recycling and recovery equipment
manufacturers may address this problem simply by using (or specifying
use of) a higher viscosity lubricant. EPA requests comment on whether
sufficient mechanisms exist within the industry to ensure that the need
and method for changing out lubricants is transmitted to manufacturers
and users of recycling and recovery equipment, and whether EPA should
require that equipment certified for use with HFCs be sold with ester
lubricants.
In addition, industry sources expressed the concern that filter
driers, particularly those containing activated carbon, may react
undesirably to certain refrigerant blends. Undesirable reactions might
include the selective uptake of refrigerant components, changing the
composition of the blend, or extreme heating when a filter drier
containing activated carbon is used with blends containing hydrocarbon
refrigerants. EPA understands that some types of filter driers absorb
some blend components more than others, but that this absorption is
usually not sufficiently pronounced to significantly change the
performance of the blend. EPA further understands that some heating is
inevitable when activated carbon is used, but that this heating may not
be very great, and that it is counteracted by the refrigerant's
tendency to carry heat away from the drier. EPA requests comment on
these issues. If some types of filter driers are incompatible with some
types of blends, EPA requests comment on whether the Agency should
require the use of other types of filter driers that are compatible
with all refrigerants, or whether the Agency should require equipment
manufacturers to demonstrate, through testing, that the filter driers
used in their equipment are compatible with all of the refrigerants for
which the equipment is to be certified.
Industry experts also expressed the concern that compressor and
motor materials may not be compatible with new refrigerant and
lubricant combinations. EPA understands that most recycling and
recovery compressors and motors that are intended for use with high-
pressure refrigerants are designed to work with R502 and mineral oil.
Because the combination of R22 (a component of R502) and mineral oil is
a relatively aggressive one (i.e., is likely to chemically attack
compressor components), EPA believes that compressors and motors that
are designed to handle this combination are likely to tolerate other
refrigerant/lubricant combinations, such as HFCs and ester oils.
However, EPA requests comment on this issue. EPA also requests comment
on whether compressors and motors that are designed to handle
refrigerant/lubricant combinations other than R502 and mineral oil
(e.g., R11 and mineral oil) may pose compatibility concerns.
Finally, some industry sources stated that the elastomers used in
O-rings and other types of seals may not be compatible with all types
of refrigerants and lubricants. Some of the potential effects of
incompatibility include the swelling of O-rings, which would make it
difficult to make and break connections without leakage, and the high-
temperature hardening or ``compression set'' of shaft seals on open-
drive compressors, which would lead to failure of the seal. EPA
understands that no single material is likely to work equally well with
all combinations of refrigerants and lubricants, and that similar
materials (e.g., two types of neoprene) may not be equally compatible
with the same refrigerant/lubricant combinations. Thus, rather than
specifying the use of any single material or set of materials, the
Agency is considering requiring manufacturers of recovery and recycling
equipment to use materials that have been shown to be compatible with
the refrigerants for which the equipment is to be rated or certified.
The method for demonstrating compatibility might be sealed tube testing
under the conditions of ASHRAE 97 or some other standard; manufacturers
could use the results of industry-wide testing (e.g., MCLR/ARTI
testing) if such testing had been performed for the materials,
refrigerants, and lubricants of concern. Another possible means of
addressing compatibility concerns would be to require manufacturers to
test recovery and recycling equipment with all the major refrigerant
groups (CFCs, HCFCs, and HFCs and their associated lubricants); but the
duration of equipment testing may not be sufficient to reveal
compatibility problems, raising the question of whether the additional
testing would be useful or justified. EPA requests comment on the
elastomer compatibility issue and on the above approaches for
addressing it.
f. Fractionation. For a number of reasons, some industry experts
have expressed concern that recycling and

[[Page 32079]]

recovery equipment, and to some extent, the process of recovery itself,
may change the composition of refrigerant blends, affecting their
performance. Ways in which recycling and recovery equipment might
conceivably change the composition of blends include the selective
absorption of certain components by filter driers (discussed above),
selective removal of components with higher solubility in oil through
oil separation, selective release of certain components during
noncondensables purging, and possibly selective diffusion of certain
components (those with lower molecular weights) through hoses.
EPA is aware of two studies that have been performed to ascertain
how recovery and recycling may affect the composition of blends \24\.
One study, performed by ICI Klea, modeled blend behavior during
recovery and recycling based on the thermophysical properties of the
refrigerants. The other study, performed by Robinair, examined how
blend composition changed during and after repeated recycling using
actual recycling equipment. Both studies showed recycling had little
impact on blend composition, if the complete charge was removed from
the system and recharged back into it at the conclusion of service.
However, because different models of recovery and recycling equipment
may have different impacts on blend composition, and because few models
were actually tested in the studies, EPA is requesting comment on
whether the certification program for recycling and recovery equipment
should be expanded to test equipment's tendency to change blend
composition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ Kenneth W. Manz, Robinair Division, SPX Corporation,
``Recycling Alternate Refrigerants R-404a, R-410a, and R507,'' and
R.W. Yost, ICI Klea, ``Practical Aspects of Zeotrope Fractionation
in Recovery and Recycling,'' both presented at the 1996 ASHRAE
Winter Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, February 19, 1996. Copies of the
presentations are available for inspection in the public docket for
this rulemaking. A yet-to-be-published study performed by EPA's
Office of Research and Development yielded similar results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

g. Flammability. Some refrigerants that have entered the market
over the past few years, such as R406A, may be flammable under some
conditions (e.g., after fractionation). EPA requests comment on whether
the equipment certification program should test whether equipment that
is to be certified for ``flammable'' refrigerants may be used with them
safely, and if so, how ``flammable'' refrigerants should be defined for
purposes of equipment testing. ARI is currently considering certifying
equipment for use with refrigerants classified under ASHRAE Standard 34
as ``lower flammability'' (Class 2); no ``higher flammability'' (Class
3) refrigerants are included in Table 3. EPA requests comment on
whether the recovery and recycling process could lead to refrigerant
ignition for the Class 2 refrigerants in Table 3. Could these
refrigerants (or a subset of them) be ignited by high motor
temperatures or by sparking of switches or other equipment components
during recovery and recycling? If so, what kinds of tests would be
appropriate to determine whether a model of recovery and recycling
equipment could be used with these refrigerants safely? Should the
ASHRAE 34 classification system be used for purposes of determining
flammability for recovery and recycling equipment certification, or
would some other system (e.g., one based on auto-ignition temperature)
be more appropriate?
If equipment's ability to safely process flammable refrigerants
should be tested, EPA requests comment on how representative
``flammable'' refrigerants might be chosen. One possible approach would
be to establish a separate category for ``flammable'' refrigerants in
Table 3, and to test the most flammable among them (using whatever
criterion for flammability is ultimately chosen) with the recovery and
recycling equipment.
2. Certification of Recovery and Recycling Equipment Intended for Use
With Small Appliances
Recovery equipment intended for use with small appliances
containing CFCs or HCFCs must currently be tested by an EPA-approved
testing organization to verify that it meets at least one of two sets
of standards. The equipment must either (1) recover 90% of the
refrigerant in the small appliance when the compressor is operating and
80% of the refrigerant in the small appliance when the compressor is
not operating, when tested according to Appendix C, or (2) be able to
pull a four-inch vacuum when tested according to Appendix B. Equipment
manufactured before November 15, 1993, is grandfathered if it can
recover at least 80% of the refrigerant in the small appliance whether
or not the compressor is operating. EPA is proposing to extend these
requirements to recovery equipment that is intended for use with small
appliances containing HFCs or PFCs.
Appendix C currently requires that recovery equipment be tested
using CFC-12. EPA requests comment on whether appendix C should be
amended to require testing with substitute refrigerants in addition to
or in place of CFC-12. The substitute refrigerant(s) chosen would be
one used in small appliances. As discussed above, EPA is proposing to
amend Appendix B to permit testing of equipment with a single
representative refrigerant from each saturation pressure and moisture
affinity category, and a similar approach may be appropriate for
Appendix C.
One factor in addition to saturation pressure that has an impact on
recovery efficiencies from small appliances is the miscibility of the
refrigerant in the system lubricant. This is especially important in
small appliances because there is often as much lubricant in a small
appliance as there is refrigerant, and a large percentage of the
refrigerant may therefore remain entrained in the lubricant even if the
system pressure is relatively low. EPA requests comment on whether its
certification requirements for recovery equipment used with small
appliances should be amended to account for differences in the
miscibilities of CFC-12 and the HFCs in their associated lubricants.
3. Approval of Equipment Testing Organizations To Test Recovery
Equipment With HFC and PFC Refrigerants
EPA has approved two equipment testing organizations, the Air
Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute and Underwriters Laboratories,
to certify equipment under the current standards at Sec. 82.158(b) and
Appendix B. EPA anticipates that both organizations will apply to
certify equipment under the standards based on ARI 740-95 when these
are promulgated in the near future. EPA is proposing to require that
approved equipment testing organizations would also have to apply to
EPA to become approved to certify equipment under the standards
described above, once these are promulgated. However, these
organizations would not need to resubmit the information on their test
facilities, equipment testing expertise, long-term performance
verification programs, knowledge of the standards, and objectivity that
they submitted to become approved to certify under Sec. 82.158(b) and
Appendix B, or under the new standards based on ARI 740-95. Instead,
they would have to submit information only in those areas where their
certification programs under the standards described above differed
from their previously approved programs. Because the standards
described above do not require any testing equipment that differs from
that required for the standards based on ARI 740-95, EPA expects
submissions to focus on the organizations' knowledge of how the new
standards differ from the old. EPA

[[Page 32080]]

believes that a one- to two-page letter would suffice.
4. Use of Existing CFC/HCFC Recovery Equipment With HFC and PFC
Refrigerants
EPA is proposing to permit technicians to use equipment that is
certified for use with at least two CFCs and HCFCs to recover HFCs and
PFCs of similar saturation pressure. Based on discussions with
equipment manufacturers and testing organizations, EPA believes that
most recovery and recycling equipment designed for use with multiple
CFC or HCFC refrigerants (e.g., R12, R22, R500, and R502) can be
adapted for use with HFC and PFC refrigerants with similar saturation
pressures, usually by changing the lubricant to POE lubricant. This
equipment would have to meet the standards presented in Table 1 and
Table 2. In addition, if it was manufactured on or after November 15,
1993, it would have to have been certified by an EPA-approved third-
party certification program (ARI or UL) for at least two refrigerants
with saturation pressures similar to the saturation pressure of the
refrigerant(s) with which the equipment is to be used. EPA requests
comment on this proposal. EPA specifically requests comment on whether
and how the Agency should integrate into its grandfathering policy the
considerations enumerated above in the discussion of certification of
new equipment, including materials compatibility, flammability, and
blend fractionation. EPA also requests comment on whether it should
permit equipment that was originally designed for use with a single
refrigerant to be used with multiple refrigerants. EPA is concerned
that equipment designed for use with a single refrigerant may not be
equipped with a clearing mechanism to prevent cross-contamination when
it is used with a different refrigerant.

D. Technician Certification

Any person doing work that ``could reasonably be expected'' to
release refrigerant from CFC and HCFC appliances is required to become
certified. In addition, sales of CFCs and HCFCs are restricted to
certified technicians. Technicians become certified by passing a test
drawn from a question bank developed jointly by EPA and industry
educational organizations. The test includes questions on the role of
CFCs and HCFCs in ozone depletion, the requirements of the refrigerant
recycling rule, and proper techniques for recycling and conserving
refrigerant. EPA makes the question bank available to certifying
organizations that demonstrate that they can properly generate, track,
and grade tests, issue certificates, and keep records.
EPA is proposing to extend the certification requirements for
technicians who work with CFC and HCFC refrigerants to technicians who
work with HFCs and PFCs. Technicians who have been certified to work
with CFCs and HCFCs would not have to be retested to work with HFCs or
PFCs, but new technicians entering the field would have to pass the
test to work with CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs, and/or PFCs.
EPA believes that requiring certification of technicians who work
with HFCs and PFCs is necessary to implement and enforce both section
608(c) and section 608(a)(2) effectively. As discussed above, section
608(c) prohibits the knowing release of substitute refrigerants during
the service, maintenance, repair or disposal of appliances, except for
de minimis releases associated with ``good faith attempts to recapture
and recycle or safely dispose'' of the refrigerants. It is reasonable
to interpret ``good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely
dispose'' as requiring that service, maintenance, repair, or disposal
that could release substitute refrigerant be performed by a certified
technician. This interpretation is also consistent with EPA's
interpretation of the same statutory language as it applies to ozone-
depleting refrigerants. For the reasons discussed below, persons who
are not certified technicians are far more likely to intentionally or
inadvertently release refrigerant contrary to the venting prohibition.
In addition, consistent application of technician certification
requirements and a sales restriction to class I and II refrigerants and
their substitutes is necessary to implement the section 608(a)
directive to reduce releases and maximize recapture and recycling of
class I and II refrigerants. Technician certification requirements for
work with substitute refrigerants would directly reduce some releases
of class I and II refrigerants. It would also protect against
refrigerant mixture, which otherwise is likely to cause more
substantial releases of class I and II refrigerants.
EPA believes that having a certified technician perform the work on
an appliance is an important component of good faith recapture and
recycling. Certified technicians are much more likely to understand how
and why to recover and recycle refrigerants and to have the means to do
so. First, technician certification ensures that technicians are
trained in refrigerant recovery requirements and techniques. Until
recently, technicians in many sectors were not recycling refrigerants
at all, and technicians who did recycle were not necessarily minimizing
emissions as much as possible. Thus, many technicians lacked expertise
that they would need to comply with the recycling and recovery
provisions and hence needed training to acquire that expertise.
However, while some vocational schools and training programs addressed
refrigerant recovery, participation in such programs was low. Given
this situation, EPA was concerned that without a testing or training
requirement, recovery and recycling often would not occur at all or
would occur improperly, leading not only to refrigerant release, but to
refrigerant contamination, safety concerns, productivity losses, and
equipment damage. EPA discussed at length the benefits of training and
certification in the final rule published on May 14, 1993 (58 FR 28691-
28694) and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis performed for that rule
(6-34 through 6-39). The importance of a certification requirement was
confirmed when participation in training programs rose in response to
reports that certification would be required, and then fell sharply in
response to reports that it would not be required. This indicated that
service practice requirements were not, by themselves, likely to drive
technicians to acquire training in how to comply with such
requirements.
Second, in addition to possessing training in refrigerant recovery,
certified individuals are more likely than uncertified individuals to
have access to recovery equipment. This is because uncertified
individuals, particularly those who work only on their own appliances
(e.g., on their own car air conditioners), are unlikely to find it
cost-effective to purchase their own recovery equipment. Thus, they are
able neither to recover the refrigerant from the appliance before it is
serviced nor to recover the ``heel'' of residual refrigerant from the
refrigerant container before it is disposed of. Both the refrigerant in
the appliance and that in the refrigerant container are therefore
released. (The ``heel'' is ultimately released to the atmosphere when
the container is crushed or corroded.)
EPA anticipates that for the next decade, the majority of
technicians subject to section 608 requirements will continue to work
with and purchase CFCs and HCFCs and will therefore be certified under
the current program.25

