Analysis of Equipment and Practices 

in the Reclamation Industry 

Draft Report 

For EPA Internal Discussion Only 

Prepared for: 

Sally Hamlin 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (6205J) 

Washington, DC 20460 
Prepared for: 

Sally Hamlin 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (6205J) 

Washington, DC 20460 

Prepared by: 

Stratus Consulting Inc. 

1920 L St. NW, Suite 420 

Washington, DC 20036 

202-466-3731 

PO Box 4059 

Boulder, CO 80306-4059 

Contacts: 

Nimmi Damodaran 

Joseph Donahue 

October 29, 2010 

SC12226 

Analysis of Equipment 

and Practices in the 

Reclamation Industry 

Draft Report 
SC12226

Contents 

List of Tables............................................................................................................................. vii 

Section 1 Introduction..........................................................................................................1 

1.1 Concern about Quality of Reclaimed Refrigerant .................................................2 

1.2 Purpose and Outline of Study ................................................................................3 

1.3 Information Collection Methodology ....................................................................3 

1.3.1 Industry input solicitation ..........................................................................3 

1.3.2 Patent search ..............................................................................................5 

1.3.3 Literature review........................................................................................5 

1.4 Overview of Results...............................................................................................5 

Section 2 Evaluation of Current Reclamation Technologies and Practices....................7 

2.1 Sources of Recovered Refrigerant for Reclamation ..............................................7 

2.2 Refrigerant Preparation Practices ..........................................................................8 

2.2.1 Weighing and evaluating contents of cylinder ..........................................8 

2.2.2 Recording information on cylinders and contents .....................................9 

2.2.3 Sending refrigerant off-site........................................................................9 

2.2.4 Combining quantities of refrigerant to reach batch purity thresholds .....10 

2.3 Blending...............................................................................................................10 

2.4 Reclamation Processes.........................................................................................11 

2.4.1 Typical reclamation processes .................................................................12 

2.4.2 “Off-the-shelf” compared to custom-designed systems ..........................15 

2.5 Mixed-gas Separation and Destruction................................................................17 

2.5.1 Mixed-gas separation...............................................................................17 

2.5.2 Destruction...............................................................................................18 

2.6 Post-reclamation Practices...................................................................................18 

Section 3 Potential Environmental Impacts of Reclamation..........................................18 

3.1 Potential Environmental Impacts During the Reclamation Process ....................19 

3.2 Potential Environmental Impacts of Reclaimed Refrigerant upon 

Market Reentry ....................................................................................................22 

Section 4 Best Practices for Reclamation.........................................................................24 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page vi 

SC12226

Section 5 Approaches to Ensuring Best Practices for Reclamation ..............................26 

5.1 Communications and Outreach............................................................................26 

5.1.1 Outreach to technicians............................................................................26 

5.1.2 Outreach to reclaimers .............................................................................27 

5.2 Technology Standards..........................................................................................28 

5.2.1 Applicability of AHRI Standard 740 .......................................................28 

5.3 Reporting Requirements ......................................................................................30 

5.3.1 Reporting information on technologies used ...........................................30 

5.3.2 Reporting information on refrigerant received and reclaimed.................31 

5.4 Mandatory Third-Party Certification...................................................................34 

5.4.1 AHRI third-party certification program...................................................34 

5.4.2 Criticism of AHRI’s voluntary program..................................................36 

5.4.3 Benefits of third-party certification in general ........................................38 

5.4.4 Costs of third-party certification in general.............................................39 

Section 6 Conclusions.........................................................................................................39 

References...................................................................................................................................42 

Appendix: Reclamation System Patents
SC12226

Tables 

1 Maximum allowable contaminant levels for R-22.............................................................2 

2 Individuals contacted for present study .............................................................................4 

3 Comparison of energy demand per pound to process refrigerant in 

cryogenic separation and simple distillation systems......................................................14 

4 Typical processes used to address AHRI Standard 700 specifications ...........................15 

5 Estimates of breakdown of types of reclamation systems ...............................................17 

6 Estimated environmental implications of refrigerant releases during hose 

hookups for reclamation in 2008 (assuming a 0.25% loss rate) ......................................21 

7 Relationship of presence of oil in chiller evaporators and energy efficiency loss ..........23 

8 Comparison of AHRI Standard 740 and AHRI Standard 700 specifications..................29 
 

 

SC12226 

1. Introduction 

Section 608 of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, the National Recycling and 

Emissions Reduction Program, requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the 

Agency) to establish regulations to reduce emissions of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). 

These regulations maximize the recycling of ODS, including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and their blends. Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 

Title 40, Part 82, Subpart F, details the rules and regulations implementing Section 608 of the 

CAAA. 

Under these regulations, no person may sell, distribute, or offer for sale or distribution for use as 

a refrigerant any Class I (i.e., CFCs) or Class II (i.e., HCFCs) substance consisting wholly or in 

part of used refrigerant, unless the refrigerant has been reclaimed.1

 Refrigerant reclamation refers 

to the reprocessing and upgrading of recovered refrigerant through such mechanisms as filtering, 

drying, distillation, and chemical treatment in order to restore the substance to specifications 

outlined in the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute’s (AHRI) Standard 700-

1995 (CFR, 2010). 

Companies that intend to reclaim refrigerants must be certified by EPA. As of October 2010, 

there were 54 EPA-certified reclaimers. To become EPA certified, the reclaimers must provide 

the following, among other items: 

 Information on the equipment used to reprocess the refrigerant2

 Information on the equipment used to analyze the refrigerant 

 Certification that the refrigerant will be reprocessed to the specifications set forth in 

AHRI Standard 700 and that the specifications will be verified using methods outlined in 

that standard 

 Certification that no more than 1.5% of the refrigerant handled will be released during the 

reclamation process 

 Acknowledgment that reclaimers must maintain and annually report records of the 

entities sending them refrigerant for reclamation, as well as the quantity of the refrigerant 

received, the quantity ultimately reclaimed, and the mass of waste products. 

 

1. This does not apply to used refrigerant originating from and intended for use with motor vehicle air 

conditioners. 

2. If the equipment is purchased off-the-shelf, reclaimers are required to provide information on the make, 

model, and serial number of the equipment. Otherwise, reclaimers must provide a description and photographs 

of the equipment and processes used. 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 2 

SC12226 

In 2008, the most recent year for which data are available, approximately 12.6 million pounds of 

refrigerant were reclaimed, including 10.0 million pounds of HCFC-22 (R-22), the most 

common refrigerant used in the industry (U.S. EPA, 2009c). In 2010, the year of a significant 

phase-down step for HCFC production, EPA estimated that 20% of R-22 servicing demand in 

the United States can be met using recovered (including reclaimed and recycled)3 refrigerant. 

The amount of R-22 reclaimed in 2008 would represent only 7.3% of demand for that refrigerant 

in 2010. Adding the amount of recycled refrigerant to the refrigerant that is reclaimed will 

increase this percentage, but it is believed that the total current amount of recovered refrigerant 

will still be less than 20% (U.S. EPA, 2009b). 

1.1 Concern about Quality of Reclaimed Refrigerant 

To be properly reclaimed, refrigerant must be restored to the specifications outlined in AHRI 

Standard 700. This standard includes specifications for the maximum allowable levels of certain 

contaminants. As an example, Table 1 presents the maximum allowable levels of contaminants 

for R-22, the most commonly reclaimed refrigerant, as specified in AHRI Standard 700. 

Table 1. Maximum allowable contaminant levels for R-22 

Contaminant Reporting unit 

AHRI Standard 

700 section 

Maximum 

allowable level 

Vapor phase contaminants 

Air and other noncondensable % by volume at 23.9°C 5.10 1.5 

Liquid phase contaminants 

Water/moisture ppm by weight 5.4 10 

All other volatile impurities (including 

other refrigerants) % by weight 5.11 0.5 

High boiling residue % by volume 5.8 0.01 

Particulates/solids Visually clean to pass 5.9 Pass 

Acidity ppm by weight (as HCl) 5.7 1.0 

Chloride No visible turbidity 5.6 Pass 

Source: AHRI, 1995. 

 

3. Recycled refrigerant may be reused in the same owner’s equipment without having to be reclaimed, so long 

as the refrigerant does not change ownership (40 CFR 82 Subpart F). 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 3 

SC12226 

At present, there are no federally mandated standards that specify reclamation equipment and 

operational criteria to ensure safe practice and minimal releases of refrigerant to the atmosphere. 

In addition, the large volume of refrigerant that is reclaimed each year makes it difficult to verify 

that all reclaimed refrigerant has been returned to the specifications outlined in AHRI Standard 

700. This challenge will become increasingly important as the United States continues to phase 

out HCFC production, which is expected to increase demand for reclaimed refrigerant. 

In the past, EPA proposed establishing a mandatory third-party certification program where an 

independent laboratory would verify that reclaimed refrigerant has been returned to AHRI 

Standard 700 specifications. However, despite the fact that many reclaimers seek independent 

testing on their own, there is no mandatory third-party certification program at this time. 

1.2 Purpose and Outline of Study 

This study is intended to improve understanding of the technical aspects of reclamation 

equipment and practices, how they relate to the quality of reclaimed refrigerant, and the potential 

for environmental impacts. This study includes analyses of the following: 

 Current reclamation technologies and practices (Section 2) 

 Potential environmental impacts of reclamation (Section 3) 

 Best practices for reclamation (Section 4) 

 Approaches to ensuring best practices for reclamation (Section 5). 

Section 6 provides a summary of findings and conclusions. 

1.3 Information Collection Methodology 

To complete this study, information on reclamation technologies and practices was collected 

using three approaches. 

1.3.1 Industry input solicitation 

Much of the information provided in this study is based on conversations with individuals 

affiliated with the reclamation industry.4

 

 

4. Although respondents were asked to answer a wide range of questions on reclamation topics, no single 

question was asked to more than nine respondents. 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 4 

SC12226 

 Reclaimers. Reclaimers were contacted to obtain information on current reclamation 

technologies and practices, best practices for reducing potential emissions, and potential 

options for reducing refrigerant emissions and to maximize the amount of refrigerant that 

reenters the market. 

 Industry trade association representatives. A representative of a major refrigeration 

and air-conditioning trade association was contacted for information pertaining to the 

implementation of a potential mandatory third-party certification program for reclaimed 

refrigerant. 

 Laboratory representatives. A representative from a major refrigerant testing laboratory 

was contacted for information pertaining to how frequently and through what processes 

reclaimers have their products independently tested. 

 Refrigeration and air-conditioning system experts. Experts from multiple refrigeration 

and air-conditioning system manufacturing companies were contacted regarding the 

environmental implications of charging systems with refrigerant that has not been 

properly or completely reclaimed. 

Individuals contacted for this study are identified in Table 2. 

Table 2. Individuals contacted for present study 

Name Company/organization 

Reclaimers 

David Andrew Perfect Cycle 

Ted Atwood Polar Technologies 

Ken Beringer Airgas 

Tim Dean Environment First 

Rich Dykstra Consolidated Refrigerant Reclaim 

Michael Gerhart Chill-Tek 

Carl Grolle Golden Refrigerant 

Steve Mandracchia Hudson Technologies 

Aubry McCarley Turner and Schoel 

Jim Sweetman Consolidated Refrigerant Solutions 

Steve Trevino Summit Refrigerants 

Jimmy Trout AllCool 

Jeff Zirkle Total Reclaim 

Industry organizations 

Karim Amrane AHRI 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 5 

SC12226 

Table 2. Individuals contacted for present study (cont.) 

Name Company/organization 

Refrigerant testing laboratories 

John Senediak InterTek 

Air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment manufacturers 

Ken Hickman Johnson Controls (formerly with York) 

Fred Keller Carrier Residential (formerly) 

Jeff Staub Danfoss 

William Walter Carrier Residential 

1.3.2 Patent search 

A thorough review of U.S. and international patents was conducted to identify existing 

reclamation technologies and equipment. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was consulted. 

This information contributes to a general understanding of current reclamation technology 

commercialization and research. 

1.3.3 Literature review 

In general, there is little published information available pertaining to the reclamation industry’s 

technologies and practices. However, several resources were essential to this study. These 

included: 

 Materials available in dockets from past EPA regulatory development 

 AHRI standards (e.g., AHRI Standard 700) and program operational manuals (e.g., AHRI 

Reclaimed Refrigerants Certification Program Operational Manual) 

 Industry news (e.g., Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration News). 

1.4 Overview of Results 

This study produced several key findings, including the following: 

 The reclamation industry is very diverse – there is no “typical” reclaimer. There are 

considerable differences between the larger and smaller reclaimers, including differences 

in the technologies used and the sophistication of the operations. This is evidenced by the 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 6 

SC12226 

many differences present in the patents identified in this study. In addition, reclamation 

systems have a variety of advantages and disadvantages, and the type of system used will 

depend on the reclaimer’s needs. 