[[Page 32081]]

However, EPA is concerned that a significant minority could emerge that
would work primarily with HFCs, particularly if a lack of certification
requirements for work with substitutes created an incentive for doing
so. In this case, large numbers of technicians who worked with HFCs
might not receive proper training in refrigerant recycling or recovery,
leading to release of HFCs. For example, an uncertified person could
vent refrigerant before repairing an appliance containing an HFC
refrigerant, thereby violating the venting prohibition. Thus, requiring
certification for technicians who work with substitute refrigerants is
necessary to implement the section 608(c) prohibition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ EPA does not anticipate that many homeowners or other
consumers would elect to perform their own repairs on household
refrigerators and air conditioners. However, based on the past ``Do-
It-Yourself'' (DIY) market for MVAC refrigerant, EPA expects that
many car owners would elect to perform their own repairs on MVACs,
if they could obtain refrigerant to do so. Thus, as discussed below,
any sales restriction on HFCs would affect both uncertified 608
technicians and the MVACs DIY population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requiring certification for technicians who work with substitute
refrigerants is also necessary to comply with the section 608(a)
requirements for EPA to promulgate regulations that reduce emissions of
class I and II refrigerants to the lowest achievable levels and
maximize recapture and recycling of such substances. Failure to require
technician certification is likely to lead to increased emissions and
reduced recycling of ozone-depleting substances under several
scenarios. As discussed above, the lack of a technician certification
requirement would encourage the emergence of a class of uncertified
technicians working primarily with HFCs. However, once such persons
were working as professional refrigeration and cooling technicians,
there would be strong economic incentives for them to overlook the
restrictions on their ability to work with ozone-depleting refrigerants
as well. In fact, because of the absence of a certification requirement
and their consequent lack of adequate training, they might be unaware
of the existence or scope of the restrictions. Thus, they might fail to
recycle class I and class II refrigerants properly, and might not
recycle them at all. Uncertified technicians would also be likely to
perform retrofits using HFCs, which they would be legally entitled to
purchase. However, the appliance that they would be retrofitting would
contain ozone-depleting substances. Such uncertified technicians would
be likely to vent the ozone-depleting substance prior to retrofitting,
given their probable lack of training and the fact that return of the
substance to a reclaimer would reveal that they were handling it
illegally.
Failure to require technician certification to work with HFCs is
also likely to encourage the inappropriate mixture of HFC and ozone-
depleting refrigerants. In this scenario, refrigerant mixture could
occur because uncertified technicians might wish to service CFC or HCFC
equipment, but would have access only to HFCs because sales of CFCs and
HCFCs are limited to certified technicians. Lacking training, these
technicians would probably have a poor understanding of the
consequences of mixing refrigerants, and would therefore be more likely
than certified technicians to add HFCs to CFC or HCFC systems.
The consequences of such inappropriate mixture include significant
losses in performance and energy efficiency in equipment serviced with
mixed refrigerants, damage to equipment, the lost value of the mixed
refrigerant (which is at best difficult, and often impossible, to
separate), and costs for destroying mixed refrigerants. Refrigerant
mixture also leads both directly and indirectly to refrigerant release.
Mixture leads directly to release because mixtures of certain
refrigerants, such as R12 and R134a, have higher pressures than either
component alone. Thus, pressure-sensitive components such as air purge
devices on recycling machines and relief devices on appliances may be
activated by these mixtures, venting the refrigerant to the atmosphere.
Purge devices in particular are often set to open when the pressure of
the recovery cylinder's contents rises more than 5-10 psi above the
expected saturation pressure for the refrigerant; this margin is
exceeded by R12/R134a mixtures containing more than ten percent of the
contaminating refrigerant.26 Refrigerant mixture also
reduces recycling and leads indirectly to release. First, mixed
refrigerants not only lose their value but cost money to reclaim or
destroy, encouraging venting. Second, the direct releases and equipment
breakdowns caused by contamination lead to increased equipment
servicing, which itself leads to unavoidable releases of refrigerant.
Thus, whether the refrigerant were vented or mixed, failure to impose a
certification requirement on persons working with HFCs would increase
the probability of both HFCs and ozone-depleting refrigerants being
emitted to the atmosphere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ Based on pressure-temperature graphs provided to Debbie
Ottinger of the Stratospheric Protection Division, EPA, by Dave
Bateman of the DuPont Company, April 29, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evidence collected by EPA indicates that without certification
requirements for technicians who work with substitute refrigerants, the
emergence of a class of uncertified individuals who are liable to mix
refrigerants is likely. Advertisements for one alternative have
highlighted the fact that technicians need not be certified to purchase
it. These advertisements have also implied, incorrectly, that the
substitute may be mixed with R12 without consequence. These
advertisements indicate that there is a market for alternatives that
can be purchased without certification and that can be used to service
CFC and HCFC equipment. At the same time, the advertisements indicate
that some parts of the market are transmitting incorrect information
that is likely to lead to the inappropriate mixture of the alternatives
with CFCs and HCFCs. EPA believes that technicians who have not
received training in the need to avoid mixing refrigerants are far more
likely to fall prey to such false advertising than certified
technicians, who have received training.
Experience from the sales restriction on small containers, which
was mandated under section 609 of the Act before the sales restriction
under 608 became effective, also strongly supports EPA's concern that
inconsistent imposition of technician certification requirements or
sales restrictions will lead to refrigerant mixture. Some industry
representatives have reported that when sales of small containers of
R12 were restricted to only certified technicians, containers of R22,
which could still be sold to the general public, began appearing in
stores catering to the automotive DIY consumer. This implies that R22
was being used to service R12 equipment. Statistics collected by the
Mobile Air Conditioning Society (MACs) indicate that approximately
three percent of motor vehicle air conditioners now being serviced are
contaminated by mixed refrigerants.
In addition to concerns related to refrigerant mixture and release,
industry representatives at the March 10, 1995 meeting cited the need
for fairness and consistency in applying rule provisions to all
potentially environmentally damaging refrigerants. The two contractors
present voiced the opinion that the imposition of less stringent
recovery or certification requirements for HFCs could undermine
compliance with recycling requirements for both HFCs and ozone-
depleting refrigerants by confusing technicians and encouraging a
``cavalier'' attitude toward refrigerant recovery. Other industry
representatives noted that due to similar concerns, their organizations

[[Page 32082]]

already required certification for technicians working with HFCs.
For these reasons, EPA currently believes that it is necessary to
impose a technician certification requirement in order to implement
sections 608(a) and 608(c), and that EPA has authority under these
sections to promulgate a technician certification requirement. EPA
requests comment on the likelihood that failure to impose a technician
certification requirement on persons working with HFCs and PFCs would
lead to release and mixture of both ozone-depleting refrigerants and
substitutes.
As noted above, EPA is not proposing to require that technicians
who have been certified to work with CFCs and HCFCs undertake
additional training and testing to work with HFCs and PFCs. The
techniques and requirements for recycling HFCs and PFCs are very
similar to those for CFCs and HCFCs; where there are differences (such
as compatibility with different lubricants), these differences have
been highlighted by the certification program for CFCs and HCFCs. In
addition, based on statements made by industry and educational
representatives at the March 10, 1995 industry meeting, EPA believes
that more recent information on proper handling of HFCs and PFCs will
be disseminated to certified technicians through refrigerant and
equipment manufacturers, industry associations, and the trade press.
Thus, the benefits of any recertification requirement would probably be
small, and would likely be outweighed by the costs of such
recertification. Instead, as part of its regular update of the
technician certification question bank, EPA is planning to include more
questions on handling HFC and PFC refrigerants and on the potential
impacts of global warming. EPA requests comment on this approach for
already certified technicians.

E. Sales Restriction

Under the current regulations promulgated under sections 608 and
609, only certified technicians may purchase CFC and HCFC refrigerants.
EPA is proposing to extend this sales restriction to HFC and PFC
refrigerants. The sales restriction would apply to HFC and PFC
refrigerants sold in all sizes of containers for use in all types of
appliances, including motor vehicle air conditioners. EPA considers the
sales restriction to be necessary to enforce the technician
certification requirements of both the refrigerant recycling
regulations promulgated under section 608 and those promulgated under
section 609 27 and ultimately, to implement the requirements
of sections 608(a) and 608(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ EPA published a final rule under section 609 on December
30, 1997 that requires technicians servicing MVACs containing
substitute refrigerants to become certified. However, while section
609 restricts the sale of small containers of class I or class II
refrigerants, it does not restrict the sale of HFC or PFC
refrigerants. Thus, any sales restriction on these refrigerants must
be promulgated under the authority of section 608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the absence of a sales restriction, the size and mobility of the
population that is subject to the technician certification requirements
would make compliance monitoring extremely difficult. Approximately 1.4
million technicians are employed in the stationary and mobile air-
conditioning and refrigeration sectors. Many of these technicians,
particularly those in the stationary sector, may work out of vans
rather than having any fixed place of business. The sales restriction
ensures that these technicians are certified by placing monitors on
their supply lines. Because inspections can be performed at a
relatively small number of centralized retailer and wholesaler
locations, the sales restriction itself is relatively easy to enforce.
Discussions with industry representatives indicate that the sales
restriction on CFCs and HCFCs was important in encouraging large
numbers of technicians to obtain certification. The largest
certification organizations report that the numbers of people
interested in obtaining certification rose sharply as the November,
1994 effective date of the sales restriction approached. Moreover, the
contractors who staff EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Hotline state that
during the summer, they receive between 20 and 40 telephone calls per
day from individuals who indicate that they are seeking technician
certification specifically because they want to be able to purchase
refrigerant. This is strong evidence that the sales restriction is
critical for ensuring that technicians are certified. As discussed
above, EPA believes that technician certification is necessary to meet
the requirements of sections 608(a) and (c).
While there are methods of discouraging refrigerant mixing and
release other than technician certification combined with a sales
restriction, none of them appear to be sufficiently effective to
substitute for a sales restriction. One alternative method for
preventing mixture of ozone-depleting and HFC refrigerants might be to
require that both HFC containers and HFC appliances be equipped with
unique fittings that would prevent them from being connected to CFC or
HCFC containers and appliances. Under the SNAP program, HFC-134a
containers sold for use in the automotive market and MVACs that use
HFC-134a are required to be equipped with such fittings.
However, while such fittings may be effective in reducing mixture
in some sectors, EPA believes that they would be impractical in other
sectors and would not necessarily reduce the venting of the CFC or HCFC
to be replaced. Only motor vehicle air conditioners (MVACs) containing
substitutes currently possess the specialized fittings; other types of
air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment containing substitutes,
including household, commercial, and industrial refrigerators and air-
conditioners, do not. Introducing a unique fittings requirement to
these stationary sectors would be impractical for several reasons.
The most fundamental reason is that the wide array of substitute
refrigerants available for stationary equipment makes the development
of a unique fitting for each one almost impossible. At least 25
refrigerants are currently being used in the stationary air-
conditioning and refrigeration sectors, and more are being developed.
Unique fittings are designed by choosing the diameter, turning
direction, thread pitch (threads/inch) and shape of threads (normal vs.
square, also known as Acme). However, fittings with the same diameter
and turning direction can nearly always be connected using a wrench,
regardless of thread pitch or shape. Therefore, practically speaking,
the number of different fittings is limited to the double the number of
different diameters. (Each diameter yields both a clockwise and a
counterclockwise fitting.) The number of diameters is itself limited
because fittings must differ by at least 0.063 inch in diameter to
ensure they will not cross-connect, and the range of diameters is
limited by valve core and surrounding space restrictions. (In the MVAC
market to date, valve core and surrounding space restrictions have
resulted in fittings ranging in diameter from 0.3 inches to 0.625
inches.) Thus, the number of unique fittings that can be developed is
limited.
Moreover, even if unique fittings could be found for each of the
refrigerants used in the stationary sectors, the logistics of
implementing them would be formidable. To begin with, a massive program
would be required to retrofit existing stationary appliances and
recovery equipment with all of the unique fittings. A great deal of
equipment in the stationary

[[Page 32083]]

sector has already been retrofitted to use substitute refrigerants;
retrofits would presumably be required not only for all this equipment,
but for all of the equipment that uses one of the four traditional
high-pressure refrigerants (R12, R22, R502, and R500). Otherwise,
technicians who became accustomed to relying on fittings to distinguish
among refrigerants might cross-contaminate these four.
In addition, the large number of fittings in the stationary sectors
would make their use as a control on contamination unwieldy. A single
piece of recovery equipment intended for use with high-pressure
refrigerants might conceivably require over 20 fittings. Given the
similar exterior appearances of the fittings, finding the one that
matched a particular appliance would be difficult.
More important, this matching of fittings with appliances is not
necessary if the recovery equipment has been properly cleared before
use with a new refrigerant. Technicians who work on stationary air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment have long worked with multiple
refrigerants, and recovery equipment for stationary appliances has been
designed for use with multiple refrigerants. Instead of engineering
controls, the stationary sectors have relied on training in refrigerant
charging and recovery to prevent cross-contamination. Adopting unique
fittings in these sectors would represent a fundamental change of
approach that would not only be unwieldy but redundant.
Leaving aside the difficulty of introducing unique fittings to the
sectors that do not have them, these fittings may not be sufficient to
prevent cross-contamination in those sectors that do have them, such as
the automotive sector. Containers of HFCs that are intended for the
stationary sector and that therefore possess generic fittings may find
their way into the automotive air conditioning sector; industry
representatives have stated that this is already occurring to some
extent. In addition, equipment is available (e.g., old manifolds with
multiple hoses, side can tappers) that permits technicians or DIYers to
defeat the specialized fittings when the container is equipped with
them. Again, industry representatives indicate that this type of cross
contamination is already happening, and the statistics on contaminated
refrigerant from the automotive industry support them.
Finally, there is no reason to believe that specialized fittings
would prevent an uncertified person from venting the original CFC or
HCFC before attempting to recharge a system with a substitute, because
this venting may well take place before the person discovers that he or
she cannot recharge the equipment with the purchased substitute. As
noted above, such venting prevents the requirements of 608(c) and
608(a) from being met.
One option that would address the first of these three concerns,
but not the last two, is a more limited sales restriction. This would
restrict to certified technicians the sale of containers of substitute
refrigerants that lack specialized fittings, but would permit the sale
of containers of substitute refrigerants that contain such fittings to
the general public. In this manner, DIY consumers and uncertified
technicians would have unlimited access only to containers with
fittings, making mixture more difficult. However, EPA is concerned that
this approach would still permit mixture through defeat of the fittings
and would fail to address venting of the refrigerant previously in the
system. EPA requests comment on the potential effectiveness and
enforceability of such a restriction.

F. Safe Disposal of Small Appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like Appliances

1. Coverage of HFCs and PFCs
EPA is proposing to adopt the same approach to the disposal of
small appliances, MVACs and MVAC-like appliances charged with HFCs and
PFCs that it has adopted for these types of equipment charged with CFCs
and HCFCs. In the May 14, 1993 rule, EPA established specific
requirements for the safe disposal of appliances that enter the waste
stream with the charge intact, including small appliances, MVACs, and
MVAC-like appliances. Persons who take the final step in the disposal
process of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances that
contain CFCs or HCFCs must either recover any remaining refrigerant in
the appliance or verify that the refrigerant has previously been
recovered from the appliance or shipment of appliances. If they verify
that the refrigerant has been recovered previously, they must retain a
signed statement attesting to this. Recovery equipment used to remove
the refrigerant must meet certain standards but does not need to be
certified by a third party. Similarly, persons recovering the
refrigerant need not be certified.
In addition to the specific safe disposal requirements, refrigerant
recovered from disposed small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like
appliances is subject to the reclamation requirements at Sec. 82.156(g)
and (h), which safeguard the purity of refrigerant flowing into the
stationary equipment service sectors, and to the reclamation
requirement in Appendix A to subpart B, which safeguards the purity of
refrigerant flowing into the MVAC and MVAC-like appliance service
sectors.
In recent amendments to the subpart B MVAC recycling regulation,
EPA explicitly permitted refrigerant recovered from MVACs and MVAC-like
appliances at disposal facilities to be reused in MVACs and MVAC-like
appliances without being reclaimed as long as certain other
requirements were met. These requirements, which apply to HFCs (in
MVACs) in addition to CFCs and HCFCs, include the following: Only 609-
certified technicians or disposal facility owners or operators may
recover the refrigerant; the refrigerant recovered from the MVACs and
MVAC-like appliances may not be mixed with refrigerant from any other
sources; only section 609-certified recovery equipment may be used to
recover the refrigerant; the refrigerant may be reused only in an MVAC
or MVAC-like appliance; the refrigerant may be sold only to section
609-certified technicians; and section 609-certified technicians must
recycle the refrigerant in section 609-certified recycling equipment
before charging it into the MVAC or MVAC-like appliance. As discussed
in the amendments to the 609 rule, these restrictions are intended to
ensure that the exemption from the reclamation requirement for
refrigerant removed from and charged into MVACs and MVAC-like
appliances does not compromise the purity of refrigerant flowing into
the MVAC and MVAC-like appliance service sectors.
Most of the restrictions (except for the sales restriction and the
restrictions as they would apply to MVAC-like appliances) are
authorized by section 609, which requires persons servicing motor
vehicles for consideration to properly use approved refrigerant
recycling equipment and to be properly trained and certified. The
statutory definitions of ``properly use,'' ``approved equipment'' and
``properly trained and certified'' all reference SAE standards that
include purity requirements for refrigerant used to service MVACs.
These requirements for reuse of refrigerant from MVACs and MVAC-
like appliances at disposal facilities apply in addition to the basic
safe disposal requirements of the subpart F regulations under section
608, particularly the requirement that disposers recover the
refrigerant (or ensure that the refrigerant is recovered by others)
from the MVAC or MVAC-

[[Page 32084]]

like appliance before the final step in the disposal process. Disposal
facilities must also continue to observe the requirement that they
retain signed statements attesting to the removal of the refrigerant
from the MVAC or MVAC-like appliance, if applicable.
When refrigerant is recovered from disposed small appliances or
when it is recovered from disposed MVACs or MVAC-like appliances and
not reused in MVACs and MVAC-like appliances, only the safe disposal
and reclamation requirements set forth in the subpart F regulations
apply. In today's notice, EPA is proposing to extend these requirements
to small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances that contain HFCs.
These requirements are necessary to implement the 608(c)(2) prohibition
on release of substitute refrigerants by defining good faith attempts
to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of the refrigerant in the
context of the disposal of small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like
appliances. EPA believes that the rationale for establishing the safe
disposal requirements for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like
appliances that contain CFCs and HCFCs also applies to these appliances
when they contain substitutes for CFCs and HCFCs. As discussed at
length in the May 14, 1993 rule, these requirements are designed to
ensure that refrigerant is recovered before the appliance is finally
disposed of while granting as much flexibility as possible to the
disposal facility regarding the manner of its recovery (58 FR 28702).
EPA considered such flexibility important for the disposal sector,
which is highly diverse and decentralized. Because the disposal
infrastructure for appliances charged with HFCs and PFCs is identical
to that for appliances charged with CFCs and HCFCs, EPA believes that
these considerations apply equally to appliances containing HFCs and
PFCs. In addition, applying a consistent set of disposal requirements
to appliances containing CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs, and PFCs will reduce
confusion and minimize emissions of all four types of refrigerant
during the disposal process. Thus, the Agency believes that the
regulations regarding the safe disposal of appliances charged with HFCs
should be the same as those regarding the safe disposal of appliances
charged with CFCs and HCFCs. EPA requests comment on this proposal.
2. Possible Clarifications
EPA is also requesting comment on two possible modifications that
EPA is considering making to the safe disposal provisions to ensure
that EPA's interpretation of the regulation is clear on its face. As
stated in Applicability Determination number 59, the Agency interprets
the safe disposal provisions to apply to ``the entity which conducted
the process where the refrigerant was released if not properly
recovered.''
Together, the possible changes to the regulations would clarify
that paragraph 82.156(f) applies to persons who perform disposal-
related activities where the refrigerant would be released if not
properly recovered. One clarification would amend the definition of
``opening'' to include the disposal of appliances. The first sentence
of the revised definition of ``opening'' would read, ``Opening an
appliance means any service, maintenance, repair, or disposal of an
appliance that would release refrigerant from the appliance to the
atmosphere unless the refrigerant were recovered previously from the
appliance.'' The rest of the definition would remain unchanged.
The second clarification would add the phrase ``persons who open
the appliances in the course of disposing of them'' to the introductory
text of Sec. 82.156(f). The revised text would read (in part),
``persons who take the final step in the disposal process of small
appliances, MVACs, or MVAC-like appliances (including but not limited
to scrap recyclers, landfill operators, and persons who open the
appliances in the course of disposing of them) must either: (1) Recover
any remaining refrigerant from the appliance in accordance with
paragraph (g) or (h) of this section, as applicable; or (2) Verify that
the refrigerant has been evacuated from the appliance or shipment of
appliances previously.'' The rest of Sec. 82.156(f) would remain
unchanged. EPA requests comment on these two possible changes.

G. Certification by Owners of Recycling or Recovery Equipment

EPA currently requires persons who maintain, service, repair, or
dispose of appliances containing CFCs or HCFCs to submit a signed
statement to the appropriate EPA Regional office stating that they
possess recovery and recycling equipment and are complying with the
applicable requirements of the rule. EPA is proposing to extend this
provision to persons who maintain, service, repair, or dispose of
appliances containing HFCs or PFCs. Persons who had already sent a
signed statement to EPA for their work on appliances containing CFCs or
HCFCs would not need to send a new statement. EPA anticipates,
therefore, that only businesses coming into existence after the date of
publication of the final rule would potentially be affected by the
amended provision.
EPA believes that the rationale for requiring this report from
persons who maintain, service, repair, or dispose of appliances
containing HFCs or PFCs is the same as that for requiring it from
persons who maintain, service, repair, or dispose of appliances
containing CFCs or HCFCs. That is, the requirement would help ensure
that persons who opened or disposed of appliances were making a good
faith effort to recover and recycle the refrigerant and had the
appropriate equipment available to comply with the section 608(c)
venting prohibition. EPA would also use this information in conjunction
with telephone or other business listings to target its efforts to
enforce the venting prohibition. Finally, consistent application of the
reporting requirement to businesses that handled appliances containing
HFCs and PFCs as well as to businesses that handled appliances
containing CFCs and HCFCs would reduce confusion and thereby minimize
emissions of all four types of refrigerants.

H. Servicing Apertures

EPA prohibits the sale or distribution of CFC and HCFC appliances
that are not equipped either with a process stub (in the case of small
appliances) or with a servicing aperture (in the case of all other
appliances) to facilitate refrigerant recovery. EPA is today proposing
to extend this prohibition to the sale and distribution of appliances
containing HFCs or PFCs. EPA believes that the rationale for requiring
servicing apertures or process stubs on HFC and PFC appliances is the
same as that for requiring these design features on CFC and HCFC
appliances. Specifically, these features permit technicians to comply
with the venting prohibition by making it much easier for them to
attach recovery equipment to the refrigerant circuit and thereby
recover the refrigerant properly. Thus, EPA is proposing to require
these features in order to implement the venting prohibition.

I. Prohibition on Manufacture of One-Time Expansion Devices That
Contain Other Than Exempted Refrigerants

In order to implement the venting prohibition as it applies to one-
time expansion devices using refrigerants other than nitrogen or carbon
dioxide (see discussion in section IV.A.1.b. above), EPA is proposing a
provision that would prohibit their manufacture in or import into the
U.S. EPA believes that a prohibition on manufacturing or importing the
devices (which include

[[Page 32085]]

self-chilling cans) is simultaneously the least burdensome and the most
effective, efficient, and equitable way of carrying out the venting
prohibition as it applies to them. As discussed earlier in section
II.A., EPA believes that section 608(c)(2) implicitly provides the
Agency authority to promulgate regulations as necessary to implement
and enforce the statutory prohibition, and section 301(a)(1)(a) further
supplements that authority. As discussed below, EPA believes that a ban
on manufacture and import of the devices is the only practical way to
implement the prohibition on venting of section 608(c)(2) of the Act
and hence is necessary to implement and enforce that
prohibition.28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ EPA has also proposed to find that self-chilling cans using
HFC-152a and HFC-134a are unaccepted under its SNAP program. If EPA
promulgates a final rule including this finding, the manufacture of
self-chilling cans using HFC-152a and HFC-134a will be prohibited
unde SNAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, a prohibition on manufacturing or importing the devices
would not be unreasonably burdensome. One-time expansion devices
function only by venting; one-time expansion devices containing other
than exempted refrigerants therefore have no legal use, given the self-
effectuating venting prohibition of 608(c)(2). Thus, a prohibition on
manufacture and import would not interfere with any lawful use of the
device or can. At the same time, any burden on potential manufacturers
of the can either would not exist, because perfect implementation of
the venting prohibition would reduce demand for the cans to zero, or,
to the extent that it existed, would exist solely as a result of
illegal activity on the part of consumers. Thus, any burden placed on
the manufacturer by a ban on manufacturing should be discounted. In
contrast, as discussed further below, efforts to stop use of the can
would place heavy burdens both on consumers and on EPA.
Second, prohibiting the manufacture or import of cans containing
other than exempted refrigerants would be both more effective and more
efficient than attempting to prevent the use of such cans by millions
of potential consumers. EPA estimates that the total market for canned
beverages in the U.S. is 100 billion units per year. Thus, if self-
chilling cans captured even a small percentage of this market, very
large numbers of cans could be used. For instance, if self-chilling
cans captured just one percent of the canned beverage market, one
billion self-chilling cans per year could be used, potentially
violating the venting prohibition one billion times. Potential
consumers of the can would include virtually the entire U.S. population
of 265 million people. Without a ban on manufacture, the huge number of
potential violators and violations would make the venting prohibition
extremely difficult to enforce. A massive outreach campaign would be
required to inform the public of the environmental and legal
implications of using the cans, and such a campaign would still miss
some fraction of the population. Of course, such a campaign would also
be very expensive. At the same time, enforcement against consumers who
either ignored or were ignorant of the campaign would be very
difficult, due to the large numbers of potential consumers and the
unpredictable and widespread nature of potential violations. In
contrast, outreach to and enforcement against potential manufacturers
of the can would only have to reach a few targets, interdicting the
cans at the top of the distribution pyramid.
Third, a prohibition on manufacturing or importing cans containing
other than exempted refrigerants would be more equitable than an
enforcement campaign against consumers who might not recognize the
environmental and legal implications of using such cans. While
consumers of such cans would be expected to be aware that they were
releasing gas to the atmosphere, it might not be reasonable to expect
them to be aware that the gas being released contributed significantly
to global warming or that its release was illegal, particularly since
opening the can and releasing the gas would be the only possible use of
a legally purchased product. As noted above, even a massive outreach
campaign is likely to miss some fraction of consumers, and given the
very large underlying population, even a small fraction would be
sizable. However, it is both reasonable and standard practice to hold
manufacturers responsible for knowledge of and compliance with the
environmental and other laws and regulations applicable to their
products.
Thus, a ban on manufacture and import of cans containing other than
exempted refrigerants is the only practical way to implement the
venting prohibition as it applies to them. Moreover, there are a number
of precedents for prohibiting the manufacture, sale, and/or
distribution of appliances, other equipment, and refrigerants under
section 608 in order to reduce refrigerant emissions. Sections 82.154
(j) and (k) prohibit the sale or distribution of appliances unless they
possess servicing apertures or process stubs, and Sec. 82.154(c)
prohibits the manufacture or import of recycling or recovery equipment
that is not certified. Sections 82.154(g) and (h) prohibit the sale of
used ozone-depleting refrigerants that have not been reclaimed (with
minor exceptions), and Sec. 82.154(m) prohibits the sale of ozone-
depleting refrigerants to uncertified individuals (again with minor
exceptions). Sales restrictions were more appropriate than
manufacturing bans in the latter cases because (1) a manufacturing ban
could not apply to used refrigerants, and (2) purchase and use of
ozone-depleting refrigerants by some individuals, in this case
certified technicians, is legal.