 Each reclaimer contacted for this study stated that they use the best practices known to 

them. However, reclaimers were generally unable to articulate specific best practices that 

EPA should support. The few reclaimers that did identify specific best practices focused 

more on operations and maintenance, and less on technologies. 

 As noted by most reclaimers, the primary reason why releases might occur would be 

human error during refrigerant handling. However, releases from air-conditioning and 

refrigeration systems due to contaminated refrigerant are possible, but it is difficult to 

determine whether such releases occur as a result of poor reclamation practices. 

 Nearly every reclaimer contacted for this study emphasized the importance of reaching 

out to technicians as the most expedient means of increasing the amount of refrigerant 

that is reclaimed and reducing emissions (e.g., from illegal venting). In general, 

reclaimers did not believe that outreach to the reclamation industry about best practices 

would lead to significant additional benefits. 

 Reclaimers are supportive of increased reporting requirements but believe that the 

benefits of such requirements would be minimal unless complemented by additional 

reporting requirements for technicians. Reclaimers believe that there would be significant 

benefits to requiring reporting that establishes a complete information chain (i.e., from 

technician to wholesaler to reclaimer) that describes how much refrigerant is being 

recovered and what its fate is. 

 Reclaimers are supportive of mandatory third-party testing but are concerned about the 

costs of participation. Nearly every reclaimer contacted for this study sends samples of 

their product to be tested by independent laboratories. The AHRI Third-Party 

Certification program could be a useful model for a mandatory program, but many 

reclaimers have concerns about how the voluntary program is managed and the costs, as 

evidenced by the current low participation rate. 

 Requiring that off-the-shelf equipment meet specific technological standards will only 

lead to minimal emissions reductions, considering the very small market for such 

equipment and the assumed effectiveness of the typical custom-made equipment used by 

reclaimers today. 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 7 

SC12226 

2. Evaluation of Current Reclamation Technologies 

and Practices 

This section provides an overview of the technologies and practices used by reclaimers, 

beginning with their receipt of recovered refrigerant and ending with their packaging of the 

reclaimed product for resale. 

2.1 Sources of Recovered Refrigerant for Reclamation 

The containers of recovered refrigerant that reclaimers receive are of variable size and condition. 

The contents of the cylinders can cover a range of refrigerants that, despite the containers’ 

labeling, are typically assumed to be unknown because of the potential for cross-contamination. 

The refrigerant comes from numerous sources. Most often, it comes to reclaimers indirectly from 

wholesalers who accept cylinders as a service to technicians. Less frequently, the refrigerant 

comes directly from technicians who drop it off at the reclaimers’ facilities. In some instances, 

reclaimers will travel to work sites to recover the refrigerant themselves as a service to 

technicians. One reclaimer said his company gets most of its refrigerant by traveling to 

technicians’ sites and doing pick-ups (Rich Dykstra, Consolidated Refrigerant Reclaim, personal 

communication, June 17, 2010). 

According to some reclaimers, the amount of refrigerant that comes directly from technicians is 

increasing as the value of R-22 increases because technicians can get a better price from the 

reclaimers than from the wholesalers, who typically charge the technicians a disposal fee (which 

usually ranges between $20 and $75 per 30-lb cylinder; David Andrew, Perfect Cycle, personal 

communication, June 9, 2010; Steve Trevino, Summit Refrigerants, personal communication, 

June 22, 2010). One reclaimer noted concern that many wholesalers are “double-charging”; 

reclaimers have to purchase recovered refrigerant from the wholesalers and the wholesalers do 

not pass the money through to the technicians, who pay the wholesaler a disposal fee (Steve 

Mandracchia, Hudson Technologies, personal communication, June 9, 2010). Another reclaimer 

noted that with future increases in the price of R-22, it is reasonable to believe that wholesalers 

will begin to offer financial incentives to the technicians (TAP, 2010; Steve Trevino, Summit 

Refrigerants, personal communication, June 22, 2010). 

In general, technicians who recover the refrigerant from refrigeration and air-conditioning 

systems are servicing multiple systems each day. The refrigerant recovered from each system can 

be exposed to a range of contaminants. In addition, refrigerant recovered from different systems 

can be of differing types [e.g., HFC-410A (R-410A) versus R-22]. Although most technicians 

will recover different types of refrigerant using different recovery cylinders, there is the potential 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 8 

SC12226 

for cross-contamination (e.g., using the same cylinder to service systems using different 

refrigerants or using the same hoses to hook up different cylinders). As a result, the refrigerant 

that arrives at the reclaimers’ facilities typically has some degree of contamination or mixed 

refrigerant. 

Only a very small portion of the recovered refrigerant that reclaimers receive originally comes 

from landfills or scrap yards. According to one reclaimer, it is not cost effective for reclaimers or 

technicians to spend time recovering very small quantities of refrigerant from small appliances at 

these locations (Ken Beringer, Airgas, personal communication, June 8, 2010). However, for one 

reclaimer, demolition of discarded air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment accounts for as 

much as 90% of the refrigerant that his company ultimately reclaims (Jeff Zirkle, Total Reclaim, 

personal communication, June 15, 2010). 

One reclaimer explained that his company gets its refrigerant solely from refrigerant 

manufacturers. This refrigerant is usually from quality-control samples and trial runs or from 

production line manufacturing malfunctions. The manufacturers cannot sell this refrigerant 

directly, so they sell it to reclaimers (Tim Dean, Environment First, personal communication, 

June 16, 2010). 

Many reclaimers have established incentive programs to encourage technicians and wholesalers 

to turn in recovered R-22 [for descriptions of these programs, see Stratus Consulting (2008) and 

Powell (2008)]. 

2.2 Refrigerant Preparation Practices 

This section describes several steps that reclaimers take to prepare refrigerant for reclamation. 

2.2.1 Weighing and evaluating contents of cylinder 

The reclaimers’ first tasks are to weigh the cylinder (to determine the volume of refrigerant 

inside) and to determine the contents of each cylinder they receive. In general, all reclaimers use 

a hand-held gas analyzer (e.g., a Neutronics tester) to determine the contents of refrigerant 

containers. If the contents of a specific container (e.g., a 30-lb cylinder) appear to be well-mixed, 

the reclaimer might decide to use a more sophisticated gas chromatographer to establish a more 

detailed understanding of the container’s contents. In general, reclaimers believe that gas 

analyzers are reliable, especially the newer models. In addition, although gas chromatography 

can produce more detailed analysis, it is more time intensive and most reclaimers prefer to use 

gas analyzers when possible. According to one reclaimer, running the gas chromatographer on a 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 9 

SC12226 

cylinder takes as long as 30 minutes (this can be as short as 10 to 20 minutes for new models; 

Jimmy Trout, AllCool, personal communication, June 24, 2010).5

 

2.2.2 Recording information on cylinders and contents 

Once the contents of a cylinder have been determined and the cylinder has been weighed, the 

information is typically entered into a computer database along with various transactional 

information, including the date, the name of the technician or wholesaler (or other source) from 

which the refrigerant came, and the cylinder identification number. Some reclaimers also include 

notes about the condition of the cylinder or notes describing concerns about unclear gas 

analyzers or chromatography readings. According to one reclaimer, entering this data typically 

requires approximately 3 minutes per 30-lb cylinder (Jimmy Trout, AllCool, personal 

communication, June 24, 2010). 

Reclaimers often maintain these records as a service to the technicians and wholesalers with 

whom they work, as many technicians maintain refrigerant recovery/servicing records for facility 

owners and managers who are obligated to keep records by regulation. One reclaimer 

commented that the wholesaler from whom he receives all of his recovered refrigerant requires 

the reclaimer to maintain detailed records of every cylinder, as a service to the wholesaler’s 

technicians. The result, in many reclaimers’ practices, is a trail of information that can link a 

reclaimer to a specific technician and often to a specific job site if the technician also maintains 

accurate records. 

2.2.3 Sending refrigerant off-site 

After reclaimers determine the contents of the containers received, they often have to send some 

of the containers to other facilities if the refrigerant is a type that their systems cannot handle. 

For example, most off-the-shelf reclamation systems are designed to handle high-pressure 

refrigerants, so reclaimers with these systems typically send quantities of low-pressure 

refrigerant off-site to be handled elsewhere (David Andrew, Perfect Cycle, personal 

communication, June 9, 2010). 

 

5. One reclaimer noted that refrigerant identification is an area where technology research and development is 

needed to reduce the amount of time it takes to complete detailed analysis of container contents. Faster, more 

accurate refrigerant analyses could save reclaimers a lot of time and energy consumption (e.g., if the analyses 

better enable them to plan batches; TAP, 2010). 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 10 

SC12226 

2.2.4 Combining quantities of refrigerant to reach batch purity thresholds 

Reclaimers will use the information in their databases to conceptually mix-and-match quantities 

of refrigerant from different cylinders to produce bulk batches that meet or exceed a given 

overall purity level. The objective of this exercise is to create combinations that will utilize the 

maximum amount of the recovered refrigerant while minimizing the energy that will be required 

to bring each batch back to the required purity level of 99.5%. Below a certain level of purity, 

multiple or abnormally long runs through the reclamation equipment might be necessary. 

Reclaimers typically have a batch target purity level in mind when designing these combinations. 

This target level might be determined by the amount of time a reclaimer has to run a batch (more 

time is required for batches of lower initial purity levels) or by the efficiency of the reclamation 

equipment. For many reclaimers, the target is approximately 98%, meaning that any combination 

resulting in an initial batch purity level less than 98% is probably not economical. 

After planning out refrigerant combinations, reclaimers combine refrigerant from multiple 

cylinders into one batch. The size of the batch varies depending on the capacity of the equipment 

the reclaimer is using. Most off-the-shelf reclamation systems hold less than 100 pounds of 

refrigerant at a given time (e.g., the Van Steenberg JV-90 holds 90 pounds; Van Steenberg, 

2010). Reclaimers who have designed their own systems, often for the purpose of being able to 

reclaim a significantly larger quantity of refrigerant, are typically capable of running batches of 

10,000 to 20,000 pounds (Rich Dykstra, Consolidated Refrigerant Reclaim, personal 

communication, June 17, 2010; Steve Trevino, Summit Refrigerants, personal communication, 

June 22, 2010). 

One reclaimer explained how one barrier to getting more reclaimed refrigerant back onto the 

market is the protection of patents for certain refrigerant blends. Many chemical manufacturers 

have patents on the blends they produce, and reclaimers are prevented from combining quantities 

of refrigerant to restore the purity to the correct specifications of that blend. For example, the 

reclaimer noted that it is impossible for reclaimers to combine quantities of R-410A to increase 

the overall purity level back to specification because doing so would be a violation of patents for 

that refrigerant (Carl Grolle, Golden Refrigerant, personal communication, June 10, 2010). 

2.3 Blending 

Some larger reclaimers are able to purchase virgin refrigerant, which can be combined with 

mixed refrigerant to increase the purity. For these reclaimers, “blending” can be a more costeffective option than the more energy-intensive process of passing recovered refrigerant through 

a fractional distillation column or destroying the refrigerant (U.S. EPA, 2009a). Blending also 

requires much less energy than separation or destruction. According to one estimate, separation 

requires as much as 300 times more energy per pound to process refrigerant than blending 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 11 

SC12226 

(Mandracchia, 2009). One reclaimer noted that if his company were able to blend, they would 

not have to send mixed gas of purities between 96% and 98% to another company to be 

separated (Rich Dykstra, Consolidated Refrigerant Reclaim, personal communication, June 17, 

2010). 

There is concern that blending refrigerant back to the requisite purity levels could result in 

lower-quality refrigerant than is possible with the more rigorous reclamation process. However, 

according to at least one reclaimer whose company does blend, blending is never considered a 

substitute for the reclamation process. Blended refrigerant is always run through the reclamation 

system to remove other potential contaminants. For this reason, the reclaimed refrigerant that is a 

combination of recovered and virgin refrigerant cannot be distinguished on the resale end from 

reclaimed refrigerant that comes solely from recovered refrigerant (Ken Beringer, Airgas, 

personal communication, June 8, 2010). Other reclaimers corroborate the assertion that 

reclaimed refrigerant that has been blended cannot be distinguished from other reclaimed 

refrigerant (e.g., TAP, 2010; Steve Mandracchia, Hudson Technologies, personal 

communication, June 9, 2010; Jimmy Trout, AllCool, personal communication, June 24, 2010). 