J. Recordkeeping Requirements

EPA currently requires reporting and recordkeeping from the
following persons and entities:
a. Persons Who Sell or Distribute Refrigerant
Persons who sell or distribute any CFC or HCFC refrigerant must
retain invoices that indicate the name of the purchaser, the date of
sale, and the quantity of refrigerant purchased. These records help the
Agency to track refrigerant use and to verify compliance with the
venting prohibition (Sec. 82.166(a)).
b. Technicians
Certified technicians must keep a copy of their certificate at
their place of business. This permits EPA inspectors to determine
whether a technician has been certified, as required by the regulations
(Sec. 82.166(l)).
Technicians servicing equipment containing 50 or more pounds of CFC
or HCFC refrigerant must provide the owner or operator of the appliance
with an invoice that indicates the amount of refrigerant added to the
appliance. These records permit owners or operators of appliances
containing 50 or more pounds of refrigerant to determine whether they
need to take action to comply with the leak repair provisions
(Sec. 82.166(j)).
c. Appliance Owners
Owners of appliances containing 50 or more pounds of CFC or HCFC
refrigerant must keep servicing records documenting the date and type
of service, as well as the quantity of refrigerant added. These
requirements ensure that owners can determine when they must take
action under the leak repair requirements. In addition, equipment
owners who decide not to repair leaks must develop and maintain a
record of a plan that states that the equipment will be retired,
replaced or retrofitted. The plan permits EPA

[[Page 32086]]

inspectors to ensure that equipment owners intend to take action to
reduce emissions and actually take such action (Sec. 82.166(k)).
d. Owners of Industrial Process Refrigeration
Owners of industrial process refrigeration equipment who wish to
receive an extension or exclusion under the leak repair provisions are
subject to the following reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
i. Those persons wishing to extend leak repair compliance beyond
the required 30 days must maintain and submit to EPA information
identifying the facility, the leak rate, the method used to determine
the leak rate and full charge, the date a leak rate greater than
allowable was discovered, the location of the leaks, any repair work
completed thus far and date completed, a plan to fix other outstanding
leaks to achieve allowable leak rate, reasons why greater than 30 days
is needed, and an estimate of when repair work will be completed. Any
dates and results of static and dynamic tests must also be maintained
and submitted to EPA (Sec. 82.166(n)).
ii. Those persons wishing to extend retrofit compliance beyond the
required one year must maintain and submit to EPA information
identifying the facility, the leak rate, the method used to determine
the leak rate and full charge, the date a leak rate of greater than the
allowable rate was discovered, the location of leaks, any repair work
that has been completed thus far and date completed, a plan to complete
the retrofit or replacement of the system, the reasons why more than
one year is necessary, the date of notification to EPA, an estimate of
when retrofit or replacement work will be completed, if time changes
for original estimates occur, documentation of the reason why, and the
date of notification to EPA regarding a change in the estimate of when
the work will be completed (Sec. 82.166(o)).
iii. Those persons wishing to exclude purged refrigerants that are
destroyed from the annual leak rate calculations must maintain records
on-site to support the amount of refrigerant claimed sent for
destruction. These records must include flow rate, quantity or
concentration of the refrigerant in the vent stream, and periods of
purge flow (Sec. 82.166(p)).
iv. Those persons wishing to calculate the full charge of an
affected appliance by establishing a range based on the best available
data, regarding the normal operating characteristics and conditions for
the appliance, must maintain records on-site to support the methodology
used in selecting or modifying the particular range (Sec. 82.166(q)).
These requirements allow EPA to determine whether or not extensions
and exclusions requested under the leak repair provisions are
warranted.
e. Refrigerant Reclaimers
Refrigerant reclaimers must certify to EPA that they will comply
with the rule's requirements and must submit lists of the equipment
that they use to clean and analyze refrigerants. This information
enables EPA to verify reclaimers' compliance with refrigerant purity
standards and refrigerant emissions limits. In addition, refrigerant
reclaimers must maintain records of the names and addresses of persons
sending them material for reclamation and the quantity of material sent
to them for reclamation. This information must be maintained on a
transactional basis. Within 30 days of the end of the calendar year,
reclaimers must report to EPA the total quantity of material sent to
them that year for reclamation, the mass of refrigerant reclaimed that
year, and the mass of waste products generated that year. These
requirements help the Agency to track refrigerant use and to ensure
compliance with the venting prohibition by both reclaimers and their
customers (Sec. 82.166(g) and (h)).
f. Equipment Certification Organizations
Equipment testing organizations must apply to EPA to become
approved. This application process is necessary to ensure that all
approved testing laboratories have the equipment and expertise to test
equipment to the applicable standards. Once approved, equipment testing
organizations must maintain records of the tests performed and their
results, and must submit a list of all certified equipment to EPA
annually. Testing organizations must also notify EPA whenever a new
model of equipment is certified or whenever an existing certified model
fails a recertification test. This information is required to ensure
that recycling and recovery equipment meets the performance standards
of the regulation (Secs. 82.160 and 82.166(c), (d), and (e)).
g. Disposers
Persons who conduct final disposal of small appliances, room air
conditioners, and MVACs and who do not recover the refrigerant
themselves must maintain copies of signed statements attesting that the
refrigerant has been removed prior to final disposal of each appliance.
These records help EPA to verify that refrigerant is recovered at some
point during the disposal process even if the final disposer does not
have recovery equipment (Sec. 82.166(i)).
h. Technician Certification Programs
Organizations operating technician certification programs must
apply to EPA to have their programs approved. The application process
ensures that the technician certification programs meet minimum
standards for generating, tracking, and grading tests, and keeping
records. Approved technician certification programs have to maintain
records including the names of certified technicians and the unique
numbers assigned to each technician certified through their programs.
These records allow both the Agency and the certification program to
verify certification claims and to monitor the certification process.
Approved technician certification programs also have to submit to EPA
reports every six months including the pass/fail rate and testing
schedules. Such reports give the Agency the ability to evaluate
certification programs and modify certification requirements if
necessary (Sec. 82.166(f)).
EPA is proposing to extend all of these requirements, as
applicable, to persons who sell or distribute HFC or PFC refrigerants,
to technicians who service HFC or PFC appliances, to persons who own
HFC or PFC appliances containing more than 50 pounds of refrigerant, to
reclaimers that reclaim HFC or PFC refrigerants, to equipment
certification organizations that certify recovery or recycling
equipment for use with HFCs or PFCs, and to technician certification
programs that certify technicians who work with HFCs or PFCs.
The rationale for requiring these records for persons who handle
HFC or PFC refrigerants or equipment is the same as that set forth
above for requiring such records for persons who handle CFC or HCFC
refrigerants or equipment. In all cases, the records would be necessary
to ensure compliance with the regulatory program implementing the
section 608(c)(2) prohibition on venting and hence would be necessary
to implement and enforce section 608(c)(2) and section 608(a) as well,
for the provisions in this proposal that are authorized by that
section. The records proposed to be required would make it possible for
EPA both to monitor compliance and to enforce against violations.

V. Summary of Supporting Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency

[[Page 32087]]

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 action to
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. Nevertheless, the Agency has
performed a cost benefit analysis of this regulation, which is
available for review in the public docket for this rulemaking. This
analysis is summarized below.
1. Baseline
Since these regulations are being promulgated in addition to other
provisions that affect the use of substitute refrigerants, the baseline
for this analysis must reflect the state of affairs after the
implementation of previous provisions and before the implementation of
the final rule. The provision of the Clean Air Act that must be
considered when defining the baseline for these regulations is the
prohibition on venting contained in section 608(c)(2), which is self-
effectuating. For the purposes of the analysis, EPA chose two variables
to describe the effects of this provision: The percentage of the market
in which recycling and recovery would occur as a result of the
provision (referred to as either market penetration or compliance); and
the average recapture efficiency of the recycling or recovery methods
that would be employed by the complying population.
The self-effectuating prohibition on venting in section 608(c)(2)
can be considered a minimal requirement to recycle because chemicals
must be recycled, or at least stored, if they cannot be vented.
However, because the prohibition on venting does not in itself contain
standards, maximum recovery efficiency and full compliance would not be
expected under the prohibition alone. Instead, recovery efficiency and
compliance are likely to vary across sectors depending upon whether
recycling is privately cost-effective in that sector. Recycling will be
privately cost-effective in a sector when the value of the recovered
refrigerant exceeds the labor and equipment costs for the recovery, as
it does in sectors with large charge sizes. The cost-benefit analysis
assumes that in those sectors where recycling is estimated to be
privately cost-effective, compliance with the venting prohibition will
be 100 percent, and recovery efficiency will be 95 percent. The figures
are assumed to remain the same after imposition of the regulation. In
those sectors where recycling is not estimated to be privately cost
effective, including the household refrigeration, household air-
conditioning, other appliance, and refrigerated transport sectors,
compliance with the venting prohibition is assumed to be 80 percent,
and recovery efficiencies are assumed to be 75 percent. These figures
are assumed to rise to 100 percent and 90 percent respectively after
imposition of the regulation.
2. Costs
The costs of the substitutes recycling rule consist of the costs of
increased compliance with the venting prohibition (primarily labor
costs), the costs of certifying recycling and recovery equipment, the
costs of certifying technicians, the costs of the sales restriction,
recordkeeping costs, and refrigerant storage costs. The Agency
estimates the cost for this regulatory program over a 29-year period
between 1996 and 2025 is $1,619 million using a 2% discount rate, and
$782 million using a 7% discount rate.
3. Benefits
The benefits of the provisions discussed above consist of (1)
avoided damage to air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment that
would occur if, without regulation, contaminated refrigerants were
charged into equipment, and (2) avoided damage to human health and the
environment that would occur if, without regulation, environmentally
harmful refrigerants were released rather than recaptured. EPA's
estimate of human health and environmental benefits is based on (a) the
estimates of the benefits of avoiding emissions of ozone-depleting
compounds that were developed for the 1993 RIA, and (b) estimates of
the benefits of avoiding emissions of global warming compounds that are
derived from a ``The Social Costs of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: An
Expected Value Approach.29'' This paper surveyed previous
efforts to quantify the effects of global climate change and developed
a technique for calculating the marginal impact of emitting a ton of
carbon. Benefits quantified include reductions in damages from sea
level rise, reduced agricultural yields, reduced water supply, and
other impacts. The paper explicitly incorporated many of the
uncertainties involved in developing the estimate and thereby developed
lower-bound, best-estimate, and upper-bound values for the benefit of
avoiding emissions of a ton of carbon. EPA adjusted these estimates to
account for the facts that (1) U.S. benefits would only be a fraction
of world-wide benefits and (2) on a kilogram-for-kilogram basis, the
HFC and PFC refrigerants have many times the global warming potential
of carbon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ Frankhauser, S. ``The Social Cost of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: An Expected Value Approach,'' Energy Journal 15(2), 1994,
pp. 157-183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As noted above, the analysis assumes that the rule increases both
compliance with the venting prohibition and the efficiency of many
recovery jobs. The Agency estimates the range of benefits to be from
$1,060 million to $11,188 million, using the lower and upper bound
estimates of the benefits of avoided equipment damage and of the
domestic benefits of avoiding emission of a kilogram of refrigerant.
These benefits were discounted at a 2% discount rate. The benefits
range from $475 million to $5,615 million when discounted at a 7%
discount rate.

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of certain regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under sections 202 and 205 of the
UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement of economic and
regulatory alternatives analyses for proposed and final rules with
Federal mandates, as defined by the UMRA, that may result in
expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or

[[Page 32088]]

the private sector, in any one year. As noted above, EPA's cost-benefit
analysis concluded that the total annual costs of the rule will be less
than $100 million per year. State, local, and tribal governments may
have to pay some costs for refrigerant recycling when their air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment is serviced or disposed of,
but these costs will be small. Moreover, most municipal solid waste
facilities do not accept white goods and so will not be affected by the
safe disposal provisions of the rule. Thus, today's proposed rule is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
For the reasons outlined above, EPA has also determined that this
rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. Thus, today's proposed rule is not
subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule has no new information requirements subject to
the Paperwork Reduction Act.

D. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. EPA has concluded that this proposed rule would not have
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
EPA performed a detailed screening analysis in 1992 of the impact
of the recycling regulation for ozone-depleting refrigerants on small
entities. The methodology of this analysis is discussed at length in
the May 14, 1993 regulation (58 FR 28710). EPA has updated that
analysis to examine the impact of the recycling regulation for
substitute refrigerants, and has concluded that this regulation will
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The methodology for the updated analysis is the same as for
the initial analysis, except EPA has also considered the changing
market share of HFC equipment and compliance with the venting
prohibition that would occur in the absence of the rule. This approach
makes the screening analysis more consistent with the cost-benefit
analysis discussed above. In addition, EPA added an analysis of the
potential impact of a sales restriction on HFC refrigerants on auto
parts and supply stores that are small businesses.
In the updated screening analysis, EPA estimates that 118 small
businesses may incur compliance costs in excess of 1% of their sales,
while 39 small businesses may incur compliance costs in excess of 3% of
their sales. These numbers respectively represent 0.1% and 0.03% of the
122,416 small businesses that EPA estimates are affected by the rule.
Based on this analysis, EPA does not believe that this regulation will
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Consequently, I hereby certify that this proposed rule will not have a
significant adverse effect on a substantial number of small entities.
Although this rule will not have a significant adverse effect on a
substantial number of small entities, EPA has made numerous efforts to
involve small entities in the rulemaking process and to incorporate
flexibility into the proposed rule for small entities, where
appropriate. Efforts to involve small entities include the March 10,
1995, industry meeting, which included several trade groups
representing small businesses, and a number of individual meetings with
both small businesses and associations representing small businesses.
EPA has also developed outreach materials, including fact sheets and a
videotape, to help small businesses to comply with the existing
refrigerant recycling regulations and the prohibition on venting of
both ozone-depleting refrigerants and their substitutes.
Moreover, the proposed rule grants to small businesses working with
substitute refrigerants the same flexibility that was granted to small
businesses working with CFC and HCFC refrigerants (58 FR 28667-28669,
28712). Thus, for instance, the proposed rule would permit persons
servicing small appliances (frequently small businesses) to use
relatively inexpensive recovery equipment, and would establish a
flexible program for the safe disposal of small appliances, MVACs, and
MVAC-like appliances. In addition, the rule would permit HVAC/R
contractors to recover HFCs using recycling and recovery equipment
designed for use with CFCs and HCFCs, and would permit technicians
certified to work with CFCs and HCFCs to work with HFCs with no further
testing.

E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
In this document, EPA is proposing to use voluntary consensus
standards in all of the applications covered by the proposed
regulations for which there are voluntary consensus standards
available. Thus, EPA is proposing to use ARI Standard 740-1995,
Standard for Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment, and ARI Standard
700-1995, Standard for Specifications for Fluorocarbon and Other
Refrigerants. The first establishes requirements and test methods for
refrigerant recovery and recycling equipment; the second establishes
specifications and test methods for refrigerants. EPA invites public
comment on whether there are other available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards that the Agency should apply.

F. Children's Health Protection

This proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it does not involve
decisions on environmental health risks or safety risks that may
disproportionately affect children.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Contractors,
Reclaimers, Reclamation, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Technician.

Dated: May 28, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 82, is proposed
to be amended as follows:

PART 82--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 82 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

1a. Section 82.150 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

[[Page 32089]]

Sec. 82.150 Purpose and scope.

(a) The purpose of this subpart is to reduce emissions of class I
and class II refrigerants to the lowest achievable level during the
service, maintenance, repair, and disposal of appliances and to
maximize compliance with the prohibition on venting of all refrigerants
during the service, maintenance, repair, and disposal of appliances in
accordance with section 608 of the Clean Air Act.
* * * * *
2. Section 82.152 is amended by adding definitions for ``higher-
pressure appliance,'' ``leak rate,'' ``one-time expansion device,''
``refrigerant,'' and ``substitute,'' and by revising the definitions
for ``appliance,'' ``full charge,'' ``high-pressure appliance,'' ``low-
pressure appliance,'' ``opening,'' ``reclaim,'' ``technician,'' and
``very-high-pressure appliance'' to read as follows:

Sec. 82.152 Definitions.

Appliance means any device which contains and uses a refrigerant
and which is used for household or commercial purposes, including any
air conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or freezer.
* * * * *
Full charge means the amount of refrigerant required for normal
operating characteristics and conditions of the appliance as determined
by using one or a combination of the following four methods:
(1) Use the equipment manufacturer's determination of the correct
full charge for the equipment;
(2) Determine the full charge by making appropriate calculations
based on component sizes, density of refrigerant, volume of piping, and
other relevant considerations;
(3) Use actual measurements of the amount of refrigerant added or
evacuated from the appliance; and/or
(4) Use an established range based on the best available data
regarding the normal operating characteristics and conditions for the
appliance, where the mid-point of the range will serve as the full
charge, and where records are maintained in accordance with
Sec. 82.166(q).
* * * * *
High-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a refrigerant
with a liquid phase saturation pressure between 45 psia and 220 psia at
104 degrees F. This definition includes but is not limited to
appliances using R12, R114, R134a, R401A and B, and R500.
* * * * *
Higher-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a
refrigerant with a liquid phase saturation pressure between 220 psia
and 305 psia at 104 degrees F. This definition includes but is not
limited to appliances using R22, R502, R402A and B, and R407A, B, and
C.
* * * * *
Leak rate means the rate at which an appliance is losing
refrigerant, measured between refrigerant charges or over 12 months,
whichever is shorter. The leak rate is expressed in terms of the
percentage of the appliance's full charge that would be lost over a 12-
month period if the current rate of loss were to continue over that
period. The rate is calculated using the following method:
(1) Take the number of pounds of refrigerant added to the appliance
to return it to a full charge and divide it by the number of pounds of
refrigerant the appliance normally contains at full charge;
(2) Take the shorter of: (a) 365 days, and (b) the number of days
that have passed since the last day refrigerant was added and divide
that number by 365 days;
(3) Take the number calculated in step (1) and divide it by the
number calculated in step (2); and
(4) Multiply the number calculated in step (3) by 100 to calculate
a percentage.
This method is summarized in the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JN98.003

* * * * *
Low-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a refrigerant
with a liquid phase saturation pressure below 45 psia at 104 degrees
Fahrenheit. This definition includes but is not limited to appliances
using R11, R123, and R113.
* * * * *
One-time expansion device means an appliance that relies on the
release of refrigerant to the environment to obtain cooling.
Opening an appliance means any service, maintenance, or repair on
an appliance that would release refrigerant from the appliance to the
atmosphere unless the refrigerant were recovered previously from the
appliance. Connecting and disconnecting hoses and gauges to and from
the appliance to measure pressures within the appliance and to add
refrigerant to or recover refrigerant from the appliance shall not be
considered ``opening.''
* * * * *
Reclaim refrigerant means to reprocess refrigerant to all of the
specifications in appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart F (based on ARI
Standard 700-1995, Specification for Fluorocarbons and Other
Refrigerants) that are applicable to that refrigerant and to verify
that the refrigerant meets these specifications using the analytical
methodology prescribed in appendix A. In general, reclamation involves
the use of processes or procedures available only at a reprocessing or
manufacturing facility.
* * * * *
Refrigerant means, for purposes of this Subpart, any class I or
class II substance used for heat transfer purposes, or any substance
used as a substitute for such a class I or class II substance by any
user in a given end-use, except for the following substitutes in the
following end-uses:
(1) Ammonia in commercial or industrial process refrigeration or in
absorption units
(2) Hydrocarbons in industrial process refrigeration (processing of
hydrocarbons)
(3) Chlorine in industrial process refrigeration (processing of
chlorine and chlorine compounds)
(4) Carbon dioxide in any application
(5) Nitrogen in any application
(6) Water in any application
* * * * *
Substitute means any chemical or product substitute, whether
existing or new, that is used by any person as a replacement for a
class I or II compound in a given end-use.
* * * * *
Technician means any person who performs maintenance, service, or
repair that could be reasonably expected to release refrigerants from
appliances, except for MVACs, into the atmosphere. Technician also
means any person who performs disposal of appliances, except for small
appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances, that could be reasonably
expected to release refrigerants from the appliances into the
atmosphere. Performing maintenance, service, repair, or disposal could
be reasonably expected to release

[[Page 32090]]

refrigerants only if the activity is reasonably expected to violate the
integrity of the refrigerant circuit. Activities reasonably expected to
violate the integrity of the refrigerant circuit include activities
such as attaching and detaching hoses and gauges to and from the
appliance to add or remove refrigerant or to measure pressure and
adding refrigerant to and removing refrigerant from the appliance.
Activities such as painting the appliance, re-wiring an external
electrical circuit, replacing insulation on a length of pipe, or
tightening nuts and bolts on the appliance are not reasonably expected
to violate the integrity of the refrigerant circuit. Performing
maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances that have been
evacuated pursuant to Sec. 82.156 could not be reasonably expected to
release refrigerants from the appliance unless the maintenance,
service, or repair consists of adding refrigerant to the appliance.
Technician includes but is not limited to installers, contractor
employees, in-house service personnel, and in some cases, owners.
Very-high-pressure appliance means an appliance that uses a
refrigerant with a critical temperature below 104 degrees Fahrenheit or
with a liquid phase saturation pressure above 305 psia at 104 degrees
Fahrenheit. This definition includes but is not limited to appliances
using R410A and B, R13, R23, and R503.
3. Section 82.154 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c),
(g), (h), and (m), and by adding paragraphs (o) and (p) to read as
follows:

Sec. 82.154 Prohibitions.

(a) Effective (30 days after publication of the final rule), no
person maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances
may knowingly vent or otherwise release into the environment any
refrigerant from such equipment. The knowing release of refrigerant
subsequent to its recovery from an appliance shall be considered a
violation of this prohibition. De minimis releases associated with good
faith attempts to recycle or recover refrigerants are not subject to
this prohibition. Releases shall be considered de minimis only if they
occur when:
(1) The required practices set forth in Sec. 82.156 are observed,
recovery or recycling machines that meet the requirements set forth in
Sec. 82.158 are used, and the technician certification provisions set
forth in Sec. 82.161 are observed; or
(2) The requirements set forth in subpart B of this part are
observed.
(b) No person may open appliances except MVACs and MVAC-like
appliances for maintenance, service, or repair, and no person may
dispose of appliances except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like
appliances:
* * * * *
(c) No person may manufacture or import recycling or recovery
equipment for use during the maintenance, service, or repair of
appliances except MVACs and MVAC-like appliances, and no person may
manufacture or import recycling or recovery equipment for use during
the disposal of appliances except small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-
like appliances, unless the equipment is certified pursuant to
Sec. 82.158 (b) or (d), as applicable.
* * * * *
(g) No person may sell or offer for sale refrigerant consisting
wholly or in part of used refrigerant unless:
(1) The refrigerant has been reclaimed as defined at Sec. 82.152;
(2) The refrigerant was used only in an MVAC or MVAC-like appliance
and is to be used only in an MVAC or MVAC-like appliance; or
(3) The refrigerant is contained in an appliance that is sold or
offered for sale together with the refrigerant.
(h) No person may sell or offer for sale refrigerant consisting
wholly or in part of used refrigerant unless:
(1) The refrigerant has been reclaimed by a person who has been
certified as a reclaimer pursuant to Sec. 82.164;
(2) The refrigerant was used only in an MVAC or MVAC-like appliance
and is to be used only in an MVAC or MVAC-like appliance; or
(3) The refrigerant is contained in an appliance that is sold or
offered for sale together with the refrigerant.
* * * * *
(m) No person may sell or distribute, or offer for sale or
distribution, any refrigerant to any person unless:
* * * * *
(o) No person may manufacture or import one-time expansion devices.
(p) Recovery or recycling equipment certified or rated for use with
only one refrigerant may not be used to recover other refrigerants.
4. Section 82.156 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (a) to read as follows, by removing paragraph (a)(5), by
revising Table 1 to read as follows, by revising paragraph (b) to read
as follows, and by redesignating paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(1)(i),
(i)(1)(ii) and (i)(1)(iii) as (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(iii), (i)(1)(iv), and
(i)(1)(v), by adding a new paragraph (i)(1)(ii), and by revising newly
designated paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(iii) to read as follows, by
redesignating paragraphs (i)(2), (i)(2)(i), and (i)(2)(ii) as
(i)(2)(i), (i)(2)(iii), and (i)(2)(iv), by adding a new paragraph
(i)(2)(ii), and by revising newly designated paragraph (i)(2)(i) to
read as follows, by redesignating paragraphs (i)(5), (i)(5)(i),
(i)(5)(ii), and (i)(5)(iii), as (i)(5)(i), (i)(5)(iii), (i)(5)(iv), and
(i)(5)(v), by adding a new paragraph (i)(5)(ii), and by revising newly
designated paragraph (i)(5)(i) to read as follows, by revising
paragraphs (i)(3), (i)(3)(i), (i)(3)(ii), and (i)(6) to read as
follows, and by replacing the phrase ``annual leak rate'' with ``leak
rate'' throughout:

Sec. 82.156 Required Practices.