Most of the reclaimers contacted for this study do not blend pure refrigerant into recovered 

refrigerant to meet specifications. Most claim that the price of pure refrigerant is prohibitive and 

will become more cost prohibitive in the future as the price of virgin R-22 increases (Ken 

Beringer, Airgas, personal communication, June 8, 2010). Some are not aware that this is 

practiced in the field but suspect that only the half-dozen largest reclaimers blend with pure 

refrigerant (Rich Dykstra, Consolidated Refrigerant Reclaim, personal communication, June 17, 

2010). 

2.4 Reclamation Processes 

To be restored to AHRI Standard 700 specifications, refrigerant must pass through a number of 

different processes. The processes that are used depend on several factors, including type of 

refrigerant, quality of refrigerant, potential contaminants, size of the batch, and other 

considerations. These factors are a function of the reclaimers’ business operations 

(e.g., reclaimers that only process small batches of almost pure R-22 might use different 

processes than a large reclaimer that processes large batches of refrigerant with a higher 

proportion of mixed gas). This section describes the types of processes used to reclaim 

refrigerant. 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 12 

SC12226 

2.4.1 Typical reclamation processes 

To better understand the universe of technologies available, a review of U.S. patents for 

reclamation systems was conducted through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Web Patent 

Databases. The review revealed that there are 49 patents for refrigerant reclamation systems (the 

specific patents are listed in the appendix). These systems typically fall under three types of 

classification, depending on the primary technologies used to separate the desired refrigerant.6

These primary separation technologies are described below. 

Distillation 

Simple distillation, which is sufficient for separating component parts with boiling points that are 

different by a significant degree (roughly 25°C), can be used to remove nonrefrigerant 

contaminants (e.g., oil, moisture, noncondensables) by evaporating components and then 

condensing them in separation. Distillation is the most common primary separation method for 

reclamation systems; this is probably due to the fact that it is a well-established technology in the 

refrigeration industry. Of the 49 patents identified in this study, 28 were for distillation systems. 

Based on information provided by reclaimers, nearly all of the systems in use today rely on 

distillation as the primary separation method. 

Based on the patent review, there are two types of distillation-based reclamation systems: 

 Distillation using a compressor. The majority of reclamation system patents were for 

distillation systems that use a compressor between the evaporation and condensation 

stages, although there was a significant amount of variability between these systems 

(e.g., in terms of application, some systems are intended for use with motor vehicles 

only). The compressor is used to increase the pressure of the refrigerant in order to use 

ambient air as a heat-exchange medium to condensate the refrigerant. 

The presence of oil is a concern with these types of systems. Because current 

compressors still require oil, it is inevitable that these reclamation systems will discharge 

some amount of oil into the distilled refrigerant. It is typical for these systems to 

discharge 0.5% to 1% of oil by mass with the refrigerant (TAP, 2010). Because AHRI 

Standard 700 requires that less than 0.01% oil by volume be present in reclaimed 

refrigerant, oil has to be removed with a dedicated separation technology after the 

distillation process. In addition, these systems typically have a larger number of 

components, meaning additional joints, each of which could be a potential leak source. 

However, the prevalence of leaks from such systems could not be determined from the 

patent review or through industry expert elicitation (TAP, 2010). 

 

6. It is important to note that most reclaimers do not purchase the types of complete systems described in this 

section; as noted above, it is believed that most reclaimers build or modify their own reclamation systems. 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 13 

SC12226 

 Distillation without using a compressor. Some distillation-based separation systems do 

not use a compressor between the evaporation and condensation phases. Elimination of 

the compressor can reduce the amount of energy required in the separation process and 

also eliminate the concern of oil in discharged refrigerant. In terms of refrigerant 

purification, this setup can be used to achieve the same purities as a distillation system 

that uses a compressor. However, with this arrangement, the reclaiming process rate 

could be limited in terms of processing, since the driving force is the pressure gradient 

within the system. 

Adsorption/desorption 

Adsorption/desorption separation systems rely on adsorbent beds to separate a refrigerant from 

other components. These systems can be operated in semicontinuous mode or in batch mode 

(with chambers in series or parallel form). In a typical system, contaminated refrigerant enters an 

initial adsorption chamber where the refrigerant is adsorbed to an adsorbent bed; impurities are 

not adsorbed in this chamber and continue to a second chamber, from which they are discharged. 

After the impurities have been isolated, the refrigerant can be desorbed from the adsorption bed 

by activating it with heat, after which it can be collected from the system. 

The main advantage of this technology is that the pure refrigerant can be extracted from the 

contaminated refrigerant mixture without using numerous devices. It is a simple system that 

requires only pumping and desorbing energy. However, one major drawback is that the 

adsorbent refrigerant is designed to work for one specific refrigerant and usually its adsorbing 

capacity diminishes over time. Therefore, these systems are typically not flexible in terms of 

reclaiming different refrigerants (TAP, 2010). The adsorption/desorption system can only 

perform in a quasi-continuous mode. Once the adsorption chamber reaches its capacity to adsorb 

refrigerant, controls need to initiate the necessary changes to desorb the chamber. If there are 

plenty of chambers and the controls are sophisticated, the system can work in quasi-continuous 

manner. However, in terms of scalability and throughput, it is entirely dependent on the 

adsorbent refrigerant’s reaction time. 

Based on information provided by reclaimers, it is unlikely that many (if any) reclaimers use 

systems that rely on this technology. 

Cryogenic subcooling 

In a cryogenic subcooling system, dirty refrigerant is cooled in three stages to a temperature of 

-100°F. The refrigerant is then sent through cryogenic filtration with coalescent filters. These 

filters remove 100% of particles larger than 0.1 micron and 93% of particles smaller than 

0.1 micron. In the last step, a microprocessor-controlled purge device releases noncondensables 

(TAP, 2010). 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 14 

SC12226 

There are three advantages of this technology. First, this purification system can be used with 

any refrigerant. Second, the purity of the recovered refrigerant is not significant, unlike most 

distillation processes for which it is necessary to have a minimum concentration of refrigerant 

before the refrigerant enters the reclamation process. The third advantage is the operating 

pressure. Due to the extreme cold temperature of the refrigerant after cooling, the pressure is 

much less than in a typical distillation separation system; this presents a much smaller risk of 

leakage through faulty joints during the separation process. However, the energy required to cool 

the liquid to -100°F can be significant; this is likely a key reason why this technology is not 

common in the industry (TAP, 2010). 

It is possible to account for the energy penalty associated with cryogenic subcooling compared to 

simple distillation. The estimated energy needed to process two types of refrigerant using these 

types of separation is presented in Table 3. As the table indicates, the amount of energy [in 

British Thermal Units (BTUs) per pound] is roughly three times greater for both refrigerant types 

in cryogenic separation systems. It is important to note that this is a first-order analysis that only 

accounts for the energy directly used for the refrigerant without impurities and without 

consideration of heat loss and/or gain and other system components. 

Table 3. Comparison of energy demand per pound to process refrigerant in cryogenic 

separation and simple distillation systems 

Refrigerant 

Latent heat 

at 25°C kJ/kg 

Sensible heat at 0°C 

to -75°C kJ/kg 

Coefficient of 

performance 

Overall energy 

required in kJ/kg 

(BTU/lb) 

Simple distillation (condenser independent) 

R-22 187.2 Not applicable 3 62.4 (26.9) 

R-410A 181.7 Not applicable 3 60 (25.9) 

Cryogenic subcooling 

R-22 Not applicable 83.1 0.5 166.2 (71.6) 

R-410A Not applicable 105.1 0.5 210.2 (90.6) 

Source: TAP, 2010. 

Based on information provided by reclaimers, the energy demands and overall costs associated 

with this technology make it very unlikely that many reclaimers would use cryogenic separation. 

However, at least one reclaimer does use this technology. 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 15 

SC12226 

Other separation processes 

The distillation, cryogenic subcooling, and adsorption/desorption methods described above are 

used to remove impurities (including other refrigerants) from the batch, such as those that might 

be introduced through mixing or as a result of chemical breakdown of the refrigerant itself 

(e.g., if moisture causes morphing). To reclaim refrigerant to all AHRI Standard 700 

specifications, a number of secondary technologies must also be used. These technologies 

include desiccant driers for moisture and acid, high-efficiency purge systems for 

noncondensables, and micron filters for other particulates (TAP, 2010). Table 4 provides a 

general breakdown of the types of processes used to address the different specifications 

prescribed in AHRI Standard 700. 

Table 4. Typical processes used to address AHRI Standard 700 specifications 

Specification Process used 

Vapor phase contaminants 

Air and other noncondensables High-efficiency cascade (refrigerated) purge units 

Liquid phase contaminants 

Water/moisture Distillation followed by desiccant drier 

All other volatile impurities 

(including other refrigerants) Prereclamation blending and mixed-gas separation (described in Section 2.5)

High boiling residue Distillation 

Particulates/solids Multiple 1-micrometer filters 

Acidity Base bath followed by desiccant drier 

Chloride Distillation 

2.4.2 “Off-the-shelf” compared to customdesigned systems 

Primary and secondary separation technologies are 

combined in comprehensive reclamation systems. 

For example, a reclamation system that involves 

distillation with a compressor will incorporate an oil 

separation process to remove the oil that is 

discharged from the distillation equipment. Several 

of the patents reviewed for this study were for 

comprehensive reclamation systems that combined 

the primary and secondary separation technologies. 

Reclamation system characteristics 

The types and combinations of technologies 

used have implications for the following 

reclamation system characteristics: 

 Speed of system 

 Capacity 

 Energy and water efficiency 

 Type of refrigerant that can be 

reclaimed (e.g., high-pressure or lowpressure refrigerants) 

 Ability to operate in continuous mode 

 Minimum initial impurity level. 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 16 

SC12226 

At present, there are a number of small-sized reclamation equipment models that can be 

purchased off-the-shelf. Although these systems are limited in terms of capacity and speed 

(reclamation rates vary from 2 to 5 lb per minute for the smaller off-the-shelf models), they are 

favored by reclaimers who process smaller quantities of refrigerant and by reclaimers who are 

just recently entering the market (David Andrew, Perfect Cycle, personal communication, 

June 9, 2010). One reclaimer, for example, explained that his company only runs its reclamation 

system once a week. For this off-the-shelf system, which holds approximately 90 lb of 

refrigerant at a time, it takes approximately 20 minutes to process the refrigerant (Aubry 

McCarley, Turner and Schoel, personal communication, June 11, 2010). According to one 

reclaimer, a used commercial reclamation system can be purchased for as little as a few hundred 

dollars (TAP, 2010). 

Reclaimers who handle larger quantities of refrigerant or who require faster reclamation speeds 

will typically design their own systems in-house or substantially modify commercially purchased 

systems to meet their needs (Rich Dykstra, Consolidated Refrigerant Reclaim, personal 

communication, June 17, 2010). These systems are much more expensive. According to one 

medium-sized reclaimer, the cost to the reclaimer of rebuilding a reclamation system (the 

distillation piece, to be precise) from scratch would be a few thousand dollars, but the cost to 

replace the company’s entire reclamation operations would be at least $500,000 (TAP, 2010). 

According to a manufacturer of off-the-shelf reclamation equipment, most reclaimers start off 

using off-the-shelf equipment because their operations are smaller. Usually after two years of 

business, the reclaimers graduate to a self-designed system that can handle larger quantities at 

higher rates (David Andrew, Perfect Cycle, personal communication, June 9, 2010). In addition, 

most reclaimers start off purchasing systems that can handle high-pressure refrigerants 

(e.g., R-22) and send any quantities of low-pressure refrigerants (several major CFCs) to larger 

reclaimers (David Andrew, Perfect Cycle, personal communication, June 9, 2010). 

Estimates of the percentage breakdown of reclaimers using off-the-shelf and custom-designed 

reclamation systems vary (see Table 5). Based on input from several reclaimers, the percentage 

of systems that are custom designed typically ranges from 10% to 40% (TAP, 2010; Ken 

Beringer, Airgas, personal communication, June 8, 2010). However, one reclaimer estimated that 

nearly every system in use was either custom designed or substantially modified from an off-theshelf model (TAP, 2010). Estimates of the percentage of systems that are purchased off-the-shelf 

and used without modification are typically very small, no more than 10% (TAP, 2010). 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 17 

SC12226 

Table 5. Estimates of breakdown of types of reclamation systems 

Type 

Estimated percentage of all 

reclamation systems 

Custom designed by reclaimer 10 to 40 

Purchased off-the-shelf Less than 10 

Purchased off-the-shelf and modified 40 to 80 

2.5 Mixed-gas Separation and Destruction 

Simple distillation and separation technologies, such as those described in Section 2.4, are not 

sufficient (or not economical) to separate quantities of low-purity (below 98%) refrigerant. Such 

“mixed gas” is typically the result of technicians inadvertently using the same recovery cylinder 

to service equipment that contains different types of refrigerant (Steve Mandracchia, Hudson 

Technologies, personal communication, June 9, 2010; Carl Grolle, Golden Refrigerant, personal 

communication, June 10, 2010; Rich Dykstra, Consolidated Refrigerant Reclaim, personal 

communication, June 17, 2010). This section describes options for handling mixed gas. 

2.5.1 Mixed-gas separation 

Several processes can be used to separate mixed-gas; the most common is fractional distillation 

(Powell, 2009). However, few reclaimers have the resources to perform these complex processes, 

which can require as much as 50 times more energy per pound to process refrigerant than 

standard reclamation processes (Mandracchia, 2009). According to one reclaimer, there are only 

three or four facilities with separation capability at present (Steve Mandracchia, Hudson 

Technologies, personal communication, June 9, 2010). Most reclaimers will send mixed gas that 

is not easily blended up to 99.5% purity to these separation facilities. 

One reclaimer explained that the cost of separation for a 75% purity R-22 is about $3 per pound 

(not including the shipping cost), which would be taken out of the price the separation facility 

paid for the refrigerant. At present, separation facilities will purchase R-22 even if the purity of 

the refrigerant is as low as 75% because of the current price of R-22 (Jimmy Trout, AllCool, 

personal communication, June 24, 2010).7

 

 

7. According to one reclaimer, the price for recovered R-22 is currently close to $2.00 per pound (Steve 

Trevino, Summit Refrigerants, personal communication, June 22, 2010). 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 18 

SC12226 

One reclaimer estimated that 10% of the refrigerant his company receives is mixed gas that is 

sent away to be separated (Rich Dykstra, Consolidated Refrigerant Reclaim, personal 

communication, June 17, 2010). Another reclaimer estimated that the amount of mixed gas the 

company receives is between 10% and 15% (Carl Grolle, Golden Refrigerant, personal 

communication, June 10, 2010). The mixed-gas problem might become more common in the 

near future, according to some reclaimers (e.g., Ken Beringer, Airgas, personal communication, 

June 8, 2010; Jeff Zirkle, Total Reclaim, personal communication, June 15, 2010). This is 

because of the increasing phase out of R-22; as more R-22 is phased out, consumption of R-22 

substitutes will continue to increase. As more substitutes are used in the field, there will be 

greater potential for cross-contamination. 

2.5.2 Destruction 

When reclaimers receive a quantity of mixed-gas refrigerant that contains a relatively high 

percentage of other refrigerants (typically refrigerant with purity levels of 70% or lower), 

separating the refrigerants through conventional methods can be cost prohibitive. In such 

instances, mixed-gas refrigerant is usually destroyed through incineration, which is an energyintensive process. According to one reclaimer, less than 5% of all the refrigerant his company 

receives is sent away to be destroyed (Rich Dykstra, Consolidated Refrigerant Reclaim, personal 

communication, June 17, 2010). Another reclaimer stated that his company sends only minimal 

amounts of refrigerant to be destroyed each year (Jimmy Trout, AllCool, personal 

communication, June 24, 2010). 

2.6 Post-reclamation Practices 

Once the refrigerant has been reclaimed, samples are drawn and tested on-site (using the same 

equipment as is used to determine the contents of refrigerant containers when they are initially 

received) to verify that the process has returned the refrigerant to AHRI Standard 700 

specifications. Each reclaimer contacted for this study stated that their company sends a sample 

of every bulk batch of reclaimed refrigerant to an independent laboratory (typically InterTek 

Laboratories) to verify its quality. This procedure helps to validate the reclaimers’ own testing 

methods. 

3. Potential Environmental Impacts of Reclamation 

As described in Section 2, the processes involved in reclaiming refrigerants are complex and 

involve numerous technologies. At present, there are no required equipment specifications or 

operational criteria for these processes and technologies that would ensure they are safe and 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 19 

SC12226 

minimize releases of refrigerants to the atmosphere, both during the reclamation process and 

when the refrigerant re-enters the market. 

This section identifies ways in which reclamation processes and use of reclaimed refrigerant 

could lead to adverse environmental impacts, particularly emissions of refrigerant to the 

atmosphere. 

3.1 Potential Environmental Impacts During the 

Reclamation Process 

Because existing reclamation systems are not currently required to meet equipment 

specifications or operational criteria, there is concern that these systems might be emitting 

refrigerant to the atmosphere during reclamation processes. 

Reclaimers consistently stated that although it is possible that small amounts of refrigerant could 

be released to the atmosphere during reclamation, these releases would generally be minute. The 

reclaimers emphasized the fact that any possible large releases would only be caused by human 

accident and that these are rare. When asked whether the reclamation process results in releases 

nearing the 1.5% de minimis threshold allowable under EPA regulations, reclaimers consistently 

stated that losing that much refrigerant would be very unusual. For a reclaimer that reclaims 

100,000 pounds of refrigerant for the year, a 1.5% loss would amount to 150 pounds of 

refrigerant that the reclaimer has purchased but will not be able to resell. For most reclaimers, 

such a loss would be significant in terms of its effect on profits. 

The most likely source of refrigerant release during the reclamation process is when reclaimers 

hook up portable cylinders that contain the recovered refrigerant to the larger batch containers. 

Reclaimers noted that there is always the potential for unavoidable releases when hose fittings 

are attached to or removed from cylinder valves, but these releases are typically believed to be 

much less than 1.5%. 

According to one reclaimer, releases during hose hookup typically amount to less than 0.25% of 

the refrigerant handled (Rich Dykstra, Consolidated Refrigerant Reclaim, personal 

communication, June 17, 2010). Based on this estimate and using EPA data on the amount of 

each refrigerant that is reclaimed each year (as reported by reclaimers), it is possible to 

approximate the maximum amount of refrigerant that is lost each year due to releases during 

hose hookup. According to EPA, approximately 12.6 million pounds of refrigerant were 

reclaimed in 2008, the most recent year for which data are available (U.S. EPA, 2008b). 

Assuming a 0.25% loss rate, 12.6 million pounds represents 99.75% of the refrigerant that 

entered the reclamation process, meaning approximately 31,470 pounds of refrigerant were lost 

due to releases during hose hookups. 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 20 

SC12226 

Table 6 indicates how this quantity of lost refrigerant could be distributed by refrigerant type, 

based on EPA data. The table also indicates the potential impacts on the environment in terms of 

the combined ozone depletion potential (ODP) and global warming potential (GWP) associated 

with emissions of the different refrigerants. As shown, it is estimated that an aggregate loss of 

31,470 pounds of refrigerant in 2008 would result in the emission of 3 ODP metric tons and 

39,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e), which is approximately equal to the 

quantity of carbon dioxide emissions produced by 7,500 passenger vehicles over the course of a 

year (U.S. EPA, 2010).8 For the purposes of comparison, if it were assumed that 1.5% of 

refrigerant was lost during reclamation (the maximum amount allowable under EPA regulations), 

the total emissions using the same calculation would be approximately 18 ODP metric tons and 

237,000 MTCO2e for 2008. 

One reclaimer noted that there is the potential for releases post-reclamation (but before the 

cylinder reenters the market) if reclaimers are not careful to avoid overfilling cylinders with 

reclaimed refrigerant. If a cylinder is overfilled and then exposed to higher temperatures (e.g., in 

a hot warehouse), the increased pressure could cause the cylinder valves to “pop,” resulting in a 

refrigerant release (Rich Dykstra, Consolidated Refrigerant Reclaim, personal communication, 

June 17, 2010). 

In addition to the potential for refrigerant emissions during the reclamation process, reclaimers 

were asked to comment on other potential environmental impacts associated with their activities. 

Several reclaimers commented on the energy intensity of the reclamation process in general and 

of certain subprocesses such as destruction and fractional distillation. When asked whether there 

were specific industry standards or best practices that could help reduce the amount of refrigerant 

that must be destroyed or fractionally distilled, reclaimers generally responded that outreach to 

technicians is the best approach to reducing the need to use these methods. They noted that the 

reason for using these methods is often that the refrigerant is mixed and of a purity that is too 

low for simple distillation methods, which is typically assumed to be the result of technician 

negligence or accidents. 

Multiple reclaimers also noted that the amount of refrigerant that needs to be destroyed or 

fractionally distilled could be reduced if reclaimers had more access to virgin refrigerant that 

could be blended with the mixed refrigerant. 

 

8. It is important to note that this calculation does not account for losses during hose hookups on containers of 

refrigerant that is ultimately sent for destruction. The quantity of refrigerant that reclaimers send for 

destruction is not currently reported to EPA. A draft EPA report on the sources of destroyed ODS does not 

provide information on the amount of destroyed refrigerant that is obtained from reclaimers (see U.S. EPA, 

2008a). 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 21 

SC12226 

Table 6. Estimated environmental implications of refrigerant releases during hose hookups 

for reclamation in 2008 (assuming a 0.25% loss rate) 

Refrigerant Classification ODP GWP 

Quantity 

reclaimed 

(lb) 

Quantity 

received 

(lb) 

Quantity 

lost (lb) 

ODP lost 

(metric 

tons) 

GHG lost 

(MTCO2e)

R-11 Class I 1.0 4,750 989,234 991,713 2,479 1 5,342 

R-12 Class I 1.0 10,900 476,726 477,921 1,195 1 5,907 

R-23 ODS 

substitute 

0.0 14,800 2,497 2,503 6 0 42 

R-113 Class I 0.8 6,130 175,568 176,008 440 0 1,223 

R-114 Class I 1.0 10,000 310,321 311,099 778 0 3,528 

R-500a Mixture 

containing 

Class I ODS 

0.7 8,077 195,724 196,215 491 0 1,797 

R-502b Mixture 

containing 

Class I ODS 

0.1 4,657 88,040 88,261 221 0 466 

R-503c Mixture 

containing 

Class I ODS 

0.6 14,560 60 60 0 0 1 

R-123 Class II 0.0 77 272,583 273,266 683 0 24 

R-22 Class II 0.1 1,810 10,045,071 10,070,247 25,176 1 20,669 

Total 12,555,824 12,587,292 31,468 3 39,000 

Notes: 

Calculations have been rounded. 

GHG = greenhouse gas. 

Data on the amount of refrigerant reclaimed in 2008 are obtained from reclaimers via annual reports to EPA 

(U.S. EPA, 2008b). 

ODP values for Class I ODS and Class II ODS are available from EPA at 

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/ods/classone.html and http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/ods/classtwo.html, 

respectively. 

GWPs for refrigerants are available from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at 

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html#table-2-14. 

a. R-500 is 73.8% R-12 and 26.2% R-152a (National Refrigerants, 2010a). 

b. R-502 is 48.8% R-22 and 51.2% R-115 (National Refrigerants, 2010b). 

c. R-503 is 60% R-13 and 40% R-23 (National Refrigerants, 2010c). 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 22 

SC12226 

3.2 Potential Environmental Impacts of Reclaimed Refrigerant 

upon Market Reentry 

If used refrigerant is improperly reclaimed such that it is not returned to AHRI Standard 700 

specifications before being resold on the market, potential contaminants in the refrigerant could 

affect air-conditioning and refrigeration systems in ways that could lead to environmental 

impacts. Based on conversations with industry experts, including representatives of several airconditioning and refrigeration system manufacturers, there are three ways in which use of “dirty” 

refrigerant can lead to emissions. 

1. In certain conditions, contaminants in refrigerant can cause refrigeration and airconditioning systems to leak their charge. According to one industry expert speaking 

from experience with centrifugal water-cooled chillers having shell and tube heat 

exchangers, in extreme cases, contaminated refrigerant may cause overpressurization in 

the condenser and cause relief valves to vent refrigerant (Ken Hickman, Johnson Controls 

consultant, personal communication, July and August 2010). These chillers can range in 

charge size from 200 to 1,400 tons of refrigerant (York, 2010). 

According to the 2006 Report of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 

Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Heat Pumps Technical Operations Committee, there 

are approximately 56,700 centrifugal chillers in use in the United States, and half of these 

chillers using HCFC-123 (R-123) and the other half uses HFC-134a (R-134a; UNEP, 

2007). According to one industry expert, nearly all of these centrifugal chillers are watercooled and thus vulnerable to the refrigerant release scenario described above (Ken 

Hickman, Johnson Controls consultant, personal communication, July and August 2010). 

The UNEP report estimates that the approximately 28,350 centrifugal chillers in the 

United States that use R-123 hold a total of 9,130 metric tons of refrigerant, while the 

28,350 centrifugal chillers in the United States that use R-134a hold approximately 

14,300 metric tons of refrigerant. In sum, there could be as much as 23,430 metric tons of 

refrigerant banked in chillers that are susceptible to releases if the refrigerant charge is 

contaminated. 