(a) All persons disposing of appliances, except for small
appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances must evacuate the
refrigerant, including all the liquid refrigerant, in the entire unit
to a recovery or recycling machine certified pursuant to Sec. 82.158.
All persons opening appliances except for MVACs and MVAC-like
appliances for maintenance, service, or repair must evacuate the
refrigerant, including all the liquid refrigerant (except as provided
in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B) of this section), in either the entire unit
or the part to be serviced (if the latter can be isolated) to a system
receiver (e.g., the remaining portions of the appliance, or a specific
vessel within the appliance) or a recovery or recycling machine
certified pursuant to Sec. 82.158. Certified technicians must verify
that the applicable level of evacuation has been reached in the
appliance or the part before it is opened.
* * * * *

[[Page 32091]]

Table 1.--Required Levels of Evacuation for Appliances
[Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inches of Hg vacuum (relative to standard
atmospheric pressure of 29.9 inches Hg)
----------------------------------------------------
Using recovery
or recycling
Type of appliance equipment Using recovery or recycling
manufactured equipment manufactured or imported
or imported on or after Nov. 15, 1993
before Nov.
15, 1993
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very high-pressure appliance............................... 0 0.
Higher-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such 0 0.
appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds of
refrigerant.
Higher-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such 4 10.
appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more of
refrigerant.
High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such 4 10.
appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds of
refrigerant.
High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such 4 15.
appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more of
refrigerant.
Low-pressure appliance..................................... 25 25 mm Hg absolute.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
(b) All persons opening appliances except for small appliances,
MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances for maintenance, service, or repair and
all persons disposing of appliances except small appliances, MVACs, and
MVAC-like appliances must have at least one piece of certified, self-
contained recovery or recycling equipment available at their place of
business. Persons who maintain, service, repair, or dispose of only
appliances that they own and that contain pump-out units are exempt
from this requirement. This exemption does not relieve such persons
from other applicable requirements of Sec. 82.156.
* * * * *
(i)(1)(i) Owners or operators of commercial refrigeration equipment
normally containing more than 50 pounds of refrigerant and commissioned
before or during 1992 must have leaks repaired in accordance with
paragraph (i)(9) of this section if the leak rate of the appliance
exceeds 15 percent per year, except as described in paragraphs (i)(6),
(i)(8), and (i)(10) of this section and paragraphs (i)(1)(iii),
(i)(1)(iv), and (i)(1)(v) of this section. Repairs must bring the leak
rate to or below 15 percent per year.
(ii) Owners or operators of commercial refrigeration equipment
normally containing more than 50 pounds of refrigerant and commissioned
after 1992 must have leaks repaired in accordance with paragraph (i)(9)
of this section if the leak rate of the appliance exceeds 10 percent
per year, except as described in paragraphs (i)(6), (i)(8), and (i)(10)
of this section and paragraphs (i)(1)(iii), (i)(1)(iv), and (i)(1)(v)
of this section. Repairs must bring the leak rate to or below 10
percent per year.
(iii) If the owners or operators of federally-owned commercial
refrigeration appliances 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)(iii) of this section applies, they must document all repair
efforts and notify EPA of the reason for their inability to comply
within the 30-day repair period in accordance with section 82.166(n).
Such notification must be made within 30 days of discovering the leaks.
EPA will determine if the extension requested in accordance with the
requirements discussed in this paragraph (i)(1)(iii) of this section is
justified. If the extension is not justified, EPA will notify the
owner/operator within 30 days of receipt of the notification.
* * * * *
(2)(i) The owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration
equipment normally containing more than 50 pounds of refrigerant must
have leaks repaired in accordance with paragraph (i)(9) of this section
if the leak rate of the appliance exceeds 20 percent per year, except
as described in paragraphs (i)(6), (i)(7), and (i)(10) of this section,
and paragraphs (i)(2)(ii), (i)(2)(iii) and (i)(2)(iv) of this section.
Repairs must bring the leak rate to or below 20 percent per year. If
the owners or operators of the industrial process refrigeration
equipment determine that the leak rate cannot be brought to or below 20
percent per year within 30 days (or 120 days, where an industrial
process shutdown in accordance with paragraph (i)(2)(iv) of this
section is required) and in accordance with paragraph (i)(9) of this
section, and that an extension in accordance with the requirements
discussed in this paragraph applies, the owners or operators of the
appliance must document all repair efforts and notify EPA of the reason
for the inability in accordance with Sec. 82.166(n). Such notification
must be made within 30 days of making the determination. Owners or
operators who obtain an extension pursuant to this section or elect to
utilize the additional time provided in paragraph (i)(2)(iii) of this
section must conduct all necessary leak repairs, if any, that can be
performed within 30 days of discovering the leaks.
(ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this
section, a maximum allowable leak rate of 35 percent per year shall
apply to industrial process refrigeration systems meeting all of the
following conditions:
(A) The refrigeration system is custom-built;
(B) The refrigeration system has an open-drive compressor;
(C) The refrigeration system was built in 1992 or before; and
(D) The system is direct-expansion (contains a single, primary
refrigerant loop).
* * * * *
(3) Owners or operators of federally-owned commercial refrigeration

[[Page 32092]]

equipment or of federally-owned comfort cooling appliances who are
granted additional time under paragraphs (i)(1) or (i)(5) of this
section, and owners or operators of industrial process refrigeration
equipment, must have repairs performed in a manner that sound
professional judgment indicates will bring the leak rate below the
applicable allowable leak rate. When an industrial process shutdown has
occurred or when repairs have been made while an appliance is
mothballed, the owners or operators shall conduct an initial
verification test at the conclusion of the repairs and a follow-up
verification test. The follow-up verification test shall be conducted
within 30 days of completing the repairs or within 30 days of bringing
the appliance back on-line, if taken off-line, but no sooner than when
the appliance has achieved normal operating characteristics and
conditions. When repairs have been conducted without an industrial
process shutdown or system mothballing, an initial verification test
shall be conducted at the conclusion of the repairs, and a follow-up
verification test shall be conducted within 30 days of the initial
verification test. In all cases, the follow-up verification test shall
be conducted at normal operating characteristics and conditions, unless
sound professional judgment indicates that tests performed at normal
operating characteristics and conditions will produce less reliable
results, in which case the follow-up verification test shall be
conducted at or near the normal operating pressure where practicable,
and at or near the normal operating temperature where practicable.
(i) If the owners or operators of federally-owned commercial
refrigeration equipment or of federally-owned comfort cooling
appliances who are granted additional time under paragraphs (i)(1) or
(i)(5) of this section take the appliances off-line, or if owners or
operators of industrial process refrigeration equipment take the
appliances off-line, they cannot bring the appliances back on-line
until an initial verification test indicates that the repairs
undertaken in accordance with paragraphs (i)(1) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv),
or (v), or (i)(2) (i), (ii), or (iii) or (5) (i), (ii), and (iii) of
this section have been successfully completed, demonstrating the leak
or leaks are repaired. The owners or operators of the industrial
process refrigeration equipment, federally-owned commercial
refrigeration equipment, or federally-owned comfort cooling appliances
are exempted from this requirement only where the owners or operators
will retrofit or retire the industrial process refrigeration equipment,
federally-owned commercial refrigeration equipment, or federally-owned
comfort cooling appliances in accordance with paragraph (i)(6) of this
section. Under this exemption, the owner or operators may bring the
industrial process refrigeration equipment, federally-owned commercial
refrigeration equipment, or federally-owned comfort cooling appliances
back on-line without successful completion of an initial verification
test.
(ii) If the follow-up verification test indicates that the repairs
to industrial process refrigeration equipment, federally-owned
commercial refrigeration equipment, or federally-owned comfort cooling
appliances have not been successful, the owner must retrofit or retire
the equipment in accordance with paragraph (i)(6) and any such longer
time period as may apply under paragraphs (i)(7) (i), (ii) and (iii) or
(i)(8) (i) and (ii) of this section. The owners and operators of the
industrial process refrigeration equipment, federally-owned commercial
refrigeration equipment, or federally-owned comfort cooling appliances
are relieved of this requirement if the conditions of paragraphs
(i)(3)(iv) and/or (i)(3)(v) of this section are met.
* * * * *
(5)(i) Owners or operators of appliances normally containing more
than 50 pounds of refrigerant, manufactured before or during 1992, and
not covered by paragraphs (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this section must have
leaks repaired in accordance with paragraph (i)(9) of this section if
the leak rate of the appliance exceeds 10 percent per year, except as
provided in paragraphs (i)(5)(iii), (i)(5)(iv), and (i)(5)(v) of this
section. Repairs must bring the leak rate to or below 10 percent per
year.
(5)(ii) Owners or operators of appliances normally containing more
than 50 pounds of refrigerant, manufactured after 1992, and not covered
by paragraphs (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this section must have leaks repaired
in accordance with paragraph (i)(9) of this section if the leak rate of
the appliance exceeds 5 percent per year, except as provided in
paragraphs (i)(5)(iii), (i)(5)(iv), and (i)(5)(v) of this section.
Repairs must bring the leak rate to or below 5 percent per year.
* * * * *
(6) Owners or operators are not required to repair leaks as
provided in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(5) of this section if,
within 30 days of discovering the exceedance of the applicable
allowable leak rate, or within 30 days of a failed follow-up
verification test, or after making good faith efforts to repair the
leaks as described in paragraph (i)(6)(i) of this section, they develop
a one-year retrofit or retirement plan for the leaking appliance.
Owners or operators who retrofit the appliance must use a refrigerant
with a lower ozone-depleting potential than the previous refrigerant
and must include such a change in the retrofit plan. Owners or
operators who retire and replace the appliance must replace the
appliance with an appliance that uses a refrigerant with a lower ozone-
depleting potential and must include such a change in the retirement
plan. The retrofit or retirement plan (or a legible copy) must be kept
at the site of the appliance. The original plan must be made available
for EPA inspection upon request. The plan must be dated and all work
performed in accordance with the plan must be completed within one year
of the plan's date, except as described in paragraphs (i)(6)(i),
(i)(7), and (i)(8) of this section. Owners or operators are temporarily
relieved of this obligation if the appliance has undergone system
mothballing as defined in Sec. 82.152.
(i) If the owner or operator has made good faith efforts to repair
leaks from the appliance in accordance with paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2),
or (i)(5) of this section, and has decided, before completing a follow-
up verification test, to retrofit or retire the appliance in accordance
with paragraph (i)(6) of this section, the owner or operator must
develop a retrofit or retirement plan within 30 days of the decision to
retrofit or retire the appliance. The owner or operator must retrofit
or retire the appliance within one year and 30 days of when the owner
or operator discovered that the leak rate exceeded the applicable
allowable leak rate, except as provided in paragraphs (i)(7) and (i)(8)
of this section.
* * * * *
5. Section 82.158 is amended by revising Table 2 and Table 3, by
removing paragraphs (f) and (g), and by redesignating paragraphs (h)
through (m) as (f) through (k) to read as follows:

Sec. 82.158 Standards for recycling and recovery equipment.

* * * * *

[[Page 32093]]

Table 2.--Levels of Evacuation Which Must Be Achieved by Recovery or
Recycling Equipment Intended for Use With Appliances \1\ Manufactured on
or After November 15, 1993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inches of
vacuum
(relative to
Type of appliance with which recovery or recycling standard
machine is intended to be used atmospheric
pressure of
29.9 inches of
Hg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very high-pressure appliance............................ 0
Higher-pressure appliance or isolated component of such
appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds of
refrigerant............................................ 0
Higher-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such
appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more of
refrigerant............................................ 10
High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such
appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds of
refrigerant............................................ 10
High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such
appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more of
refrigerant............................................ 15
Low-pressure appliance.................................. \2\ 25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances.
\2\ mm Hg absolute.

The vacuums specified in inches of Hg vacuum must be achieved
relative to an atmospheric pressure of 29.9 inches of Hg absolute.
* * * * *

Table 3.--Levels of Evacuation Which Must Be Achieved by Recovery or
Recycling Equipment Intended for Use With Appliances \1\ Manufactured
Before November 15, 1993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inches of
vacuum
(relative to
Type of appliance with which recovery or recycling standard
machine is intended to be used atmospheric
pressure of
29.9 inches of
Hg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very high-pressure appliance............................ 0
Higher-pressure appliance or isolated component of such
appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds of
refrigerant............................................ 0
Higher-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such
appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more of
refrigerant............................................ 4
High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such
appliance, normally containing less than 200 pounds of
refrigerant............................................ 4
High-pressure appliance, or isolated component of such
appliance, normally containing 200 pounds or more of
refrigerant............................................ 4
Low-pressure appliance.................................. \2\ 25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Except for small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like appliances.
\2\ mm Hg absolute.

The vacuums specified in inches of Hg vacuum must be achieved
relative to an atmospheric pressure of 29.9 inches of Hg absolute.
* * * * *
6. Section 82.161 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) as
follows:

Sec. 82.161 Technician Certification.

(a) * * *
(2) Technicians who maintain, service, or repair high-, higher-, or
very high-pressure appliances, except small appliances, MVACs, and
MVAC-like appliances, or dispose of high-, higher-, or very high-
pressure appliances, except small appliances, MVACs, and MVAC-like
appliances, must be properly certified as Type II technicians.
* * * * *
7. Section 82.164 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (a), (b), and (e)(3) to read as follows:

Sec. 82.164 Reclaimer Certification.