In addition, industry experts noted that it is possible that contaminated refrigerant could 

cause freeze-up in chiller evaporators, which could lead to refrigerant leaks from tubing, 

and erosion of O-rings and seals on refrigerant line service valves, potentially leading to 

emissions. Such events are considered to be very rare, as chillers and other refrigeration 

and air-conditioning equipment is generally well maintained by technicians (Ken 

Hickman, Johnson Controls consultant, personal communication, July and August 2010; 

Fred Keller, Carrier Residential consultant, personal communication, July and August 

2010). One expert noted having witnessed a refrigerant release that occurred when 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 23 

SC12226 

impurities were caught in the bellows of a type of pressure switch that is commonly 

found on supermarket chillers, which typically have large charges (Jeffrey Staub, 

Danfoss, personal communication, August 3, 2010). 

2. Contaminants in refrigerant have deleterious effects on refrigeration and airconditioning system efficiency. Noncondensable contaminants can cause refrigeration and 

air-conditioning systems to operate at higher condensing pressure levels, resulting in 

reduced cooling performance and higher energy consumption (Ken Hickman, Johnson 

Controls consultant, personal communication, July and August 2010). 

According to one study conducted by the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, 

and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), a chiller with 5% to 6% oil content in its 

refrigerant will experience an energy efficiency loss of approximately 10% (see Table 7; 

ASHRAE, 2007). A chiller that operates between 6,000 hours to 7,000 hours per year can 

consume up to 1 MWh in that time (WSU, 2003). A 10% efficiency loss for such a piece 

of equipment would lead to an additional 100,000 kWh of electricity consumed per year. 

This excess energy consumption could result in the emission of more than 70 MTCO2e 

over the course of the year, or the amount of CO2 produced by roughly 14 passenger cars 

over the course of a year (U.S. EPA, 2010). 

Table 7. Relationship of presence of oil in 

chiller evaporators and energy efficiency loss 

Percent oil in chiller 

evaporator 

Energy efficiency loss 

(percent) 

1 to 2 2 to 4 

3 to 4 5.5 to 8 

5 to 6 9.5 to 11 

7 to 8 13.5 to 15 

Source: ASHRAE, 2007. 

3. Poor system performance can necessitate opening the system for servicing, which can 

lead to emissions. The efficiency losses caused by contaminants in refrigerant would 

likely motivate the system owner to have the system serviced by a technician. The 

technician would evacuate the system and recycle the refrigerant or send it to be 

reclaimed. In doing so, there are inevitable de minimis refrigerant losses. Although these 

losses are typically believed to be small, there is the potential for larger leaks as a result 

of human error (e.g., improperly fitting hoses to valves and overfilling recovery 

cylinders) (Ken Hickman, Johnson Controls consultant, personal communication, July 

and August 2010; Jeffrey Staub, Danfoss, personal communication, August 3, 2010). 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 24 

SC12226 

Multiple reclaimers and industry experts have explained that the more times a quantity of 

refrigerant is handled (i.e., transferred between systems and/or containers), the greater the 

likelihood that some sizable portion of that refrigerant will be leaked, either by de 

minimis losses or larger losses caused by human error. 

4. Best Practices for Reclamation 

Considering the potential environmental impacts associated with the reclamation process and 

reclaimed refrigerant that reenters the market, reclaimers were asked whether it is possible to 

specify best practices for reclamation activities. In theory, it could be possible to require or 

encourage reclaimers to use certain technological or operational best practices during the 

reclamation process to minimize environmental impacts; these best practices could be formulated 

as industry standards. Reclaimers were asked to identify such best practices, based on their own 

experiences and knowledge of the field. 

The reclaimers contacted for this study noted that they use best practice to the extent of their 

knowledge. However, they were generally unable to articulate specific reclamation technologies 

or practices that are particularly energy efficient, water efficient, or better at minimizing 

emissions of ODS. Reclaimers cited several reasons why it is difficult to identify industry best 

practices for technologies and practices: 

 The technologies used will vary considerably depending on the size of the operation. For 

smaller reclaimers, equipment that can be purchased off-the-shelf can be adequate for 

processing the amount of recovered refrigerant received. However, larger reclaimers 

clearly stated that such small equipment would not be adequate to process large quantities 

of refrigerant and that large-scale off-the-shelf equipment does not exist. 

 Most reclaimers do not know what others are doing in terms of operations. Reclaimers 

generally do not share information about their operations with each other. However, 

several smaller reclaimers noted that they have been in contact with other reclaimers to 

solicit information on off-the-shelf equipment.9

 Every reclaimer is already using the best practices available to them (which is limited by 

both knowledge and cost), simply out of concern for personal interest: it is in the interest 

of the reclaimer to minimize releases and ensure that the final product is of good quality. 

 

9. One small reclaimer explained that when he was just beginning to reclaim refrigerant, he contacted another 

small reclaimer for advice on equipment, and the two continue to share thoughts. Both use a Van Steenberg 

model (Aubry McCarley, Turner and Schoel, personal communication, June 11, 2010; Jimmy Trout, AllCool, 

personal communication, June 24, 2010). 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 25 

SC12226 

A few reclaimers did specify certain technological or operational best practices, but these were 

often shared with a caveat that the benefits that might be achieved by prescribing such practices 

would be small compared to the benefits that could be achieved through outreach to technicians. 

Some reclaimers explained that emissions during the refrigerant reclamation process really only 

occur during hose hookup and that once the refrigerant is into the distillation tower, the system is 

closed (Steve Mandracchia, Hudson Technologies, personal communication, June 9, 2010; Carl 

Grolle, Golden Refrigerant, personal communication, June 10, 2010; Jim Sweetman, 

Consolidated Refrigerant Solutions, personal communication, June 15, 2010). For this reason, 

reclaimers should pay close attention to their hoses and valves. Best practices could therefore 

include: 

 Draw cylinders down to as deep a vacuum as possible.10 

 Regularly test reclamation systems for leaks. 

 Completely evacuate all hoses connecting to the recovery cylinder once the refrigerant is 

transferred to bulk storage. 

 Replace hoses regularly (one reclaimer suggested a frequency of once every two years) to 

avoid potential inadvertent leaks. 

 Use shorter connector hoses when connecting to the cylinder in order to minimize the 

amount of refrigerant that is released when the cylinder is disconnected from the hose if 

the hose has not been completely evacuated. 

 Use special ball valves on hoses to prevent small emissions. However, such “no-leak” 

valves can be expensive and cost prohibitive for some reclaimers and often require more 

time to hook up to a cylinder (Jimmy Trout, AllCool, personal communication, June 24, 

2010). 

 Allow cylinders to cool before evacuating the refrigerant. 

One reclaimer noted that another potential point of refrigerant loss is after cylinders have been 

refilled with reclaimed refrigerant. Cylinders that are overfilled, due to human error or 

malfunctioning equipment, could leak, especially if they are exposed to extreme heat (e.g., on the 

 

10. One reclaimer voiced concern that some smaller reclaimers might sometimes not draw the cylinder down 

to a deep vacuum because of the additional time required, only drawing as deep as 15 or 20 inHg (Steve 

Mandracchia, Hudson Technologies, personal communication, June 9, 2010). 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 26 

SC12226 

back of a service truck; Rich Dykstra, Consolidated Refrigerant Reclaim, personal 

communication, June 17, 2010). 

5. Approaches to Ensuring Best Practices 

for Reclamation 

Conversations with reclaimers explored the viability and potential benefits and costs of different 

approaches to reducing the environmental impacts of refrigerant reclamation practices and to 

maximizing the amount of refrigerant that reenters the market. This section describes the 

feedback received from reclaimers when asked about these different approaches, which include: 

 Communications and outreach 

 Technology standards 

 Reporting requirements 

 Mandatory third-party certification. 

These approaches are described in detail below. 

5.1 Communications and Outreach 

When asked what approaches could lead to increases in the amount of refrigerant reclaimed and 

to reductions in the environmental impacts associated with refrigerant reclamation, most 

reclaimers suggested increased outreach to technicians, reclaimers, or both. 

5.1.1 Outreach to technicians 

In addition to providing feedback on the approaches described above, reclaimers consistently 

emphasized the importance of reaching out to technicians in order to encourage them to recover 

more refrigerant. In general, reclaimers expressed considerable concern that technicians are 

rarely compliant with federal regulations regarding refrigerant recovery and the prohibition on 

venting. According to one reclaimer, fewer than 20% of technicians are in compliance with 

EPA’s prohibition on venting. In addition, many reclaimers are concerned that technicians are 

not careful enough about not mixing refrigerants; this is likely to become more of a problem as 

the use of R-22 alternatives increases. As described above, mixed gas can be costly to handle. In 

addition, according to one reclaimer, off-the-shelf reclamation systems cannot separate R-410A, 

a common alternative that is sometimes found mixed with R-22 (David Andrew, Perfect Cycle, 

personal communication, June 9, 2010). 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 27 

SC12226 

Reclaimers consistently noted that if EPA’s goal is to maximize the amount of refrigerant that 

reenters the market, it could realize substantial benefits by engaging technicians.11 Several 

reclaimers commented that EPA would see noticeable increases in the amount of refrigerant that 

is reclaimed if it were to require technicians to report more information on the amount of 

refrigerant they recover and where it goes after it leaves their hands. Such reporting requirements 

could complement additional requirements that might be directed at reclaimers (see Section 5.3). 

The issue of technician noncompliance was of considerable importance to each reclaimer 

contacted for this study. 

In addition, one reclaimer noted that the amount of refrigerant that is recovered but is not 

required to be reclaimed (e.g., refrigerant that is recovered on-site and charged back into the 

same appliance) has doubled recently (Rich Dykstra, Consolidated Refrigerant Reclaim, personal 

communication, June 17, 2010). In addition to the implications this has for the amount of 

recovered refrigerant that reclaimers receive, there is also concern that there is no way to test and 

confirm that recovered refrigerant is not contaminated when it is recharged into the same system 

or another system owned by the same individual or company. However, the reclaimer also noted 

that because recovered refrigerant that is not reclaimed does not change possession (e.g., from 

technician to wholesaler to reclaimer), the potential for leakage could be diminished (Rich 

Dykstra, Consolidated Refrigerant Reclaim, personal communication, June 17, 2010). 

5.1.2 Outreach to reclaimers 

In addition to requesting better communication with technicians, several reclaimers noted that 

there could be benefits if EPA were to reach out to reclaimers in order to provide best practices 

information and guidance (although, as described in Section 4, reclaimers struggled to identify 

specific best practices). This would be especially helpful for reclaimers who recently entered the 

market. One reclaimer explained that when his company received EPA-certification, they found 

that there was no guidance or assistance available from EPA and the only available resource for 

information was the manufacturer of the off-the-shelf system the company purchased (Jim 

Sweetman, Consolidated Refrigerant Solutions, personal communication, June 15, 2010). 

Although several of the larger reclaimers seemed less concerned about what best practices might 

be available (presumably because they are confident in their own operations), smaller reclaimers 

generally appeared to be interested in any sort of information guidance or best practices (such as 

those identified in Section 4) that EPA could provide. 

 

11. One reclaimer commented that EPA should be working with wholesalers to create economic incentives to 

encourage technicians to return refrigerant (Carl Grolle, Golden Refrigerant, personal communication, June 10, 

2010). 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 28 

SC12226 

5.2 Technology Standards 

In order to mandate technology standards for the reclamation industry, there would need to be a 

clear advantage of one technology over others. This is not the case for the patented reclamation 

technologies identified in this study. There are clear differences among patented technologies, 

but each has some advantages as well as disadvantages, making it difficult to specify a superior 

technology. In addition, different types of technologies are used for different types of 

applications, which differ primarily in scale (TAP, 2010). 

Reclaimers were asked whether and to what degree it would be possible to identify potential 

standards for equipment used during the refrigerant reclamation process, including distillation 

towers, hoses, valves and fittings, gas analyzers, and other equipment, and whether such 

standards would have benefits (e.g., fewer emissions in the reclamation process or more 

reclaimed refrigerant reentering the market). 

Few of the reclaimers interviewed were able to specify what such a standard might entail. Two 

reclaimers noted that there could be a requirement that all reclaimers use hoses with “no-leak” 

ball valves, but that the emissions reduction gains might not offset the costs to reclaimers of 

having to upgrade their operations. In responding to questions about technology standards, 

reclaimers consistently noted that it is in their interest to prevent leakage during the reclamation 

process. Lost refrigerant translates into lost profit, so the marginal gains of requiring reclaimers 

to meet specific standards would be minimal. 

5.2.1 Applicability of AHRI Standard 740 

Considering the similarities between the refrigerant reclamation process and the recycling 

process, the following question arises: could AHRI Standard 740-1998 (AHRI Standard 740; 

which applies to recovery and recycling equipment) be applicable to reclamation equipment? 

AHRI Standard 740 includes requirements that recycling equipment be tested for the following 

certified ratings: 

 Flow rate 

 Moisture 

 Acid 

 Noncondensables 

 Residual trapped refrigerant 

 Quantity of refrigerant processed 

 High boiling residue. 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 29 

SC12226 

In addition to these certified ratings, the standard also includes requirements that equipment 

(1) pass chloride tests, (2) pass particulate tests, and (3) be measured for refrigerant loss. In order 

to be sold on the market, refrigerant recycling equipment must meet all certified ratings and 

requirements (these requirements are identified in Table 8). 

Table 8. Comparison of AHRI Standard 740 and AHRI Standard 700 specifications 

Parameter 

AHRI Standard 740 

(for recycling equipment) 

AHRI Standard 700 

(for reclaimed refrigerant) 

Performance parameters 

Recycle/reclaim flow rate (kg/min) X 

Refrigerant loss (kg) X 

Residual trapped refrigerant (kg) X 

Refrigerant processed at rated conditions (kg) X 

Contaminant parameters 

Moisture content (ppm by weight) X X 

Chloride ions (pass/fail) X X 

Acidity (ppm by weight) X X 

High boiling residue (% by volume) X X 

Particulates (pass/fail) X X 

Noncondensables (% by volume) X X 

Note: “X” indicates that the standard includes requirements for the parameter. 

Sources: AHRI, 1995, 1998. 

As described in Section 1, reclamation equipment must be capable of ensuring that reclaimed 

refrigerant is returned to the AHRI Standard 700 specifications. A comparison of these 

specifications with the requirements of AHRI Standard 740 indicates that the only equipment 

parameters in AHRI Standard 740 not accounted for by the specifications in AHRI Standard 700 

are flow rate, quantity of refrigerant loss, quantity of residual trapped refrigerant, and quantity of 

refrigerant processed (see Table 8).12 

 

12. To be clear, AHRI Standard 740 includes parameters that enable one to compare refrigerant recovery and 

recycling equipment. Among other things, this equipment must be proven to be able to return refrigerant to 

AHRI Standard 700 specifications. Because reclaimers are required to return refrigerant to AHRI Standard 700 

specifications, the only AHRI Standard 740 specifications that would be additional to what reclaimers are 

already required to meet would be the performance parameters in Table 8. 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 30 

SC12226 

The requirement that off-the-shelf reclamation equipment meet AHRI Standard 740 

specifications could lead to small reductions in the amount of refrigerant released during the 

reclamation process. This is due to the fact that it might increase reclaimers’ awareness of betterperforming systems on the market (customers would be better able to compare key 

characteristics of reclamation systems, such as the amount of residual trapped refrigerant).13 

However, as noted in Section 2, most reclaimers do not use systems that are purchased off-theshelf. In addition, the information on the performance parameters outlined in AHRI Standard 740 

that are not addressed by the specifications in AHRI Standard 700 can be incorporated into 

EPA’s reporting requirements without reference to a standard. For example, if EPA were to 

require reclaimers to report the amount of recovered refrigerant they receive, the amount that is 

entered into the reclamation process, and the amount that is ultimately packaged for resale, it 

would be possible to gather information on the amount of refrigerant lost (or that is left as 

residual)14 during the reclamation process, one of the performance parameters identified in AHRI 

Standard 740. 

5.3 Reporting Requirements 

To improve understanding of the reclamation industry and its technologies and practices, EPA 

could require that reclaimers provide additional information during the application process and in 

their annual reports. 

5.3.1 Reporting information on technologies used 

Under current regulations, EPA-certified reclaimers must provide information to EPA on the 

equipment used to reclaim refrigerant. If the equipment is purchased off-the-shelf, reclaimers 

must provide the make, model, and serial number. Otherwise, reclaimers must provide EPA with 

descriptions and photographs of custom-made equipment and processes used. Certified 

reclaimers are also required to submit information on equipment used to analyze refrigerant. 

EPA could specify the type of information that reclaimers must provide in this submission and 

require that this information be submitted annually to account for any changes or upgrades. 

Specific information to be provided in such submissions could include: 

 

13. For completeness, purchasers of reclamation systems would also want to know the energy used per pound 

of refrigerant reclaimed. However, the AHRI Standard 740 does not currently include ratings for this metric. 

14. Residual refrigerant is typically assumed to be released, as reclamation systems are typically cleaned 

between batches. 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 31 

SC12226 

 Primary separation technology involved (e.g., distillation versus adsorption). As 

described in Section 2.4, the type of primary separation used in a reclamation system can 

have a number of implications, including increased potential for leakage from joints 

(e.g., in systems that have a larger number of components, as is the case with distillation 

systems that have compressors) and increased energy consumption, in the case of 

cryogenic subcooling. EPA could require reclaimers to provide specific information 

about their systems’ operating characteristics, including (as identified in Section 2.4) the 

following: system speed; capacity; energy use (e.g., per pound or ton of refrigerant 

reclaimed); type of refrigerant that can be reclaimed (e.g., high-pressure or low-pressure 

refrigerants); ability to operate in continuous mode; and minimum initial impurity level 

(this is probably more a matter of the reclaimers’ preferred operations than the 

capabilities of the system). 

 Secondary separation technologies used and specific equipment for each. As noted in 

Section 2.4, most primary separation technologies are not sufficient for returning 

refrigerant to AHRI Standard 700 specifications and, for this purpose, it is necessary for 

refrigerant to be passed through a number of other separation processes. For example, as 

noted above, in distillation systems with compressors, oil is typically discharged with 

refrigerant. EPA would want to know that a reclaimer who reports using such as system 

is using oil separation equipment after the primary separation process. 

 Hoses and fittings. As described in Section 3, use of certain types of hoses and fittings 

and proper handling of these pieces can help minimize the potential for inadvertent 

releases. EPA would benefit from knowing the age of the hoses used, the length of the 

connector hoses, and the types of valves used (e.g., quick-release valves). 

 Refrigerant testing equipment. Section 2 explained how reclaimers typically use handheld gas analyzers to evaluate the contents of cylinders prior to reclamation and again 

afterward to test the quality of the product. Some reclaimers use gas chromatographers to 

obtain more precise information than can be obtained using the gas analyzer. As noted in 

Section 2, more recent analyzer models tend to be more accurate than older ones. EPA 

would benefit from knowing whether reclaimers are using the most up-to-date equipment. 

As such, EPA could require that reclaimers report any upgrades or changes to equipment 

used to test refrigerant. 

5.3.2 Reporting information on refrigerant received and reclaimed 

Under 40 CFR 82 Subpart F, certified reclaimers are required to keep records of how much 

recovered refrigerant is sent to them to be reclaimed and how much refrigerant is ultimately 

reclaimed. Reclaimers must report this information to EPA annually. However, reclaimers are 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 32 

SC12226 

not required to report whether the refrigerant they reclaim was drawn from stockpiles or was 

recently recovered in the field.15 In addition, reclaimers are not currently required to report: 

 The type of source from which the recovered refrigerant was received (e.g., distributors 

as opposed to wholesalers) 

 The quality of the refrigerant received 

 The amount of refrigerant that is blended back to AHRI Standard 700 specifications 

using pure refrigerant before being reclaimed 

 The amount of mixed gas that is sent off-site to be separated or destroyed 

 The amount of refrigerant that enters the reclamation system but is not ultimately 

reclaimed (i.e., refrigerant that is either released in the process or remains in the system 

as residual) 

 The amount of refrigerant that was sold. 

Having such information would provide EPA with a better understanding of the net yield 

achieved in the reclamation field, in terms of how much product is returned to the market relative 

to how much is received. 

In general, reclaimers would not be opposed to increased reporting requirements. Most 

reclaimers already record information on every container of recovered refrigerant they receive. 

Reclaimers will typically keep a paper trail on the refrigerant as it passes through the reclamation 

process, from single recovery cylinder to aggregate holding tank, to batch of reclaimed 

refrigerant, to final packaged product. In general, reclaimers are able to determine the potential 

source containers that held the recovered refrigerant that eventually went into a refurbished 

cylinder for resale. 

Several reclaimers have developed sophisticated databases for tracking refrigerant from the time 

it comes into their facilities to the time it leaves (e.g., Jim Sweetman, Consolidated Refrigerant 

Solutions, personal communication, June 15, 2010; Jimmy Trout, AllCool, personal 

communication, June 24, 2010; Jeff Zirkle, Total Reclaim, personal communication, June 15, 

2010). Information that reclaimers typically record for each container of refrigerant (whether it 

be a 30-lb cylinder or a 1,000-lb container) includes source (name of business), size, weight, 

 

15. In a previous study (Stratus Consulting, 2008), it was noted that a lot of reclaimers are stockpiling R-22, 

waiting for the price to increase. However, reclaimers interviewed for this study did not believe that 

stockpiling was common. This might be due to the fact that most of the reclaimers contacted for this study run 

smaller operations and cannot afford to keep much refrigerant in inventory. 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 33 

SC12226 

condition of container, DOT-39 number (or comparable container identification), and contents 

(as determined by either a gas analyzer or gas chromatographer). Reclaimers will also record 

whether the refrigerant was delivered to them as part of a tolling agreement (i.e., the refrigerant 

will be returned to its owner after being reclaimed) or whether the reclaimer purchased the 

recovered refrigerant for resale. 

Many reclaimers collect and maintain this information in the interests of their customers. Some 

larger technicians and wholesalers maintain records for their clients as proof of their compliance 

with the CAAA. In some instances, reclaimers commit to keeping rigorous records of the 

recovered refrigerant they receive as part of their agreements with wholesalers (Jimmy Trout, 

AllCool, personal communication, June 24, 2010). One reclaimer has developed a database 

system that customers can log into and see information on all the cylinders they have delivered to 

the reclaimers (Jim Sweetman, Consolidated Refrigerant Solutions, personal communication, 

June 15, 2010). 

One reclaimer recommended additional reporting requirements as a way of ensuring that 

reclaimers are not deliberately venting mixed-gas refrigerant. The reclaimer noted that some 

reclaimers are not charging their clients when their clients give them cylinders with mixed gas. 

The reclaimer noted that if these reclaimers are taking the correct action and sending this mixed 

gas to be separated or destroyed, they would most likely charge their clients for the service. If 

they are not charging them, it might be an indication that the reclaimer is venting the mixed gas 

(Ken Beringer, Airgas, personal communication, June 8, 2010). 

Although reclaimers were generally accepting of the idea of increased reporting requirements, 

they expressed considerable concern that the information that EPA would receive from 

reclaimers would not be sufficient to provide a clear, complete picture of how much refrigerant is 

in circulation, where it is, and whether it is being recovered and reclaimed. For this, EPA would 

need to collect more detailed information from technicians regarding the amount and type of 

refrigerant recovered at each job site and where the refrigerant went when they were done 

handling it. EPA would also need to require wholesalers to be a part of this reporting system, as 

they are currently not required to report any information on how much refrigerant they receive 

and what they do with it (Jim Sweetman, Consolidated Refrigerant Solutions, personal 

communication, June 15, 2010). 

In addition, some of the smaller reclaimers were concerned about having to track additional 

information because of the amount of time it requires to record information on each 30-lb 

cylinder that comes in (approximately 3 minutes per cylinder, in one reclaimer’s estimation; 

Jimmy Trout, AllCool, personal communication, June 24, 2010). 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 34 

SC12226 

5.4 Mandatory Third-Party Certification 

To help ensure that refrigerant that reenters the market is properly reclaimed and, in turn, help 

reduce the potential for adverse economic and environmental impacts on air-conditioning and 

refrigeration systems, EPA could require all reclaimers to participate in a third-party certification 

program. Reclaimers were asked to comment on the viability and efficacy of such a program and 

to provide information on their own current participation in third-party testing or certification. 

In general, the reclaimers interviewed for this study are supportive of mandatory third-party 

certification. Reclaimers consistently noted that requiring third-party certification, in addition to 

helping to ensure that refrigerant is properly reclaimed, would help level the playing field by 

forcing all reclaimers to internalize the costs of verifying the quality of their product. 

All of the reclaimers interviewed noted that they already have reclaimed refrigerant 

independently tested and they are concerned that there are others in the industry who do not test 

their product or who do so but not through an independent laboratory. Most explained that they 

send a liquid sample of every batch to an AHRI-certified laboratory to be tested (in nearly every 

instance, this laboratory was InterTek). 