Effective [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE]
all persons reclaiming used refrigerant for sale to a new owner, except
for persons who properly certified under this section prior to [INSERT
DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE] must certify to the
Administrator that such person will:
(a) Reprocess refrigerant to all of the specifications in appendix
A of this Subpart (based on ARI Standard 700-1995, Specification for
Fluorocarbons and Other Refrigerants) that are applicable to that
refrigerant;
(b) Verify that the refrigerant meets these specifications using
the analytical methodology prescribed in appendix A;
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) The owner or a responsible officer of the reclaimer must sign
the certification stating that the refrigerant will be reprocessed to
all of the specifications in appendix A of this Subpart (based on ARI
Standard 700-1995, Specification for Fluorocarbons and Other
Refrigerants) that are applicable to that refrigerant, that the
refrigerant's conformance to these specifications will be verified
using the analytical methodology prescribed in appendix A, that no more
than 1.5 percent of the refrigerant will be released during the
reclamation process, that wastes from the reclamation process will be
properly disposed of, and that the information given is true and
correct. The certification should be sent to the following address:
Section 608 Recycling Program Manager, Reclaimer Certification,
Stratospheric Protection Division (6205J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
* * * * *
8. Section 82.166 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (n),
(o)(4), (o)(7), (o)(8), and (o)(10) to read as follows:

[[Page 32094]]

Sec. 82.166 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

(a) All persons who sell or distribute any refrigerant must retain
invoices that indicate the name of the purchaser, the date of sale, and
the quantity of refrigerant purchased.
(b) Purchasers of refrigerant who employ certified technicians may
provide evidence that at least one technician is properly certified to
the wholesaler who sells them refrigerant; the wholesaler must then
keep this information on file and may sell refrigerant to the purchaser
or his authorized representative even if such purchaser or authorized
representative is not a properly certified technician. In such cases,
the purchaser must notify the wholesaler in the event that the
purchaser no longer employs at least one properly certified technician.
The wholesaler is then prohibited from selling refrigerants to the
purchaser until such time as the purchaser employs at least one
properly certified technician. At that time, the purchaser must provide
new evidence that at least one technician is properly certified.
* * * * *
(n) The owners or operators of appliances must maintain on-site and
report to EPA at the address listed in Sec. 82.160 the information
specified in paragraphs (n)(1), (n)(2), and (n)(3) of this section,
within the time lines specified under Sec. 82.156 (i)(1), (i)(2),
(i)(3) and (i)(5) where such reporting and recordkeeping is required.
This information must be relevant to the affected appliance.
(1) An initial report to EPA under Sec. 82.156(i)(1)(iii),
(i)(2)(i), or (i)(5)(iii) regarding why more than 30 days are needed to
complete repairs must include: Identification of the facility; the leak
rate; the method used to determine the leak rate and full charge; the
date a leak rate above the applicable allowable leak rate was
discovered; the location of leaks(s) to the extent determined to date;
any repair work that has been completed thus far and the date that work
was completed; the reasons why more than 30 days are needed to complete
the work and an estimate of when the work will be completed. If changes
from the original estimate of when work will be completed result in
extending the completion date from the date submitted to EPA, the
reasons for these changes must be documented and submitted to EPA
within 30 days of discovering the need for such a change.
(2) If the owners or operators intend to establish that the
appliance's leak rate does not exceed the applicable allowable leak
rate in accordance with Sec. 82.156(i)(3)(v), the owner or operator
must submit a plan to fix other outstanding leaks for which repairs are
planned but not yet completed to achieve a rate below the applicable
allowable leak rate. A plan to fix other outstanding leaks in
accordance with Sec. 82.156(i)(3)(v) must include the following
information: the identification of the facility; the leak rate; the
method used to determine the leak rate and full charge; the date a leak
rate above the applicable allowable leak rate was discovered; the
location of leaks(s) to the extent determined to date; and any repair
work that has been completed thus far, including the date that work was
completed. Upon completion of the repair efforts described in the plan,
a second report must be submitted that includes the date the owner or
operator submitted the initial report concerning the need for
additional time beyond the 30 days and notification of the owner or
operator's determination that the leak rate no longer exceeds the
applicable allowable leak rate. This second report must be submitted
within 30 days of determining that the leak rate no longer exceeds the
applicable allowable leak rate.
(3) Owners or operators must maintain records of the dates and
types of all initial and follow-up verification tests performed under
Sec. 82.156(i)(3) and the test results for all follow-up verification
tests. Owners or operators must submit this information to EPA within
30 days after conducting each test where required under Sec. 82.156
(i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3) and (i)(5). These reports must also include:
identification of the facility; the leak rate; the method used to
determine the leak rate and full charge; the date a leak rate above the
applicable allowable leak rate was discovered; the location of leaks(s)
to the extent determined to date; and any repair work that has been
completed thus far and the date that work was completed.
* * * * *
(o) * * *
(4) The date a leak rate above the applicable allowable rate was
discovered.
* * * * *
(7) A plan to complete the retrofit or retirement of the system;
(8) The reasons why more than one year is necessary to retrofit or
retire the system;
* * * * *
(10) An estimate of when retrofit or retirement work will be
completed. If the estimated date of completion changes from the
original estimate and results in extending the date of completion, the
owner or operator must submit to EPA the new estimated date of
completion and documentation of the reason for the change within 30
days of discovering the need for the change, and must retain a dated
copy of this submission.
* * * * *
(q) Owners or operators who choose to determine the full charge, as
defined in Sec. 82.152, of an affected appliance by using an
established range or by using that method in combination with other
methods for determining the full charge must maintain the following
information:
* * * * *
9. Appendix A to subpart F is revised to read as follows:

Appendix A--Specifications for Fluorocarbons and Other Refrigerants

This appendix is based on Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration
Institute Standard 700-1995.
Section 1. Purpose
1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to evaluate and
accept/reject refrigerants regardless of source (new, reclaimed and/or
repackaged) for use in new and existing refrigeration and air-
conditioning products.
1.1.1 Intent. This standard is intended for the guidance of the
industry including manufacturers, refrigerant reclaimers, repackagers,
distributors, installers, servicemen, contractors and for consumers.
1.1.2 Review and Amendment. This standard is subject to review and
amendment as the technology advances.
Section 2. Scope
2.1 Scope. This standard specifies acceptable levels of
contaminants (purity requirements) for various fluorocarbon and other
refrigerants regardless of source and lists acceptable test methods.
These refrigerants are R11; R12; R13; R22; R23; R32; R113; R114; R123;
R124; R125; R134a; R143a; R401A; R401B; R402A; R402B; R404A; R405A;
R406A; R407A; R407B; R407C; R408A; R409A; R410A; R410B; R411A; R411B;
R412A; R500; R502; R503; R507; R508; and R509 as referenced in the
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-1992. (American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Standard 34-1992).
Copies may be obtained from ASHRAE Publications Sales, 1791 Tullie
Circle, NE, Atlanta, GA 30329. Copies may also be inspected at Public
Docket No. A-92-01, Waterside Mall (Ground Floor) Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC in room M-1500.

[[Page 32095]]

Section 3. Definitions
3.1 ``Shall,'' ``Should,'' ``Recommended,'' or ``It Is
Recommended.'' ``Shall,'' ``should,'' ``recommended,'' or ``it is
recommended'' shall be interpreted as follows:
3.1.1 Shall. Where ``shall'' or ``shall not'' is used for a
provision specified, that provision is mandatory if compliance with the
standard is claimed.
3.1.2 Should, Recommended, or It is Recommended. ``Should ``,
``recommended'', or ``it is recommended'' is used to indicate
provisions which are not mandatory but which are desirable as good
practice.
Section 4. Characterization of Refrigerants and Contaminants
4.1 Characterization. Characterization of refrigerants and
contaminants addressed are listed in the following general
classifications:
4.1.1 Characterization
a. Gas Chromatography
b. Boiling point and boiling point range
4.1.2 Contaminants
a. Water
b. Chloride
c. Acidity
d. High boiling residue
e. Particulates/solids
f. Non-condensables
g. Impurities including other refrigerants
Section 5. Sampling, Summary of Test Methods and Maximum Permissible
Contaminant Levels
5.1 Referee Test. The referee test methods for the various
contaminants are summarized in the following paragraphs. Detailed test
procedures are included in Appendix-C to ARI Standard 700-95:
Analytical Procedures for ARI Standard 700-95, 1995, Air-Conditioning
and Refrigeration Institute. Appendix C to ARI Standard 700-95 is
incorporated by reference. [This incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the Air-
Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, 4301 North Fairfax Drive,
Arlington, Virginia 22203. Copies may also be inspected at Public
Docket No. A-92-01, Waterside Mall (Ground Floor) Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC in room M-1500 or
at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW,
Suite 700, Washington, DC.] If alternative test methods are employed,
the user must be able to demonstrate that they produce results
equivalent to the specified referee method.
5.2 Refrigerant Sampling.
5.2.1 Sampling Precautions. Special precautions should be taken to
assure that representative samples are obtained for analysis. Sampling
shall be done by trained laboratory personnel following accepted
sampling and safety procedures.
5.2.2 Gas Phase Sample. A gas phase sample shall be obtained for
determining the non-condensables. Since non-condensable gases, if
present, will concentrate in the vapor phase of the refrigerant, care
must be exercised to eliminate introduction of air during the sample
transfer. Purging is not an acceptable procedure for a gas phase sample
since it may introduce a foreign product. Since R11, R113, and R123
have normal boiling points at or above room temperature, non-
condensable determination is not required for these refrigerants.
5.2.2.1 Connection. The sample cylinder shall be connected to an
evacuated gas sampling bulb by means of a manifold. The manifold should
have a valve arrangement that facilitates evacuation of all connecting
tubing leading to the sampling bulb.
5.2.2.2 Equalizing Pressures. After the manifold has been
evacuated, close the valve to the pump and open the valve on the
system. Allow the pressure to equilibrate and close valves.
5.2.3 Liquid Phase Sample. A liquid phase sample is required for
all tests listed in this standard except the test for non-condensables.
5.2.3.1 Preparation. Place a clean, empty sample cylinder with the
valve open in an oven at 110 deg. C (230 deg. F) for one hour. Remove
it from the oven while hot, immediately connect to an evacuation system
and evacuate to less than 1 mm mercury (1000 microns). Close the valve
and allow it to cool. Weigh the empty cylinder.
5.2.3.2 Manifolding. The valve and lines from the unit to be
sampled shall be clean and dry. The cylinder shall be connected to an
evacuated gas sampling cylinder by means of a manifold. The manifold
should have a valve arrangement that facilitates evacuation of all
connecting tubing leading to the sampling cylinder.
5.2.3.3 Liquid Sampling. After the manifold has been evacuated,
close the valve to the pump and open the valve on the system. Take the
sample as a liquid by chilling the sample cylinder slightly. Accurate
analysis requires that the sample container be filled to at least 60%
by volume, however under no circumstances should the cylinder be filled
to more than 80% by volume. This can be accomplished by weighing the
empty cylinder and then the cylinder with refrigerant. When the desired
amount of refrigerant has been collected, close the valve(s) and
disconnect the sample cylinder immediately.
5.2.3.4 Record Weight. Check the sample cylinder for leaks and
record the gross weight.
5.3 Refrigerant Characterization.
5.3.1 Primary Method. The primary method shall be gas
chromatography (GC) as described in Appendix-C to ARI Standard 700-95.
The chromatogram of the sample shall be compared to known standards.
5.3.2 Alternative Method. Determination of the boiling point and
boiling point range is an acceptable alternative test method which can
be used to characterize refrigerants. The test method shall be that
described in the Federal Specification for ``Fluorocarbon
Refrigerants,'' BB-F-1421 B, dated March 5, 1982, section 4.4.3.
5.3.3 Required Values. The required values for boiling point and
boiling point range are given in Table 1A, Physical Properties of
Single Component Refrigerants; Table 1B, Physical Properties of
Zeotropic Blends (400 Series Refrigerants); and Table 1C, Physical
Properties of Azeotropic Blends (500 Series Refrigerants).
5.4 Water Content.
5.4.1 Method. The Coulometric Karl Fischer Titration shall be the
primary test method for determining the water content of refrigerants.
This method is described in Appendix-C to ARI Standard 700-95. This
method can be used for refrigerants that are either a liquid or a gas
at room temperature, including refrigerants 11, 113, and 123. For all
refrigerants, the sample for water analysis shall be taken from the
liquid phase of the container to be tested. Proper operation of the
analytical method requires special equipment and an experienced
operator. The precision of the results is excellent if proper sampling
and handling procedures are followed. Refrigerants containing a colored
dye can be successfully analyzed for water using this method.
5.4.2 Limits. The value for water content shall be expressed as
parts per million by weight and shall not exceed the maximum specified
(see Tables 1A, 1B, and 1C).
5.5 Chloride. The refrigerant shall be tested for chloride as an
indication of the presence of hydrochloric acid and/or metal chlorides.
The recommended procedure is intended for use with new or reclaimed
refrigerants. Significant