According to a previous Stratus Consulting study (Stratus Consulting, 2008), approximately 50% 

of all samples sent to InterTek failed to meet specification. However, it was noted that some 

reclaimers send not-yet-reclaimed refrigerant to be tested in order to verify the measurements 

generated by their own equipment. Other times, reclaimers send samples of reclaimed refrigerant 

that do not meet specification as determined by their own equipment in order to verify their 

measurements. Reclaimers can voluntarily report whether the submitted sample will be sold; of 

those identified as for sale, only 20% of samples fail. In addition, the previous Stratus Consulting 

study revealed that samples from smaller reclaimers are more likely to not meet specification 

(Stratus Consulting, 2008). 

5.4.1 AHRI third-party certification program 

Under current regulations, reclaimers are required to certify to EPA that their reclaimed 

refrigerant has been returned to at least the AHRI Standard 700 specifications. However, there is 

concern that such self-certification is not entirely reliable and that allowing reclaimers to selfcertify their reclaimed refrigerant could result in less diligent testing, which, in turn, could lead 

to “dirty” refrigerant (i.e., refrigerant that does not meet the AHRI Standard 700 specifications) 

reentering the market. 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 35 

SC12226 

To help ensure that reclaimed refrigerant is returned to the AHRI Standard 700 specifications at 

a minimum, EPA could establish a mandatory third-party certification program that would 

involve required random and regular testing of reclaimed refrigerant before it is authorized to 

reenter the market. A voluntary program administered by AHRI could potentially serve as a 

model for such as mandatory program. 

AHRI’s program 

AHRI’s voluntary Certification Program for Reclaimed Refrigerants offers participating 

reclaimers the opportunity to have their reclaimed refrigerant certified by a third party as meeting 

the specifications of AHRI Standard 700. 

To participate, reclaimers must commit to submitting a specific number of samples of their 

reclaimed refrigerant to an AHRI-certified laboratory for testing. As long as a reclaimer’s 

refrigerant samples are found to meet the AHRI Standard 700 specifications, the reclaimer’s 

refrigerant will be eligible for listing in the AHRI directory of certified products and reclaimers 

will be authorized to advertise their product as AHRI certified. 

Steps in the process 

As described in the AHRI Reclaimed Refrigerants Certification Program Operational Manual, 

AHRI, through an associated voluntary laboratory certification program, certifies laboratories 

that are qualified to test reclaimed refrigerant samples. AHRI works with participating reclaimers 

to have their reclaimed refrigerant sampled and tested by these independent laboratories. 

In general, a minimum of four samples from a reclaimer’s facility are tested by laboratories each 

year. At least one sample of each refrigerant that the reclaimer intends to have certified must be 

taken each year. If a reclaimer intends to have one refrigerant certified, all four samples taken 

will be of that refrigerant. If a reclaimer intends to have four refrigerants certified, a minimum of 

one sample could be taken for each in a given year. A reclaimer’s ability to claim AHRI 

certification for any refrigerant expires three years after the date of the laboratory inspection. 

Samples are drawn in AHRI-specified 500-cc stainless steel test cylinders by reclaimers. These 

samples must be drawn from container(s) (30-lb cylinders) chosen by the laboratory 

representative and as directed by AHRI. If an initial sample fails, a second sample is drawn; if 

the second sample fails, the reclamation process for the refrigerant shall cease and sales, 

shipments, and reuse of the entire batch of refrigerant from which the sample was drawn shall be 

suspended until certification is reinstated (AHRI, 2002). 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 36 

SC12226 

Current status of the program 

As of October 2010, only one reclaimer, National Refrigerants, was earning AHRI certification 

for reclaimed refrigerant (seven refrigerants that National Refrigerants reclaims are certified at 

this time; AHRI, 2010). 

In the past, more reclaimers were participating in the program. However, over time, all but 

National Refrigerant dropped out of the voluntary program. Former program participants cited 

the high cost of participating in the program as the primary reason for ending participation. 

Multiple reclaimers explained that there was a lack of demand for AHRI-certified reclaimed 

refrigerant, which made it impossible for them to justify the additional operational costs of 

participating (Steve Mandracchia, Hudson Technologies, personal communication, June 9, 2010; 

Carl Grolle, Golden Refrigerant, personal communication, June 10, 2010). 

5.4.2 Criticism of AHRI’s voluntary program 

Considering the general support for a mandatory third-party certification program, reclaimers 

and other industry experts were asked to comment on the advantages and disadvantages of 

employing the AHRI voluntary third-party certification program as a model for a mandatory 

program. According to AHRI staff, the AHRI program could function as a ready-to-implement 

model for a mandatory program. The program would have an advantage in that a number of 

reclaimers have participated in the program in the past and are familiar with how it is 

administered. 

Despite the apparent advantages of using the AHRI program as a model, several reclaimers noted 

concerns with the program. First, considering the fact that most reclaimers have samples from 

every batch sampled, the AHRI program requirement that a minimum of only four samples of 

each refrigerant type from a reclaimer’s facility be tested each year seems very low in 

comparison. 

In addition, several aspects of the AHRI program present opportunities for “gaming the system,” 

as one reclaimer describes it (Steve Mandracchia, Hudson Technologies, personal 

communication, June 9, 2010; Carl Grolle, Golden Refrigerant, personal communication, 

June 10, 2010). One of the primary concerns with the program, as identified by several 

reclaimers, is that reclaimers are notified of the laboratory representatives’ visits beforehand, 

which provides an opportunity for reclaimers to remove any refrigerant of questionable quality 

from the facility prior to the inspection. Similarly, reclaimers are permitted to indicate to 

laboratory representatives which refrigerants will be available for testing before their visits. In 

addition, in the event of a first-sample failure, reclaimers are permitted to notify the laboratory 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 37 

SC12226 

whether a second sample should be drawn from the same container as the first, a second one 

chosen at random, or from one that may have already been set aside. 

Several reclaimers interviewed for this study stated that the program should be revised so that the 

laboratory inspections are truly random and the reclaimer is not able to specify which cylinders 

to draw samples from. 

Another recommendation relates to condemnation of failed refrigerant. Several reclaimers 

commented on the fact that if a sample drawn from a single cylinder fails, the entire batch from 

which that cylinder was filled is condemned. According to the reclaimer, a more appropriate 

approach would be to test the refrigerant at the batch level first and condemn the batch if the 

sample fails. Secondary testing could be done at the cylinder level. If the cylinder sample fails 

but the batch sample does not, the packaging procedures should be targeted for evaluation, but 

the entire batch should not be condemned (Carl Grolle, Golden Refrigerant, personal 

communication, June 10, 2010; Rich Dykstra, Consolidated Refrigerant Reclaim, personal 

communication, June 17, 2010). Other reclaimers noted concern that reclaimed refrigerant could 

become contaminated during the packaging process (e.g., if a cylinder has a certain amount of oil 

in it from the time of its manufacture; e.g., Jeff Zirkle, Total Reclaim, personal communication, 

June 15, 2010). 

Despite the fact that a number of reclaimers have participated in the program in the past, 

reclaimers who have not participated in the program generally have very little understanding of 

how the program works. Multiple reclaimers indicated that they knew about the program’s 

existence but knew nothing about it. 

Sufficient testing capacity 

Whether or not there is currently a sufficient number of laboratories to meet the needs of all 

reclaimers is debatable. At present, there are three AHRI-certified laboratories participating in 

the program. According to AHRI staff and some reclaimers, there would be a need for more 

certified labs. However, it is believed that over time, the market would take care of this as more 

entities would seek to become certified (TAP, 2010; Ken Beringer, Airgas, personal 

communication, June 8, 2010; Karim Amrane, AHRI, personal communication, July 20, 2010). 

However, one reclaimer noted that the number of laboratories that are currently certified or that 

have been certified by AHRI in the past would be sufficient to meet the needs of all reclaimers 

(Steve Mandracchia, Hudson Technologies, personal communication, June 9, 2010). In addition, 

based on the findings of this study, it appears that InterTek currently handles the testing for most 

reclaimers (nearly all of the reclaimers contacted for this study), which makes it difficult to see 

the immediate need for more laboratories. One reclaimer noted that it might be advantageous to 

have a smaller number of laboratories to help ensure consistency (Steve Mandracchia, Hudson 

Technologies, personal communication, June 9, 2010). However, as noted by several reclaimers 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 38 

SC12226 

(primarily in western states), the cost of shipping samples to InterTek in Ohio is not trivial and 

having more certified laboratories might help keep costs down for reclaimers (e.g., Jeff Zirkle, 

Total Reclaim, personal communication, June 15, 2010). 

If third-party certification is mandatory, it would be necessary to establish criteria for the 

laboratories doing the testing. AHRI already has a program in place that establishes procedures 

for certifying laboratories. According to one reclaimer, these procedures present an appropriate 

model for certifying the laboratories that would be testing reclaimers’ products (Steve 

Mandracchia, Hudson Technologies, personal communication, June 9, 2010). This position is 

supported by the fact that many reclaimers (despite not participating in the program) still seek 

independent testing of their products from a laboratory that is AHRI certified. AHRI staff 

commented that the stringency of the criteria for laboratories will affect the costs of the program 

(Karim Amrane, AHRI, personal communication, July 20, 2010). 

5.4.3 Benefits of third-party certification in general 

Reclaimers and other industry experts were asked to comment on environmental and other 

benefits associated with a mandatory third-party certification program. 

The primary environmental benefit associated with third-party certification of reclaimed 

refrigerant is increased assurance that contaminants in reclaimed refrigerant will not cause or 

lead to additional ODS or GHG emissions when the refrigerant reenters the market. As described 

in Section 3.2, if refrigerant is not fully reclaimed to AHRI Standard 700 specifications, it can 

cause equipment to release its charge in certain extreme cases. In addition, using dirty refrigerant 

will always impair system performance, resulting in energy losses. 

Unfortunately, it is difficult to quantify this benefit because it is unknown what proportion of 

reclaimed refrigerant that currently reenters the market fails to meet AHRI Standard 700 

specifications. As noted above, an earlier Stratus Consulting study found that refrigerant samples 

sent to testing laboratories by reclaimers failed to meet AHRI Standard 700 specifications about 

50% of the time (Stratus Consulting, 2008). However, some of the samples sent to the 

laboratories were from batches of refrigerant that had not yet been reclaimed; reclaimers often 

send dirty samples to laboratories in order to corroborate their own analyses. In addition, 

reclaimers occasionally send samples of reclaimed refrigerant to laboratories after in-house 

testing reveals that the sample does not meet AHRI Standard 700 specifications. In sum, 

although approximately half of all samples sent to laboratories for testing by reclaimers fail to 

meet AHRI Standard 700 specifications, not all of this refrigerant would be packaged for resale 

without being processed. 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 39 

SC12226 

In addition to the potential environmental, energy, and system maintenance benefits associated 

with a mandatory third-party certification program for reclaimed refrigerant, a number of 

reclaimers commented that mandating certification would help “level the playing field” across 

the industry. Several reclaimers expressed concern that others in the industry were less diligent 

in their practices and might be taking shortcuts.

5.4.4 Costs of third-party certification in general 

Any third-party certification program that EPA authorizes or establishes will have certain 

administrative expenses to cover the costs of working with both reclaimers and laboratories. It is 

expected that the certification program will pass these costs along to the reclaimers. When 

questioned about the potential advantages and disadvantages of a mandatory third-party 

certification program, several reclaimers cautioned against imposing additional costs on them. 

Many reclaimers, they noted, are small businesses that cannot afford additional operational 

expenses. However, it appears that most reclaimers already pay to have each batch of reclaimed 

refrigerant tested by InterTek; this cost is approximately $145 per sample (not including shipping 

costs) (Steve Trevino, Summit Refrigerants, personal communication, June 22, 2010; Jimmy 

Trout, AllCool, personal communication, June 24, 2010). 

As noted above, participation in the AHRI program has become cost prohibitive for all but one 

reclaimer. AHRI staff explained that the costs of participating had increased over time as the 

number of reclaimers participating decreased. This was due to the fact that the costs to AHRI of 

implementing the program are fairly constant, meaning the total cost to all participating 

reclaimers combined would be approximately the same whether there were few or many 

participants. As a result, AHRI was forced to increase the costs for remaining program 

participants as the program’s participant base diminished (Karim Amrane, AHRI, personal 

communication, July 20, 2010). 

However, as noted by AHRI staff, the costs to individual reclaimers of participating in AHRI’s 

voluntary program would decrease with a larger number of participants (Karim Amrane, AHRI, 

personal communication, July 20, 2010). Presumably, if all reclaimers were required to 

participate in a mandatory certification program, the administrative costs of the certification 

program could be distributed across a wider base of participants. 

6. Conclusions 

The purpose of this study was to evaluate reclamation technologies and best practices and 

identify options for reducing environmental impacts associated with reclamation and reclaimed 

refrigerant. Information for this study was collected from a variety of sources, primarily through 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 40 

SC12226 

conversations with reclaimers and other industry experts, as well as an assessment of patented 

technologies and a review of existing literature. This study produced several key findings, 

including the following: 

Reclamation technologies and practices 

 The reclamation industry is very diverse, that is, there is no “typical” reclaimer. There are 

considerable differences between the larger and smaller reclaimers, including differences 

in the technologies used and the sophistication of the operations. 

 The technologies used by reclaimers vary considerably. This is evidenced by the many 

differences present in the patents identified in this study. In addition, reclamation systems 

have variable advantages and disadvantages, and the type of system used will depend on 

the reclaimer’s needs. 

Environmental impacts associated with reclamation 

 Releases during the reclamation process are likely very small. Reclaimers state that they 

are doing everything possible to minimize releases, because lost refrigerant is lost 

revenue for them. 

 The most likely source of releases during reclamation is the hose-hookup process used 

when transferring refrigerant from individual cylinders to large batch containers. These 

emissions rarely exceed the 1.5% maximum threshold established in EPA regulations and 

are believed to typically be less than 0.25%. Assuming 0.25% of all refrigerant that is run 

through the reclamation process is released, the estimated environmental impacts from 

reclamation in 2008 would be the emission of 3 ODP metric tons and 39,000 MTCO2e 

over the course of the year. 

 Releases from air-conditioning and refrigeration systems due to contaminated refrigerant 

are possible, but it is difficult to determine whether such releases occur as a result of poor 

reclamation practices or simply due to the natural decrease in system performance over 

time. According to one industry expert, centrifugal water-cooled chillers having shell and 

tube heat exchangers can be susceptible to releases if contaminants are present in 

refrigerant. Based on a rough approximation, it is possible that these types of chillers hold 

more than 23,000 metric tons of refrigerant in the United States. 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 41 

SC12226 

Best practices for reclamation 

 Reclaimers believe very strongly that they use the best practices known to them to 

minimize releases and maximize the amount of refrigerant that returns to the market. As 

such, they were generally unable to articulate what specific best practices EPA should 

support. 

 The few best practices that reclaimers could specify were focused on operations and 

maintenance and less on technologies. As noted by most reclaimers, the primary reason 

why releases occur is human error during refrigerant handling. 

Options for ensuring best practices 

 Nearly every reclaimer contacted for this study emphasized the importance of reaching 

out to technicians as the most expedient way to increase the amount of refrigerant that is 

reclaimed and reduce emissions. In general, reclaimers did not believe that outreach to 

the reclamation industry about best practices would lead to significant benefits. 

 Reclaimers are supportive of increased reporting requirements but believe that the 

benefits of such requirements would be minimal unless complemented by requirements 

for technicians. Reclaimers believe that there would be significant benefits to requiring 

an information chain that tells EPA how much refrigerant is being recovered and where it 

is going. 

 Reclaimers are supportive of mandatory third-party testing but are concerned about the 

costs of participation. However, nearly every reclaimer contacted for this study sends 

samples of their product to be tested by independent laboratories. 

 The AHRI Third-Party Certification program could be a useful model for a mandatory 

program, but many reclaimers have concerns about how the voluntary program was 

managed and the costs, as evidenced by the lack of participation at present. 

 Requiring that off-the-shelf equipment meet specific technological standards will only 

lead to minimal emissions reductions, considering the very small market for such 

equipment and the assumed effectiveness of the typical custom-made equipment used by 

reclaimers today. 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 42 

SC12226 

References 

AHRI. 1995. AHRI Standard 700: 1995 Standard for Specifications for Fluorocarbon 

Refrigerants. Available: http://www.ahrinet.org/Content/FindaStandard_218.aspx?Listing_PK =

187. Accessed 9/6/2010. 

AHRI. 1998. AHRI Standard 740: 1998 Standard for Refrigerant Recover/Recycling Equipment. 

Available: http://www.ahrinet.org/Content/FindaStandard_218.aspx?Listing_PK = 192. 

Accessed 10/12/2010. 

AHRI. 2002. Reclaimed Refrigerants Certification Program Operational Manual. Available: 

http://www.ahrinet.org/ARI/util/showdoc.aspx?doc = 196. Accessed 10/12/2010. 

AHRI. 2010. Certified Product Directory. Updated: 05 April 2010. Available: 

http://www.ahridirectory.org/ahriDirectory/pages/rrr/RRRE_20100701.pdf. Accessed 7/21/2010. 

ASHRAE. 2007. ASHRAE Research Project 601-TRP. American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. 

CFR. 2010. 40 CFR 82, Subpart F. Code of Federal Regulations. Available: 

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c = ecfr&sid = 

d424a5aceb361997bb48633106456a09&rgn = div5&view = text&node = 40:17.0.1.1.2&idno = 

40. Accessed 7/23/2010. 

Mandracchia, S. 2009. Comment on Proposed Rulemaking to Amend 40 CFR Part 82 Protection 

of Stratospheric Ozone: Adjustments to the Allowance Controlling HCFC Production, Import, 

and Export. EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0496-0114.1. 

National Refrigerants. 2010a. R-500 Fact Sheet. Available: 

http://www.refrigerants.com/msds/r500.pdf. Accessed 9/7/2010. 

National Refrigerants. 2010b. R-502 Fact Sheet. Available: 

http://www.refrigerants.com/msds/r502.pdf. Accessed 9/7/2010. 

National Refrigerants. 2010c. R-503 Fact Sheet. Available: 

http://www.refrigerants.com/msds/r503.pdf. Accessed 9/7/2010. 

Powell, P. 2008. Reclaim Survey: Where to Go, What it Costs. ACHR News, December 1, 2008. 

Available: http://www.achrnews.com/Articles/Feature_Article/BNP_GUID_9-5-

2006_A_10000000000000477496. Accessed 9/13/2010. 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 43 

SC12226 

Powell, P. 2009. Road to Reclaim Purity is a Complex One. ACHR News, September 28. 

Available: http://www.achrnews.com/Articles/REFRIG2010_Feature/BNP_GUID_9-5-

2006_A_10000000000000667604. Accessed 7/23/2010. 

Stratus Consulting. 2008. Refrigerant Reclamation Industry Characterization. Internal report 

prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Stratus Consulting Inc., Boulder, CO. 

TAP. 2010. Reclamation Technology Review. Research Report. Prepared by Thermal Analysis 

Partners for Stratus Consulting, Boulder, CO. August.

UNEP. 2007. 2006 Report of the Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Heat Pumps Technical 

Options Committee. United Nations Environment Programme. Available: 

http://ozone.unep.org/teap/Reports/RTOC/rtoc_assessment_report06.pdf. Accessed 9/8/2010. 

U.S. EPA. 2008a. Destruction of Ozone-Depleting Substances in the United States. Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/downloads/ODSDestruction.pdf. Accessed 9/30/2010. 

U.S. EPA. 2008b. Summary of Reclaimed Refrigerant. Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/reclamation/recsum.pdf. Accessed 9/5/2010. 

U.S. EPA. 2009a. Response to Comments for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Protection for 

the Stratospheric Ozone: Adjustments to the Allowance System for Controlling HCFC 

Production, Import, and Export. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0496. 

U.S. EPA. 2009b. Stratospheric Ozone Protection: Adjustments to Allowance System for 

Controlling HCFC Production, Import, and Export – Final Rule. Federal Register, December 15. 

Available http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-29569.pdf. Accessed 9/3/2010. 

U.S. EPA. 2009c. Summary of Refrigerant Reclaimed: 2000–2008. Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/reclamation/recsum.pdf. Accessed 9/2/2010. 

U.S. EPA. 2010. EPA Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html#results. Accessed 7/23/2010. 

Van Steenberg. 2010. Specifications for JV-90. Available: 

http://www.vansteenburghengr.com/jv_refrigerant.htm. Accessed 7/23/2010. 

WSU. 2003. Energy Efficiency Fact Sheet. Available: 

http://www.energy.wsu.edu/documents/engineering/chillers_hvac.pdf. Accessed 7/24/2010. 
 

Stratus Consulting (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page 44 

SC12226 

York. 2010. York Water-Cooled Chillers. Available: 

http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/publish/etc/medialib/jci/be/integrated_hvac_systems/hvac_equi

pment/chiller_products.Par.7026.File.dat/10-03-28%20PUBL-6374%20(310).pdf. Accessed 

7/26/2010. 
 

 

SC12226 

A. Reclamation System Patents 

Table A.1 provides the identification numbers and titles for the reclamation technologies 

identified in the patent search described in Section 2. 

Table A.1. Reclamation system patents registered with the U.S. patent office 

Patent number Patent title 

7,174,742 Combined method and apparatus for recovering and reclaiming refrigerant, solvent flushing, 

and refrigerant recharging 

6,425,263 Apparatus and process for the refrigeration, liquefaction, and separation of gases with varying 

levels of purity 

6,303,022 Method of gas stream purification having independent vapor and liquid refrigeration using a 

single refrigerant 

6,029,472 Refrigerant recycle and reclaim system 

5,943,867 Refrigerant reclamation system 

5,749,245 Refrigerant separation system 

5,647,961 Refrigerant decontamination and separation system 

5,620,502 Recovery and purification of refrigerants 

5,605,054 Apparatus for reclaiming refrigerant 

5,570,590 Refrigerant reclaiming method and system 

5,544,494 Method and apparatus for refrigerant purification 

5,535,596 Refrigerant reclamation and purification apparatus and method 

5,471,848 Refrigerant recovery and purification method and apparatus 

5,465,590 Refrigerant reclaim with air purge 

5,442,930 One step refrigerant recover/recycle and reclaim unit 

5,433,081 Refrigerant recovery and purification method and apparatus with oil adsorbent separator 

5,426,950 Refrigerant separation apparatus and method 

5,425,242 Process for recovery and purification of refrigerants with solid sorbents 

5,377,499 Method and apparatus for refrigerant reclamation 

5,361,594 Refrigeration recovery and purification 

5,357,768 Refrigerant reclaim method and apparatus 

5,355,685 Purification of refrigerant 

5,327,741 Refrigerant recovery and purification machine 

5,327,735 Refrigerant reclaiming and recycling system with evaporator chill bath 

 
 

Stratus Consulting Appendix (Draft, 10/29/2010) 

Page A-2 

SC12226 

Table A.1. Reclamation system patents registered with the U.S. patent office (cont.) 

Patent number Patent title 

5,291,743 Refrigerant reclaim with automatic air purge 

5,289,693 Refrigerant recovery and purification apparatus with telecommunication monitoring 

facilitation device 

5,247,812 Portable refrigerant purification module 

5,245,840 Refrigerant reclaim method and apparatus 

5,243,832 Refrigerant reclaim method and apparatus 

5,243,831 Apparatus for purification and recovery of refrigerant 

5,214,931 Apparatus for sampling the purity of refrigerant in the storage container of a refrigerant 

recovery and purification system 

5,193,351 Refrigerant recovery and purification system 

5,189,889 Refrigerant reclaiming device 

5,187,940 Refrigerant recovery and purification system 

5,172,562 Refrigerant recovery, purification, and recharging system and method 

5,157,936 Method and apparatus for reclaiming refrigerant 

5,101,641 Compact refrigerant reclaim apparatus 

5,086,630 Refrigerant reclaim apparatus 

5,078,756 Apparatus and method for purification and recovery of refrigerant 

5,050,388 Reclaiming of refrigerant fluids to make same suitable for reuse 

5,033,271 Refrigerant recovery and purification system 

5,022,230 Method and apparatus for reclaiming a refrigerant 

5,020,331 Refrigerant reclamation system 

5,005,369 Refrigerant purification with automatic air purge 

4,939,903 Refrigerant recovery and purification system and method 

4,909,042 Air conditioner charging station with same refrigerant reclaiming and liquid refrigerant return 

and method 

4,805,416 Refrigerant recovery, purification, and recharging system 

4,766,733 Refrigerant reclamation and charging unit 

4,285,206 Automatic refrigerant recovery, purification, and recharge apparatus 

Note: The above patents were identified through a search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Web Patent 

Databases. The following key words were used: reclaim, reclaiming, reclamation, separation, decontamination, 

clean, purification, refrigerant, and refrigeration. Irrelevant patents identified by the keyword searches were 

excluded from the analysis. 
STRATUS CONSULTING

1881 Ninth Street, Suite 201 Boulder, Colorado 80302 phone 303.381.8000 fax 303.381.8200 (headquarters)

1920 L Street, N.W., Suite 420 Washington, D.C. 20036 phone 202.466.3731 fax 202.466.3732

w w w . s t r a t u s c o n s u l t i n g . c o m