[[Page 32096]]

amounts of oil may interfere with the results by indicating a failure
in the absence of chloride.
5.5.1 Method. The test method shall be that described in Appendix-
C to ARI Standard 700-95. The test will show noticeable turbidity at
chloride levels of about 3 ppm by weight or higher.
5.5.2 Turbidity. The results of the test shall not exhibit any
sign of turbidity. Report the results as ``pass'' or ``fail.''
5.6 Acidity.
5.6.1 Method. The acidity test uses the titration principle to
detect any compound that is highly soluble in water and ionizes as an
acid. The test method shall be that described in Appendix-C to ARI
Standard 700-95. This test may not be suitable for determination of
high molecular weight organic acids; however these acids will be found
in the high boiling residue test outlined in 5.7. The test requires a
100 to 120 gram sample and has a detection limit of 0.1 ppm by weight
calculated as HCl.
5.6.2 Limits. The maximum permissible acidity is 1 ppm by weight
as HCl.
5.7 High Boiling Residue.
5.7.1 Method. High boiling residue shall be determined by
measuring the residue of a standard volume of refrigerant after
evaporation. The refrigerant sample shall be evaporated at room
temperature or at a temperature 45 deg.C (115 deg.F) for all
refrigerants, except R113 which shall be evaporated at 60 deg.C
(140 deg.F), using a Goetz bulb as specified in Appendix-C to ARI
Standard 700-95. Oils and/or organic acids will be captured by this
method.
5.7.2 Limits. The value for high boiling residue shall be
expressed as a percentage by volume and shall not exceed the maximum
percent specified (see Tables 1A, 1B, and 1C). An alternative
gravimetric method is described in Appendix-C to ARI Standard 700-95.
5.8 Method of Tests for Particulates and Solids.
5.8.1 Method. A measured amount of sample is evaporated from a
Goetz bulb under controlled temperature conditions. The particulates/
solids shall be determined by visual examination of the Goetz bulb
prior to the evaporation of refrigerant. Presence of dirt, rust or
other particulate contamination is reported as ``fail.'' For details of
this test method, refer to Part 3 of Appendix-C to ARI Standard 700-95.
5.9 Non-Condensables.
5.9.1 Sample. A vapor phase sample shall be used for determination
of non-condensables. Non-condensable gases consist primarily of air
accumulated in the vapor phase of refrigerants. The solubility of air
in the refrigerants liquid phase is extremely low and air is not
significant as a liquid phase contaminant. The presence of non-
condensable gases may reflect poor quality control in transferring
refrigerants to storage tanks and cylinders.
5.9.2 Method. The test method shall be gas chromatography with a
thermal conductivity detector as described in Appendix-C to ARI
Standard 700-95.
5.9.3 Limit. The maximum level of non-condensables in the vapor
phase of a refrigerant in a container shall not exceed 1.5% by volume
(see Tables 1A, 1B, and 1C).
5.10 Impurities, including Other Refrigerants.
5.10.1 Method. The amount of other impurities including other
refrigerants in the subject refrigerant shall be determined by gas
chromatography as described in Appendix-C to ARI Standard 700-95.
5.10.2 Limit. The subject refrigerant shall not contain more than
0.5% by weight of impurities including other refrigerants (see Tables
1A, 1B, and 1C).
Section 6. Reporting Procedure
6.1 Reporting Procedure. The source (manufacturer, reclaimer or
repackager) of the packaged refrigerant shall be identified. The
refrigerant shall be identified by its accepted refrigerant number and/
or its chemical name. Maximum permissible levels of contaminants are
shown in Tables 1A, 1B, and 1C. Test results shall be tabulated in a
like manner.

[[Page 32097]]

Table 1A.--Physical Properties of Single Component Refrigerants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference
Reporting units (subclause) R11 R12 R13 R22 R23 R32 R113 R114 R123 R124 R125 R134a R143a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characteristics*:
Boiling Point*................... deg.F @ 1.00 atm....... ........... 74.9 -21.6 -114.6 -41.4 -115.7 -61.1 117.6 38.8 82.6 12.2 -55.3 -15.1 -52.6
deg.C @ 1.00 atm....... ........... 23.8 -29.8 -81.4 -40.8 -82.1 -51.7 47.6 3.8 27.9 -11.0 -48.5 -26.2 -47.0
Boiling Point Range*............. K....................... ........... 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Typical Isomer Content........... by weight............... ........... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 0-1% 0-30% 0-8% 0-5% N/A 0-5000 ppm 0-100 ppm
R113a R-114a R123a R-124a R-134 R-143
Vapor Phase Contaminants:
Air and other non-condensables... % by volume @ 25 deg.C. 5.9 N/A** 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 N/A** 1.5 N/A** 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Liquid Phase Contaminants:
Water............................ ppm by weight........... 5.4 20 10 10 10 10 10 20 10 20 10 10 10 10
All other impurities including % by weight............. 5.1 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
refrigerants.
High boiling residue............. % by volume............. 5.7 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Particulates/solids.............. Visually clean to pass.. 5.8 pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass
Acidity.......................... ppm by weight........... 5.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Chlorides***..................... No visible turbidity.... 5.5 pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass pass
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Boiling points and boiling point ranges, although not required, are provided for informational purposes.
** Since R11, R13, and R123 have normal boiling points at or above room temperature, non-condensable determinations are not required for these refrigerants.
*** Recognized chloride level for pass/fail is 3 ppm.

Table 1B.--Physical Properties of Zeotropic Blends (400 Series Refrigerants)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference
Reporting units (subclause) R401A R401B R402A R402B R404A R405A R406A R407A R407B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characteristics *
Refrigerant Components.... ................. ................. R22/152a/124..... R22/152a/124..... R125/290/22..... 125/290/22...... R125/143a/134a.. R22/152a/142b/ R22/600a/142b... R32/125/134a.... R32/125/134a.
C318.
Nominal Comp, weight %.... ................. ................. 53/13/34......... 61/11/28......... 60/2/38......... 38/2/60......... 44/52/4......... 45/7/5.5/42.5... 55/4/41......... 20/40/40........ 10/70/20.
Allowable Comp, weight %.. ................. ................. 51-54/11.5-13.5/ 59-63/9.5-11.5/27- 58-62/1-3/36-40. 36-40/1-3/58-62. 42-46/51-53/2-6. 43-47/6-8/4.5- 53-57/3-5/40-42. 19-21/38-42/38- 9-11/68-72/18-
33-35. 29. 6.5/40.5-44.5. 42. 22.
Boiling Point *........... deg.F @ 1.00 atm ................. -27.7 to -18.1... -30.4 to -21.2... -54.8 to -53.9.. -53.3 to -49.0.. -51.0 to -49.8.. -31.8 to -21.8.. -32.7 to -15.0.. -49.9 to -38.1.. -53.1 to -45.2.
deg.C @ 1.00 atm ................. -33.2 to -27.8... -34.7 to -29.6... -48.2 to -47.7.. -47.4 to -45.0.. -46.1 to -45.4.. -34.0 to -21.9.. -36.0 to -26.1.. -45.5 to -38.9.. -47.3 to -42.9.
Boiling Point Range*...... K................ ................. 5.4.............. 5.1.............. 0.5............. 2.4............. 0.7............. 12.1............ 9.9............. 6.6............. 4.4.
Vapor Phase Contaminants:
Air and other non- % by volume @ 25 5.9.............. 1.5.............. 1.5.............. 1.5............. 1.5............. 1.5............. 1.5............. 1.5............. 1.5............. 1.5.
condensables. deg.C.
Liquid Phase Contaminants:
Water..................... ppm by weight.... 5.4.............. 10............... 10............... 10.............. 10.............. 10.............. 10.............. 10.............. 10.............. 10.
All other impurities % by weight...... 5.1.............. 0.50............. 0.50............. 0.50............ 0.50............ 0.50............ 0.50............ 0.50............ 0.50............ 0.50.
including refrigerants.
High boiling residue...... % by volume...... 5.7.............. 0.01............. 0.01............. 0.01............ 0.01............ 0.01............ 0.01............ 0.01............ 0.01............ 0.01.
Particulates/solids....... Visually clean to 5.8.............. pass............. pass............. pass............ pass............ pass............ pass............ pass............ pass............ pass.
pass.
Acidity................... ppm by weight.... 5.6.............. 1.0.............. 1.0.............. 1.0............. 1.0............. 1.0............. 1.0............. 1.0............. 1.0............. 1.0.
Chlorides**............... No visible 5.5.............. pass............. pass............. pass............ pass............ pass............ pass............ pass............ pass............ pass.
turbidity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Boiling points and boiling point ranges, although not required, are provided for informational purposes.
** Recognized chloride level for pass/fail is 3ppm.
Shaded columns denote refrigerants for which analytical data is not available.

[[Page 32098]]

Table 1B (Continued).--Physical Properties of Zeotropic Blends (400 Series Refrigerants)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference
Reporting units (subclause) R407C R408A R409A R410A R410B R411A R411B R412A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characteristics: *
Refrigerant Components...... ................... ........... R32/125/134a....... R125/143a/22....... R22/124/142b....... R32/125............ R32/125............ R1270/22/152a...... R1270/22/152a..... R22/218/
142.
Nominal Comp, weight %...... ................... ........... 23/25/52........... 7/46/47............ 60/25/15........... 50/50.............. 45/55.............. 1.5/87.5/11.0...... 3/94/3............ 70/5/25.
Allowable Comp, weight %.... ................... ........... 22-24/23-27/50-54.. 5-9/45-47/45-49.... 58-62/23-27/14-16.. 48.5-50.5/49.4-51.5 44-46/54-56........ 0.5-1.5/87.5-89.5/ 2-3/94-96/2-3..... 68-72/3-7/24-26.
10-11.
Boiling Point............... deg.F@1.00 atm.... ........... 46.4 to -33.0...... -48.8 to -47.9..... 32.4 to -18.2...... -60.1 to -60.0..... -60.3 to -60.2..... ................... .................. -40.2 to 25.6.
deg.C@1.00 atm.... ........... -43.6 to -36.6..... -44.9 to -44.4..... -35.8 to -27.9..... -51.2 to -51.1..... -51.3 to -51.2..... ................... .................. -40.1 to 32.0.
Boiling Point Range*........ K.................. ........... 7.0................ 0.5................ 7.9................ 0.1................ 0.1................ ................... .................. 8.1
Vapor Phase Contaminants:
Air and other non- % by volume @25 5.9 1.5................ 1.5................ 1.5................ 1.5................ 1.5................ 1.5................ 1.5............... 1.5
condensables. deg.C.
Liquid Phase Contaminants:
Water....................... ppm by weight...... 5.4 10................. 10................. 10................. 10................. 10................. 10................. 10................ 10
All other impurities % by weight........ 5.1 0.50............... 0.50............... 0.50............... 0.50............... 0.50............... 0.50............... 0.50.............. 0.50
including refrigerants.
High boiling residue........ % by volume........ 5.7 0.01............... 0.01............... 0.01............... 0.01............... 0.01............... 0.01............... 0.01.............. 0.01
Particulates/solids......... Visually clean to 5.8 pass............... pass............... pass............... pass............... pass............... pass............... pass.............. pass
pass.
Acidity..................... ppm by weight...... 5.6 1.0................ 1.0................ 1.0................ 1.0................ 1.0................ 1.0................ 1.0............... 1.0
Chlorides**................. No visible 5.5 pass............... pass............... pass............... pass............... pass............... pass............... pass.............. pass
turbidity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Boiling points and boiling point ranges, although not required, are provided for informational purposes.
**Recognized chloride level for pass/fail is 3ppm.
Shaded columns denote refrigerants for which analytical data is not available.

Table 1C.--Physical Properties of Azeotropic Blends (500 Series Refrigerants)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference
Reporting units (subclause) R500 R502 R503 R507 R508 R509
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characteristics:*
Refrigerant Components...... ................... ........... R12/152a........... R22/115............ R23/13............. R125/143a.......... R23/116............ R22/218.
Nominal Comp. weight %...... ................... ........... 73.8/26.2.......... 48.8/51.2.......... 40.1/59.9.......... 50/50.............. 39/61.............. 44/56.
Allowable Comp. weight %.... ................... ........... 72.8-74.8/25.2-27.2 44.8-52.8/47.2-55.2 39-41/59.61........ 49-51/49-51........ 37-41/59-63........ 42-46/56-60.
Boiling Point*.............. deg.F@1.00 atm.... ........... -28.1.............. -49.7.............. -127.7............. -52.1.............. -123.5............. -53.9.
deg.C@1.00 atm.... ........... -33.4.............. -45.4.............. -88.7.............. -46.7.............. -86.4.............. -47.7.
Boiling Point Range*........ K.................. ........... 0.5................ 0.5................ 0.5................ 0.5................ 0.5................ 0.5.
Vapor Phase Contaminants:
Air and other non- % by volume @25 5.9 1.5................ 1.5................ 1.5................ 1.5................ 1.5................ 1.5.
condensables. deg. C.
Liquid Phase Contaminants:
Water....................... ppm by weight...... 5.4 10................. 10................. 10................. 10................. 10................. 10.
All other impurities % by weight........ 5.1 0.50............... 0.50............... 0.50............... 0.50............... 0.50............... 0.50.
including refrigerants.
High boiling residue........ % by volume........ 5.7 0.05............... 0.01............... 0.01............... 0.01............... 0.01............... 0.01.
Particulates/solids......... Visually clean to 5.8 Pass............... Pass............... Pass............... Pass............... Pass............... Pass
pass.
Acidity..................... ppm by weight...... 5.6 1.0................ 1.0................ 1.0................ 1.0................ 1.0................ 1.0
Chlorides**................. No visible 5.5 Pass............... Pass............... Pass............... Pass............... Pass............... Pass.
turbidity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Boiling points and boiling point ranges, although not required, are provided for informational purposes.
**Recognized chloride level for pass/fail in 3ppm.

[[Page 32099]]

Appendix A. References--Normative

Listed here are all standards, handbooks, and other publications
essential to the formation and implementation of the standard. All
references in this appendix are considered as part of this standard.
ASHRAE Terminology of Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning and
Refrigeration, American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, 1992, 1791 Tullie Circle N.E., Atlanta, GA
30329-2305; U.S.A.
ASHRAE Standard 34-1992, Number Designation and Safety
Classification of Refrigerants, American Society of Heating
Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 1992, 1791 Tullie Circle
N.E., Atlanta, GA 30329-2305; U.S.A.
Appendix C to ARI Standard 700-95: Analytical Procedures to ARI
Standard 700-95, Specifications for Fluorocarbon and Other
Refrigerants, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, 1995, 4301
North Fairfax Drive, Suite 425, Arlington, VA 22203; U.S.A.
Federal Specification for Fluorocarbon Refrigerants, BB-F-1421-B,
dated March 5, 1992, Office of the Federal Register, National Archives
and Records Administration, 1992, 800 North Capitol Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20402; U.S.A.

[FR Doc. 98-15003 Filed 6-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Refrigerant Recycling; Substitute Refrigerants

Related Material

Local Navigation